Suppose a team trades two first for a tackle (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

(insert history of tackle play, Gibbs and H-back, fullbacks, LT, Reggie, Strahan...whatever)

Lesser teams consistently have one thing in common- poor play by one or two offensive tackles.

We always say things like a new QB will turn things around or new HC etc.

What if a team traded two firsts for a tackle? (Three? Whatever is reasonable)
For example- the Giants are sitting at a nice spot in the draft. What if the Gmen gave up two or three firsts for Penei Sewell?
Is that a good or bad trade for the Giants?

What about the Patriots who have their young QB? What if they did that trade?

Assume the Lions take a tackle with one of the acquired picks- are they still a very good team?

 

[Soulfly3]

Are the giants a penei sewell away from even being a playoff team?
i'd say no

 

[Zeppelin]

For example- the Giants are sitting at a nice spot in the draft. What if the Gmen gave up two or three firsts for Penei Sewell?

The Lions would never do it.

 

[Max Power]

Tunsil was traded for a couple first IIRC. It didn't seem to help Houston much because the rest of the OL was still weak and they had to tie up a lot of cash in a pro-bowl LT. Houston is a rough comparison because that team had a ton of promise for a couple years.

 

[Grahamburn]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since the Lions have drafted Sewell and the Bucs have drafted Wirfs they've both become dominant offensive teams. Wirfs moved from RT to LT two years ago, but his presence has completely solidified the line. I wouldn't trade him for 2 firsts.

A great LT is the second most important position on the field.

 

[Bri]

For example- the Giants are sitting at a nice spot in the draft. What if the Gmen gave up two or three firsts for Penei Sewell?

The Lions would never do it.

I'm asking what if they did

 

[Jppaul]

I'd build a team from the inside-out. I wouldn't draft a QB until I had a very good to great OL. I would only trade 2-3 firsts for an OL if I already had four good OL.

Build through the draft.

 

[Bri]

Are the giants a penei sewell away from even being a playoff team?
i'd say no

So is it a good or bad trade for the Giants?

 

[Bri]

Tunsil was traded for a couple first IIRC. It didn't seem to help Houston much because the rest of the OL was still weak and they had to tie up a lot of cash in a pro-bowl LT. Houston is a rough comparison because that team had a ton of promise for a couple years.

Rough glance it looks like they made the playoffs six years and three(half) were with Tunsil.

Houston Texans Team Records, Leaders, and League Ranks | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Checkout the Houston Texans Records, Top 12 Leaders, League Ranks, history and more on Pro-Football-Reference.com

www.pro-football-reference.com

Yes I'm ignoring Watt and plenty of players but we do the same thing with QBs when we discuss them

 

[eighsse2]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

 

[travdogg]

I think it makes perfect sense to trade 2 1sts for an ELITE young player at really any non-K/P position. Not as much when those are high picks like the NYG have, but like, if KC traded 2 1sts for Penei Sewell, I'd have a lot more questions for Detroit than KC. Same if say, Buffalo traded 2 1sts for Micah Parsons. Even at a lesser valued position I think I'd side with the ELITE young player over the 2 1sts. If the Eagles traded 2 1sts for Brock Bowers, I wouldn't be criticizing the Eagles side of that deal.

Those types of trades pretty much never come along, but if they did, I would very much argue, draft picks are the most overrated commodity in football (like 40% of the 1st round will end up not being good) while an already elite young player is the goal for any team with said picks. The problem becomes when teams trade for non-elite players, or old players, its fine to do, but not for that kind of price. That said, I see very few examples of teams trading day 3 picks for vets being regretted.

To the Tunsil example, I don't think its fair to have ever called Tunsil an elite player. At his peak he was just an above average LT.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

I think it makes perfect sense to trade 2 1sts for an ELITE young player at really any non-K/P position. Not as much when those are high picks like the NYG have, but like, if KC traded 2 1sts for Penei Sewell, I'd have a lot more questions for Detroit than KC. Same if say, Buffalo traded 2 1sts for Micah Parsons. Even at a lesser valued position I think I'd side with the ELITE young player over the 2 1sts. If the Eagles traded 2 1sts for Brock Bowers, I wouldn't be criticizing the Eagles side of that deal.

Those types of trades pretty much never come along, but if they did, I would very much argue, draft picks are the most overrated commodity in football (like 40% of the 1st round will end up not being good) while an already elite young player is the goal for any team with said picks. The problem becomes when teams trade for non-elite players, or old players, its fine to do, but not for that kind of price. That said, I see very few examples of teams trading day 3 picks for vets being regretted.

To the Tunsil example, I don't think its fair to have ever called Tunsil an elite player. At his peak he was just an above average LT.

Which then offers the question - why would ANY team trade away a young talented LT (or any ELITE player at any position) for 2 late 1st round picks?

The only way it makes sense is if the player is aging - has a decent contract, still good but the cliff is in sight. Then, you would just have to look at the New England Patriots for examples and there you can see the backlash of players not wanting to play for New England and a variety of issues that approach and treatment of vets has caused.

The NFL just rarely trades players for picks and you would be stupid to do it with a young ELITE talent for another roll at the roulette wheel.

 

[travdogg]

I think it makes perfect sense to trade 2 1sts for an ELITE young player at really any non-K/P position. Not as much when those are high picks like the NYG have, but like, if KC traded 2 1sts for Penei Sewell, I'd have a lot more questions for Detroit than KC. Same if say, Buffalo traded 2 1sts for Micah Parsons. Even at a lesser valued position I think I'd side with the ELITE young player over the 2 1sts. If the Eagles traded 2 1sts for Brock Bowers, I wouldn't be criticizing the Eagles side of that deal.

Those types of trades pretty much never come along, but if they did, I would very much argue, draft picks are the most overrated commodity in football (like 40% of the 1st round will end up not being good) while an already elite young player is the goal for any team with said picks. The problem becomes when teams trade for non-elite players, or old players, its fine to do, but not for that kind of price. That said, I see very few examples of teams trading day 3 picks for vets being regretted.

To the Tunsil example, I don't think its fair to have ever called Tunsil an elite player. At his peak he was just an above average LT.

Which then offers the question - why would ANY team trade away a young talented LT (or any ELITE player at any position) for 2 late 1st round picks?

The only way it makes sense is if the player is aging - has a decent contract, still good but the cliff is in sight. Then, you would just have to look at the New England Patriots for examples and there you can see the backlash of players not wanting to play for New England and a variety of issues that approach and treatment of vets has caused.

The NFL just rarely trades players for picks and you would be stupid to do it with a young ELITE talent for another roll at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, I'd say it'd either have to be bad cap management, a full rebuild is coming, locker room issues, or they already have the replacement. The latter of which doesn't really come up much.

 

[Zeppelin]

For example- the Giants are sitting at a nice spot in the draft. What if the Gmen gave up two or three firsts for Penei Sewell?

The Lions would never do it.

I'm asking what if they did

If the Lions did it would be idiotic because they are one of the best teams in the NFL and Sewell is arguably the best offensive lineman in the NFL and is still only 24 years old. I don't know if I would ever trade him for 2 firsts regardless of how good or bad the team is.

 

[Donnybrook]

It hard for me to believe that any player besides QB is worth 2 first round picks if they are already signed to a non-rookie contract.

Case in point. Brian Burns.

The Giants obtained outside linebacker Brian Burns in a trade with the Panthers, sending them a 2024 second-round draft choice (No. 39) and a 2025 fifth-round selection and agreeing to a swap of fifth rounders this year (the Giants getting No. 166 and sending No. 141 to Carolina).

I think the team that trades a premium LT would have to be on a total rebuild or have equally as good replacement waiting in the wings.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

 

[eighsse2]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

I would not agree that star qbs are let go all the time and im not totally sure about wrs either. I think the main difference is probably that a tackle can have a much longer expected shelf life than rbs and wrs in general.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

Is that really true, though? I know everyone will point to Barkley & Henry last year for RBs, but many GBs of bandwidth were written about how they brought back the RB market (meaning, it had been rare before). Who was the last top-of-his-game WR to get released?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Both a QB's and an RB's best friend. The OL drives the engine.

 

[menobrown]

Depends where the first round picks are, I think two get two firsts you'd have to think the highest one is mid teens. Would ballpark the value for any non-QB on a lucrative contract to not be worth more then one solo top 10 first round pick, with a little variance for the draft class. But the Giants pick at 1.3 alone would be an overpay for the Giants.

For example I think if the Vikings had made Justin Jefferson available in a trade last year I pegged his value in the 1.8-1.10 range based on previous WR trades.

When you give up cheap young labor to pay a player at the top of his position you just don't get the return you think you will.

 

[eighsse2]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

I would not agree that star qbs are let go all the time and im not totally sure about wrs either. I think the main difference is probably that a tackle can have a much longer expected shelf life than rbs and wrs in general.

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

Is that really true, though? I know everyone will point to Barkley & Henry last year for RBs, but many GBs of bandwidth were written about how they brought back the RB market (meaning, it had been rare before). Who was the last top-of-his-game WR to get released?

I could be wrong about that, I shouldn't have said "all the time". I guess I was mainly just thinking that it happens, I don't know how frequently. But it seems like there are usually several big name players every year across those fantasy-relevant positions. Would be interesting to see what those numbers are.

ETA: Also I would say that FA's who were free to sign with other teams, but chose to sign with the same team again, should count in the list of "players who were available".

However, my argument is overlooking the fact that the free agent has a lot of choices. Just because there may be a very good OT out there every offseason, there isn't a "Buy It Now" button, unless you want to offer him some ridiculous amount. You have to be more desirable than 31 other teams.

 

[ZWK]

According to this graph, WR, QB, and LT are the positions where good players hit free agency least often. The next tier of positions that rarely hit FA is TE, RT, EDGE, and IDL.

 

[eighsse2]

According to this graph, WR, QB, and LT are the positions where good players hit free agency least often. The next tier of positions that rarely hit FA is TE, RT, EDGE, and IDL.

Good find. Even WR, though, being the lowest availability is 20% of the top 20 players, which I guess means 4 on average per offseason?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

I would not agree that star qbs are let go all the time and im not totally sure about wrs either. I think the main difference is probably that a tackle can have a much longer expected shelf life than rbs and wrs in general.

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

Is that really true, though? I know everyone will point to Barkley & Henry last year for RBs, but many GBs of bandwidth were written about how they brought back the RB market (meaning, it had been rare before). Who was the last top-of-his-game WR to get released?

I could be wrong about that, I shouldn't have said "all the time". I guess I was mainly just thinking that it happens, I don't know how frequently. But it seems like there are usually several big name players every year across those fantasy-relevant positions. Would be interesting to see what those numbers are.

ETA: Also I would say that FA's who were free to sign with other teams, but chose to sign with the same team again, should count in the list of "players who were available".

However, my argument is overlooking the fact that the free agent has a lot of choices. Just because there may be a very good OT out there every offseason, there isn't a "Buy It Now" button, unless you want to offer him some ridiculous amount. You have to be more desirable than 31 other teams.

I misunderstood your intent when I read "let go" due to salary constraints, I thought you were saying teams were releasing them. You almost never see that with elite players at certain positions. You'll see more top-flight players play out their contracts and go out on the market (no matter who they sign with), but it's still a very small number amongst all FAs. Usually, most of them are JAGs, or past their primes, or a PITA, or guys who just never panned out.

 

[ZWK]

According to this graph, WR, QB, and LT are the positions where good players hit free agency least often. The next tier of positions that rarely hit FA is TE, RT, EDGE, and IDL.

Good find. Even WR, though, being the lowest availability is 20% of the top 20 players, which I guess means 4 on average per offseason?

I found the source article. It looks at, of the 20 highest paid players at the position, how many signed their current contract as FAs. So it goes deeper than just the elite players, especially at positions where you only start 1.

The first thing I did was go back to 2020 and look at the top 20 contracts at every position in the NFL. I then determined of those top 20 players how many of those players were available in free agency when they signed their most recent contract. This can give us a strong indication of good veteran players who a team can “buy” to become a starter.

 

[Bri]

According to this graph, WR, QB, and LT are the positions where good players hit free agency least often. The next tier of positions that rarely hit FA is TE, RT, EDGE, and IDL.

We do this wrong. (Me too)
WR and Edge are two or three positions that we merge but we say LT and RT. For example X, Y, Z are not represented here.

This is a nice find and appreciate the contribution. I'm guessing the math would make Ts the highest.
If we talk like FF and say 1,2 and slot WR then I'm guessing the 1 increases significantly.

 

[Bri]

My opinion would be that is not a good trade since they're still going to have to pay him. If you're going to acquire a star veteran commanding a high price, why not get one in free agency. I mean, yeah there may not be a quality guy at the position that you need in free agency. But the team should have done it the year before or two years ago, or whenever there was one available, rather than giving up massive draft capital just for the right to pay a guy.

It is virtually impossible to get a star tackle in free agency. Teams do not let them go

I see, I did not know that. Additionally, I wonder why that is. Star RB's, star WR's, star QB's (less often) are let go all the time just due to salary constraints.

I would not agree that star qbs are let go all the time and im not totally sure about wrs either. I think the main difference is probably that a tackle can have a much longer expected shelf life than rbs and wrs in general.

There's an age point.
Itym "in their prime" QBs and your point is valid and then later the quality of available QBs generally suffers.
Plenty have played for other teams just before retiring.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Eagles traded for Jason Peters in 2009.

Trade details: 1st (28th overall) + 4th (121st overall) + 2026 conditional 6th for Jason Peters

Peters was holding out for a contract. At the time he had multiple PBs and 2nd team APs.

Looking back, I would make that trade 100 times out of 100. With the picks, the Bills drafted Eric Wood, Shawn Nelson and Danny Batten.

Two first would be a tougher pill to swallow, but I'd do it for an AP left tackle.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Eagles traded for Jason Peters in 2009.

Trade details: 1st (28th overall) + 4th (121st overall) + 2026 conditional 6th for Jason Peters

Peters was holding out for a contract. At the time he had multiple PBs and 2nd team APs.

Looking back, I would make that trade 100 times out of 100. With the picks, the Bills drafted Eric Wood, Shawn Nelson and Danny Batten.

Two first would be a tougher pill to swallow, but I'd do it for an AP left tackle.

Yeah, he'd fetch more nowadays in his prime than what Philly gave up in 2009. Y'all stole him.

I don't think it's a stretch or a hard case to make that - outside of QB - LT is the most important position on a team. It gets a little wonkier if you're riding a lefty franchise QB, but there haven't been many of them.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since the Lions have drafted Sewell and the Bucs have drafted Wirfs they've both become dominant offensive teams. Wirfs moved from RT to LT two years ago, but his presence has completely solidified the line. I wouldn't trade him for 2 firsts.

A great LT is the second most important position on the field.

True and I love Sewell. He's the best Lions player IMO and is pretty much on the express lane to the Hall of Fame but he does have 2 other first round picks on that OL with him in Ragnow and Decker. Decker is 1x Pro Bowler has been a good LT. Ragnow is a 4x Pro Bowler and one of the best Cs in the last decade. Zeitler also has made a Pro Bowl and is a long time high quality OG. So yes Sewell is the special chess piece that takes the offense to elite, he does have a lot of help.

 

[Grahamburn]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since the Lions have drafted Sewell and the Bucs have drafted Wirfs they've both become dominant offensive teams. Wirfs moved from RT to LT two years ago, but his presence has completely solidified the line. I wouldn't trade him for 2 firsts.

A great LT is the second most important position on the field.

True and I love Sewell. He's the best Lions player IMO and is pretty much on the express lane to the Hall of Fame but he does have 2 other first round picks on that OL with him in Ragnow and Decker. Decker is 1x Pro Bowler has been a good LT. Ragnow is a 4x Pro Bowler and one of the best Cs in the last decade. Zeitler also has made a Pro Bowl and is a long time high quality OG. So yes Sewell is the special chess piece that takes the offense to elite, he does have a lot of help.

For sure. Tampa now has 2 1st round picks and 2 2nd round picks on their line. I just think a truly elite tackle elevates everyone around him.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since the Lions have drafted Sewell and the Bucs have drafted Wirfs they've both become dominant offensive teams. Wirfs moved from RT to LT two years ago, but his presence has completely solidified the line. I wouldn't trade him for 2 firsts.

A great LT is the second most important position on the field.

True and I love Sewell. He's the best Lions player IMO and is pretty much on the express lane to the Hall of Fame but he does have 2 other first round picks on that OL with him in Ragnow and Decker. Decker is 1x Pro Bowler has been a good LT. Ragnow is a 4x Pro Bowler and one of the best Cs in the last decade. Zeitler also has made a Pro Bowl and is a long time high quality OG. So yes Sewell is the special chess piece that takes the offense to elite, he does have a lot of help.

Sewell was a great draft pick at #7 overall in 2021 and they've done a great job putting that team together, but it also helps that Detroit has a long history of drafting at the top. They had two high first round picks In '22. In 2023 they had 4 picks in the top 50. Those picks can bust and they've done a great job with them, but there's always going to be a higher hit rate when you're drafting with multiple high picks.