Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Remember, as I've been saying on the other thread, just because you trade 3 first rounders, doesn't mean its 3 straight years 2012-2014, it could be 2012 2014 2016.

But then it's not as valuable to the team that's receiving it. What the heck is a 2016 first round pick worth to someone like the Polian's today? Nothing.

That's like saying that 3 high picks doesn't have to be 3 first round picks. They could be 3 second round picks. Well, sure they could. But it's not as good as an offer.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But then it's not as valuable to the team that's receiving it. What the heck is a 2016 first round pick worth to someone like the Polian's today? Nothing.

That's like saying that 3 high picks doesn't have to be 3 first round picks. They could be 3 second round picks. Well, sure they could. But it's not as good as an offer.

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

There's a difference between a first rounder which skips one draft and a first rounder which skips 4 drafts (as in your 2016 example).

Besides the Seymour trade was an exception, not the rule.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

The accepted conversion rate that the NFL uses in trades is about one round/year. So a 2014 first round pick could get a 2012 3rd round pick in return.

That's just what's accepted. For guys who need to win to keep their jobs, picks in 2014 and 2015 are worthless to them. They are not worthless to their franchises, but they do the guys who are currently employed by the team no good.

The reason Belichick likes to go and trade for picks a year later is because of a roster management move. If he knows he's only going to keep five or six rookies on the roster all year, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make 14 draft picks a year. That's inefficient. So he can turn something that's in demand now into something that will be more valuable when he can use it.

Which is fine. He consistently gets first rounders for second rounders and second rounders for third rounders. And he doesn't feel much of the loss of return in the draft, because he can only keep so many players on his roster.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

I am saying this: if you are Tom Cable, head coach of the Raiders, and you trade your second round pick in 2010 to the Colts for the pick in 2012 that ends up being Andrew Luck, you don't get to take that pick with you when you get fired and become OL coach for the Seahawks.

[Dirtbag59]

"Sam Bradford didn't come out of a pro style offense and he was able to start right a way."

Just to clarify Bradford did play in a pro style offense during his freshman year that was centered around play action. It was the year after that saw the Sooners switch to the spread in spite of Bradfords success under center.

Anyway speaking of Sooner QB's.

Jake_Trotter Jake Trotter
Landry Jones talked more about the draft today. Said he's gone back and forth several times about what to do.
9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[The Goat]

Luck in a Skins uniform is worth almost any cost in terms of picks IMO. However, I think it only makes sense if we're very active in FA as well. We need to provide Luck w/ a top tier WR and continue to add quality depth on the oline and probably look to replace J Brown. And we need to improve markedly on defense. If Luck somehow lands in DC I think replacing Haslett with the best defensive mind available is necessary. Haslett doesn't know how to help the QB/offense with his defensive scheme on a play by play basis like the Steelers, Ravens and Niners (and the Colts up to this season).
And we need (still) need to add talent to the secondary.

[diehard]

How about trading conditional first round picks since everyone knows Luck is a sure-fire franchise QB?

[diehard]

Give me the guy who's gonna be forced to sit in the green room longer than anticipated because the fans and so-called experts underestimate him. That's who I want!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by diehard

Give me the guy who's gonna be forced to sit in the green room longer than anticipated because the fans and so-called experts underestimate him. That's who I want!

Brady Quinn has no idea what you're talking about

[Dirtbag59]

Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game? I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game? I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky.

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

I understand where both of you are coming from. But one thing a buddy of mine pointed out is that the WR's RG3 was throwing to were WIDE open, like no one around them, I still think RG3's a great player and would be satisfied with getting him, BUT I still ask myself "Can he read a defense?" "Can he change to the right play if he thinks a blitz is coming?" Cam answered those questions last year hopefully RG3 can do the same.

I'd still take Luck over him though.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

Ironically part of my reservation comes from the outright outlandish score that resembles that of an average college basketball game. I don't know it's not really based in logic but more of a gut feeling.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Ironically part of my reservation comes from the outright outlandish score that resembles that of an average college basketball game. I don't know it's not really based in logic but more of a gut feeling.

Oh, because they don't play defense. Yeah, that actually is kind of gimmicky.