fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
STL finished 7-9 in the toughest division in the NFL - They now have the 2nd pick and 13th pick... That trade will work out very well for them.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should the Texans trade out of the first pick? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DropKick
- Start date
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Coincidentally I just wrote about the RGIII trade (cross-posted)...
Think of of it like this. Last year, with RGIII having a historically good rookie season and making the playoffs, many concluded WAS got the best of the deal. A year later, coming off a three win season, maybe this take has switched? I wonder if Shanahan thinks STL was swindled?
Lets do a hypothetical. Lets say the STL QB is average. Teams have won super bowls with QBs like Trent Dilfer, by surrounding him with playmakers at other positions (maybe on defense in some cases, like Ray Lewis and Ed Reed). I think he has more upside, so lets say STL adds Watkins and LT Greg Robinson. This helps him become slightly better than average, say top 12. Lets say that RGIII struggles to do as well in the future, even if his knee makes a full recovery, because he doesn't want to run as much as he did as a rookie, and defenses are able to be more effective in pass coverage due to not needing to worry about the scrambling and designed runs. So instead of the perennial top 3-5 QB we thought he might become, he turns out to be in the top 8-10 range.
Now we can begin to break down the trade. If the STL QB had been worthless and cut, and RGIII the #1 QB and a Hall of Famer, disastrous trade for STL. But if the STL QB top 12, and WAS QB top 8-10, now to justify the trade, you only need to do so on the basis of the sum of the accrued picks exceeding the value of the DIFFERENCE between the top 12 and top 8-10 value. Not so clear cut now?
What does STL have to show for the trade so far?
Starting DT Michael Brockers.
Starting LB Alec Ogletree
Starting CB Janoris Jenkins
Starting WR Stedman Bailey (by the end of his rookie season - from the Ogletree trade down)
Starting RB Zac Stacy (technically they packaged one of the sixths from the Ogletree trade down with their own sixth for a fifth)
Five starters
Plus, the 1.2.
Which, if they were to trade down with CLE, could fetch (by the chart) the 1.4, a 2015 first (maybe something else like a 2014 third?). With the 1.4, they could take Sammy Watkins or Jake Matthews. A sixth starter. And if they do get a 2015 first, that could likely represent a seventh starter*. Or maybe they add another 2014 first, or a second and third, and could get a seventh or even an additional eighth starter that way? A team has 22 starters on offense and defense. With as many as seven starters, this potentially could represent upwards of a THIRD OF THE ROSTER'S COMBINED OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE STARTING LINEUP!
I don't know about the rest (Stacy looks really good, and Bailey could be, too), but Brockers, Ogletree and Watkins could be stars.
So was giving up the DIFFERENCE between 1.12 and 1.8-1.10 (hypothetically) worth as many as seven starters, with as many as three or more stars and several other very good players? I think STL would say yes.
* This doesn't even factor in or account for their ability to trade down with a future first (and/or second and/or third), like they did with Ogletree, effectively turning one pick into three starters (which they have shown an inclination and facility for). Conceivably, if they play their cards right in 2014 or even 2015 during the end game of the RGIII trade, eventually close to half their roster could be populated by that original bounty? Also, in 2012, Les Snead didn't have his scouting team in place as the transition came too close to the draft. He did in 2013, in which they drafted five starters (Austin, Ogletree, Mcdonald, Bailey and Stacy). That bodes well for 2014 (and possibly 2015 and beyond, if they can continue to parlay picks from the original trade into later rounds and successive years).
Think of of it like this. Last year, with RGIII having a historically good rookie season and making the playoffs, many concluded WAS got the best of the deal. A year later, coming off a three win season, maybe this take has switched? I wonder if Shanahan thinks STL was swindled?
Lets do a hypothetical. Lets say the STL QB is average. Teams have won super bowls with QBs like Trent Dilfer, by surrounding him with playmakers at other positions (maybe on defense in some cases, like Ray Lewis and Ed Reed). I think he has more upside, so lets say STL adds Watkins and LT Greg Robinson. This helps him become slightly better than average, say top 12. Lets say that RGIII struggles to do as well in the future, even if his knee makes a full recovery, because he doesn't want to run as much as he did as a rookie, and defenses are able to be more effective in pass coverage due to not needing to worry about the scrambling and designed runs. So instead of the perennial top 3-5 QB we thought he might become, he turns out to be in the top 8-10 range.
Now we can begin to break down the trade. If the STL QB had been worthless and cut, and RGIII the #1 QB and a Hall of Famer, disastrous trade for STL. But if the STL QB top 12, and WAS QB top 8-10, now to justify the trade, you only need to do so on the basis of the sum of the accrued picks exceeding the value of the DIFFERENCE between the top 12 and top 8-10 value. Not so clear cut now?
What does STL have to show for the trade so far?
Starting DT Michael Brockers.
Starting LB Alec Ogletree
Starting CB Janoris Jenkins
Starting WR Stedman Bailey (by the end of his rookie season - from the Ogletree trade down)
Starting RB Zac Stacy (technically they packaged one of the sixths from the Ogletree trade down with their own sixth for a fifth)
Five starters
Plus, the 1.2.
Which, if they were to trade down with CLE, could fetch (by the chart) the 1.4, a 2015 first (maybe something else like a 2014 third?). With the 1.4, they could take Sammy Watkins or Jake Matthews. A sixth starter. And if they do get a 2015 first, that could likely represent a seventh starter*. Or maybe they add another 2014 first, or a second and third, and could get a seventh or even an additional eighth starter that way? A team has 22 starters on offense and defense. With as many as seven starters, this potentially could represent upwards of a THIRD OF THE ROSTER'S COMBINED OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE STARTING LINEUP!
I don't know about the rest (Stacy looks really good, and Bailey could be, too), but Brockers, Ogletree and Watkins could be stars.
So was giving up the DIFFERENCE between 1.12 and 1.8-1.10 (hypothetically) worth as many as seven starters, with as many as three or more stars and several other very good players? I think STL would say yes.
* This doesn't even factor in or account for their ability to trade down with a future first (and/or second and/or third), like they did with Ogletree, effectively turning one pick into three starters (which they have shown an inclination and facility for). Conceivably, if they play their cards right in 2014 or even 2015 during the end game of the RGIII trade, eventually close to half their roster could be populated by that original bounty? Also, in 2012, Les Snead didn't have his scouting team in place as the transition came too close to the draft. He did in 2013, in which they drafted five starters (Austin, Ogletree, Mcdonald, Bailey and Stacy). That bodes well for 2014 (and possibly 2015 and beyond, if they can continue to parlay picks from the original trade into later rounds and successive years).
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
dhockster
Footballguy
The first question on whether the Texans should trade down is does anyone want to trade up to #1? What sort of value will they give?
The Texans are hurt on this front in that there don't seem to be a lot of "can't miss" prospects either at QB or the other positions. So I do not think that anybody is going to be
willing to trade a king's ransom to get the #1 pick. The second thing that hurts is that the Rams at #2 seem willing to trade down also. Teams could give up less to get the Rams pick
and still get the player they covet if they have 2 guys rated about the same.
The second question is where in the draft should you draft a QB?
Let's look at the QB's who have started from the last 3 drafts and rank them:
Great results/upside:
Newton 2011 - 1.1 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Luck 2012 - 1.1 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Griffin 2012 - 1.2 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Dalton 2011 - 2.35
Kaepernick 2011 - 2.36
Wilson 2012 - 3.75
Foles 2012 - 3.88
Solid Starter/some upside:
Tannehill 2012 - 1.8
Locker 2011 - 1.8 (injury prone)
Too early to tell:
EJ Manual 2013 - 1.16
Geno Smith 2013 - 2.39
Mike Glennon 2013 - 3.73
Busts:
Blaine Gabbert 2011 - 1.10
Christian Ponder 2011 - 1.12
Brandon Weeden 2012 - 1.22
This very unscientific sample seems to suggest that if there is not a can't miss prospect, don't draft a QB in the 1st round. Also, consider that Kaepernick, Wilson, Foles, and even Glennon this year were not drafted to be the #1 QB on day 1. Those teams already had guys penciled in as #1 guys so there was far less pressure on these guys, and they knew that they were going to have to work extremely hard to get to start. I think that really helped them in their development.
What does that mean for the Texans? If they think they have a guy that can be there franchise guy they should probably take him. But I think they are better off trading down (if they can find someone who wants to trade up) and hoping he falls to them or taking someone later in the draft. I also wouldn't mind them bringing in a veteran to play next year and let their potential franchise QB learn from the bench and maybe play late in the season.
The Texans are hurt on this front in that there don't seem to be a lot of "can't miss" prospects either at QB or the other positions. So I do not think that anybody is going to be
willing to trade a king's ransom to get the #1 pick. The second thing that hurts is that the Rams at #2 seem willing to trade down also. Teams could give up less to get the Rams pick
and still get the player they covet if they have 2 guys rated about the same.
The second question is where in the draft should you draft a QB?
Let's look at the QB's who have started from the last 3 drafts and rank them:
Great results/upside:
Newton 2011 - 1.1 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Luck 2012 - 1.1 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Griffin 2012 - 1.2 (Viewed as Can't miss)
Dalton 2011 - 2.35
Kaepernick 2011 - 2.36
Wilson 2012 - 3.75
Foles 2012 - 3.88
Solid Starter/some upside:
Tannehill 2012 - 1.8
Locker 2011 - 1.8 (injury prone)
Too early to tell:
EJ Manual 2013 - 1.16
Geno Smith 2013 - 2.39
Mike Glennon 2013 - 3.73
Busts:
Blaine Gabbert 2011 - 1.10
Christian Ponder 2011 - 1.12
Brandon Weeden 2012 - 1.22
This very unscientific sample seems to suggest that if there is not a can't miss prospect, don't draft a QB in the 1st round. Also, consider that Kaepernick, Wilson, Foles, and even Glennon this year were not drafted to be the #1 QB on day 1. Those teams already had guys penciled in as #1 guys so there was far less pressure on these guys, and they knew that they were going to have to work extremely hard to get to start. I think that really helped them in their development.
What does that mean for the Texans? If they think they have a guy that can be there franchise guy they should probably take him. But I think they are better off trading down (if they can find someone who wants to trade up) and hoping he falls to them or taking someone later in the draft. I also wouldn't mind them bringing in a veteran to play next year and let their potential franchise QB learn from the bench and maybe play late in the season.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Good points, dhockster...
I agree that with STL also willing to move down, if a team like CLE likes two of the QBs in the draft, it would be cheaper to go through them. But if a team like MIN makes overtures, and STL doesn't want to move down that far (lets say they are targeting Watkins or Matthews), and HOU is willing, that could be a possible scenario. But than I think the top three QBs would be gone, so that might mean passing.
Also good work on the synoptic overview of the past three drafts. I interpreted that as, if HOU thinks Bridgewater or Bortles are "franchise" QBs (by that I don't mean Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers good, but that you think could lead the team and be the face of the franchise for the next decade or so), they should just take the QB and not trade down. The owner made a vague comment about moving down and getting a QB later, but not sure how well versed he is on the early prognosis of possible permutations involving likely BPA/team need intersections in the top 10. I don't think it as simple as trading down with MIN, for instance, and counting on Manziel being there. Four of the top five teams need a QB, and possibly six of the top eight. Not all of them will necessarily take QBs, but if Bridgewater, Bortles and Manziel grade out well in the evaluation process, there is a good chance all three are gone by the 1.8 pick (and if MIN moves up, it will obviously be for a QB).
* BTW, below is a regional article from CLE about the possibility of moving up from 1.4 for a QB (they would seem to be one of the more obvious candidates, as they stockpiled a second first rounder through the Richardson trade with IND), that includes the point chart at the bottom for the page for easy reference of what it might cost.
http://www.cleveland.com/mock-draft/index.ssf/2014/01/the_houston_texans_are_willing.html
Last edited by a moderator:
simsarge
Footballguy
Yikes! So according to the article and the chart (not set in stone, I know) the Browns would need to give up both firsts AND a second to move up the three spots and guarantee one of the top 3 QBs (assuming they all grade out relatively even) or the glaring #1 guy whoever that would be?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Back in 1984 I may have felt a bit different. In 2014, I don't. Is Boomer the 50th best QB of all time? Not sure who is, but whoever ranks out as the 50th, I will take that guy over Reggie White.Just Win Baby said:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
ghostguy123, this is Joe Banner. Would you like to be the Cleveland Brown's new GM?Back in 1984 I may have felt a bit different. In 2014, I don't. Is Boomer the 50th best QB of all time? Not sure who is, but whoever ranks out as the 50th, I will take that guy over Reggie White.Just Win Baby said:
DropKick
Footballguy
I heard a guy discussing the Peyton Manning/Ryan Leaf decision on the NFL XM Station. He claims the Colts were still undecided in the days leading up to the draft and they asked each candidate the first thing they would do if the were drafted by the Colts. Manning said he'd ask for the play book. Leaf said he'd take his buddies to Vegas. The Colts drafted Manning.
Not sure if the story is true but it sounds like Bridgewater IS committed to the game.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
If CLE doesn't have to get the 1.1 but was OK with the 1.2 (for instance if they like Bortles as much or even better than Bridgewater, that could be compelling value), something like the 1.4, and a 2014 second and third (maybe CLE has two, which would still leave one?) might work, or maybe the 1.4 and a 2015 first (plus?), either prospective offer allowing CLE to keep their second 2014 first round pick. The 1.4 and the IND first round pick (adding approx a fourth) would work out pretty close, too.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If we give up either our late 1st this year or our 2015 1st to move up to pick 2 I will puke.
I personally hope we don't even give that up for Bridgewater at pick 1. I am not sold on him like most seem to be. I don't know why. I have only watched a little bit worth of him, but I didn't like what I saw enough to warrant that.
That said, if they do it, I won't complain because I have no probem with our front office trading up to get what they really believe to be a franchise QB.
GregR
Footballguy
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Lmao I was going to say don't let Bob see this but I had already scrolled through the next page.
Manziel is a ham. I wouldn't be surprised if he shmoozes his way up some draft boards
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Wade Wilson? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_career_playoffs.htmBack in 1984 I may have felt a bit different. In 2014, I don't. Is Boomer the 50th best QB of all time? Not sure who is, but whoever ranks out as the 50th, I will take that guy over Reggie White.
According to the trade chart linked earlier, trading up to pick 3-28 are in 10 point increments. You pay 20 points for pick 2 and pick 1. So that is an expensive premium to pay for those top 2 picks. So it would be somewhat less painful to trade up to pick 2.
4 of the teams with the top 5 picks should be looking at QB with other teams outside the top 5 also needing QB. The Rams seem like in a good position to do something like they did in the RG3 trade again. If the Jaguars do not like the QB at pick 3 or didn't move up then they might be willing to trade down to a team that does, and the Browns who seem dead set on getting a QB might trade up with them for a QB if they can.
I am not really sure how many of the rookie QB are viable prospects that early in the draft.
The Rams are in a really good position to possibly profit from this situation again. Or if they do not like Bradford or his agent, they could draft a QB they like better.
Which of these QBs are clearly a better prospect than Bradford was/is?
Bradford's biggest issue was his shoulder and lack of college experience.
He played on a top team at OU with both talent around him and against top talent; in big games too.
Attitude was perfect-already started donating to less fortunate and speaking at schools, staying late coming early, spins anything positive.
He was on a bad Rams team and looked very accurate as a rookie and set a rookie record or two. By accurate, I mean the awesome placement people saw at his pro day was being displayed in the NFL games.
Prospect wise, it doesn't get much better IMO.
Year two brought struggles and the sacks wearing him down and a porous OL not giving him time and new WRs and IIRC new OC and....it turned some in year two.
Vince Young was a winner. His rookie year he almost won ROY playing half the games and went about undefeated. 2 minutes left, somehow he'd lead them down for the score. Couldn't make nice throws, ran too quickly...all the critics were busy talking while he won. I know Giant fans that still remember him somehow getting away from Kiwi to beat them that year. He was an excellent rookie. Year two was very different also.
I don't know that any team can ask for more than these two gave their rookie year. Clearly well prepared for the NFL that they were able to do well right away and also not look like a scared nervous rook.
Somedays we describe them as if they are this batch of clay that NFL teams mold-then the Rams and Titans messed that up some. Other days it's that they're ready and need to improve themselves and all about the player. As a prospect, I think these two proved to be excellent. As a developing pro is a different story but they showed up on day one in a good position.
I remember stories where Norm Chow might have been speaking Greek to Vince Young as they could not at all get on the same page. It didn't change when they changed his QB coach or OC and we all watched Vince self-destruct.
I doubt any prospect is better than Bradford could very well be similar. I think it's more about what you do when the player gets there.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
How does that list have anything to do with anything.Wade Wilson? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_career_playoffs.htmBack in 1984 I may have felt a bit different. In 2014, I don't. Is Boomer the 50th best QB of all time? Not sure who is, but whoever ranks out as the 50th, I will take that guy over Reggie White.
According to the trade chart linked earlier, trading up to pick 3-28 are in 10 point increments. You pay 20 points for pick 2 and pick 1. So that is an expensive premium to pay for those top 2 picks. So it would be somewhat less painful to trade up to pick 2.
4 of the teams with the top 5 picks should be looking at QB with other teams outside the top 5 also needing QB. The Rams seem like in a good position to do something like they did in the RG3 trade again. If the Jaguars do not like the QB at pick 3 or didn't move up then they might be willing to trade down to a team that does, and the Browns who seem dead set on getting a QB might trade up with them for a QB if they can.
I am not really sure how many of the rookie QB are viable prospects that early in the draft.
The Rams are in a really good position to possibly profit from this situation again. Or if they do not like Bradford or his agent, they could draft a QB they like better.
Which of these QBs are clearly a better prospect than Bradford was/is?
And not sure what the rest of your post is referring to.
Similar threads
