2020 Draft Thread

[Forge]

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

You are IMO trying to put two different things together and coming to a conclusion. The team very well may be in a wait and see approach with Jimmy and want to have the flexibility to get rid of him if they don't think he is the QB they want going forward. However, if the team was going to go QB early in the draft, then they went about it the wrong way....Unless they can possibly find a trade partner for Jimmy during the draft. I mean they can I guess draft a QB, and in this scenario Tua, and keep Jimmy for a year and then go from there. But I don't see it. If Brady was the choice, then I would even expect a QB at #13. 

I'm not sure how I was putting two different things together to make a conclusion. I'm saying that the trepidation of the team doing any sort of a restructure on JImmy's contract (ostensibly tying us to him for longer) is an interesting fact that could lend support to the idea that we are wanting to keep our options open (even if we don't do anything about it). 

As for the bolded, you addressed it, but just because they take a quarterback at 13 wouldn't mean that they would want to play him immediately as you said. KC didn't. 

If there's something I can't match up with this it would be the report that we turned down offers for Mullens. I don't think that would be the case if we were looking to go quarterback. Yes, I'm sure someone will say they wanted to make sure that the quarterback is there, but with what appears to be an infatuation with CJ on the part of Kyle, I just don't know if it would have mattered. Pure hypotheticals, of course. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

I'm not sure how I was putting two different things together to make a conclusion. I'm saying that the trepidation of the team doing any sort of a restructure on JImmy's contract (ostensibly tying us to him for longer) is an interesting fact that could lend support to the idea that we are wanting to keep our options open (even if we don't do anything about it). 

As for the bolded, you addressed it, but just because they take a quarterback at 13 wouldn't mean that they would want to play him immediately as you said. KC didn't. 

If there's something I can't match up with this it would be the report that we turned down offers for Mullens. I don't think that would be the case if we were looking to go quarterback. Yes, I'm sure someone will say they wanted to make sure that the quarterback is there, but with what appears to be an infatuation with CJ on the part of Kyle, I just don't know if it would have mattered. Pure hypotheticals, of course. 

Because not restructuring Jimmy's deal gives the team to move on from him at any point in the next two years. But the highest the trade value for him is going to be before the team selects a first round QB. Keeping Jimmy and taking a QB like Love is an option, but that's far from ideal. To me if you think Brady and Jimmy are similar level QBs and want to take a QB early in the draft, then you sign Brady, trade Jimmy for a 1st or 2nd rounder and go from there. You still keep the SB window, have your future QB that gets to sit behind the GOAT and learn and you maximize Jimmy's trade value and can improve the team with a high draft pick. If they go QB round one, then they misplayed this and deserve to get criticized. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Because not restructuring Jimmy's deal gives the team to move on from him at any point in the next two years. But the highest the trade value for him is going to be before the team selects a first round QB. Keeping Jimmy and taking a QB like Love is an option, but that's far from ideal. To me if you think Brady and Jimmy are similar level QBs and want to take a QB early in the draft, then you sign Brady, trade Jimmy for a 1st or 2nd rounder and go from there. You still keep the SB window, have your future QB that gets to sit behind the GOAT and learn and you maximize Jimmy's trade value and can improve the team with a high draft pick. If they go QB round one, then they misplayed this and deserve to get criticized. 

Nothing to support this or oppose it. I Don't think that we got less for Alex because we had Colin, nor do I think that Alex returned less for KC because they had Patrick Mahomes, but there is no way to know that one way or the other. This is especially true if the plan is to keep Jimmy this year while drafting a rookie quarterback in the first this year. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

Nothing to support this or oppose it. I Don't think that we got less for Alex because we had Colin, nor do I think that Alex returned less for KC because they had Patrick Mahomes, but there is no way to know that one way or the other. This is especially true if the plan is to keep Jimmy this year while drafting a rookie quarterback in the first this year. 

Smith had a near Pro Bowl level season before getting hurt in 2012 and had his best season before getting moved to the Redskins. The letter trade resulted in a good corner on Fuller and 3rd round pick. I mean that's an okay trade, but he already had a full career's worth of tape like you said. But still, if Mahomes isn't there, you don't think they get more than that? For a QB that was coming off a legitimate Pro Bowl season? I'm sorry, but I just can't see Jimmy returning the same value WITH the future QB on the roster. And again, Brady WANTED to come here, why turn that down then? Surely Shanny can get the same production or similar production out of him? I think more likely they don't go QB at #13 and go with T, CB or WR and if Jimmy has a mediocre season, they move on from him next season. 

[Forge]

10 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Smith had a near Pro Bowl level season before getting hurt in 2012 and had his best season before getting moved to the Redskins. The letter trade resulted in a good corner on Fuller and 3rd round pick. I mean that's an okay trade, but he already had a full career's worth of tape like you said. But still, if Mahomes isn't there, you don't think they get more than that? For a QB that was coming off a legitimate Pro Bowl season? I'm sorry, but I just can't see Jimmy returning the same value WITH the future QB on the roster. And again, Brady WANTED to come here, why turn that down then? Surely Shanny can get the same production or similar production out of him? I think more likely they don't go QB at #13 and go with T, CB or WR and if Jimmy has a mediocre season, they move on from him next season. 

Whether or not the next QB is on the roster is not material to supply and demand if multiple teams are in on him. They will drive the price, not the fact that the quarterback is on the roster. If we are holding him for a year, we have no way of knowing how many teams could possibly be in on him at that point. He may have a bad season. May have a good one. etc etc.

I have no idea what Smith gets if Mahomes isn't there. How am I suppose to know? What changes for Washington in that case? YOu can say that maybe the Chiefs ask for more, but what if Washington won't meet that demand, then there's no trade period. 

It's about supply and demand and who has leverage. If more than one team wants Jimmy, we have leverage. If only one team wants Jimmy, then yes, they could have leverage to dictate some of the return and we could get less for having another QB on the roster. But lets be real, it's not like being the only team bidding on something has prohibited teams from getting max value before (please see 2017 draft day trade between Bears and 49ers). If I Have 2 apples, only need one, and you and Justone both really need an apple and have none,  the price I can sell you an apple for isn't less just because I have 2. You two will dictate what I get for my extra apple. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

Whether or not the next QB is on the roster is not material to supply and demand if multiple teams are in on him. They will drive the price, not the fact that the quarterback is on the roster. If we are holding him for a year, we have no way of knowing how many teams could possibly be in on him at that point. He may have a bad season. May have a good one. etc etc.

I have no idea what Smith gets if Mahomes isn't there. How am I suppose to know? What changes for Washington in that case? YOu can say that maybe the Chiefs ask for more, but what if Washington won't meet that demand, then there's no trade period. 

It's about supply and demand and who has leverage. If more than one team wants Jimmy, we have leverage. If only one team wants Jimmy, then yes, they have leverage to dictate the return and we could get less for having another QB on the roster. But lets be real, it's not like being the only team bidding on something has prohibited teams from getting max value before (please see 2017 draft day trade between Bears and 49ers). If I Have 2 apples, only need one, and you and Justone both really need an apple and have none,  the price I can sell you an apple for isn't less just because I have 2. You two will dictate what I get for my extra apple. 

Of course it is about supply and demand, but when you have a future QB on the roster, you're simply not going to be able to hold your ground the same way in negotiations. Let me give you an example. The Patriots want Jimmy now and will want him next year after we take a QB at #13. At what point do YOU think we have maximum leverage? If BB is willing to give a first rounder this year, would he be willing to give up the same next year knowing Jimmy doesn't have a future on the team? If another team is still willing to give up a first, then obviously he has no choice. But if not? Highly unlikely you get what is offered now. 

[Forge]

12 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Of course it is about supply and demand, but when you have a future QB on the roster, you're simply not going to be able to hold your ground the same way in negotiations. Let me give you an example. The Patriots want Jimmy now and will want him next year after we take a QB at #13. At what point do YOU think we have maximum leverage? If BB is willing to give a first rounder this year, would he be willing to give up the same next year knowing Jimmy doesn't have a future on the team? If another team is still willing to give up a first, then obviously he has no choice. But if not? Highly unlikely you get what is offered now. 

You're still treating it as though only one team is interested, which is not a guarantee. 

And even if there is only one team, you can still keep your leverage if you can afford to keep them both, which most teams could with one of them being on a rookie salary. You have to be willing to hold your ground though and it absolutely could blow up in your face. That's the risk you weigh.  If we are flat out telling them no, we have leverage. That simple. May not work in your favor in the end, but that is a risk you have to weigh. In the end, you may not get what you were originally asking, but they may also give up more than they were originally willing to, but that's just negotiation. You don't need "maximum" leverage. You just need leverage. The ability to say no is leverage. 

But nothing you have said supports the notion that they are doing this "wrong" or anything if the team did go QB . 

[J-ALL-DAY]

Just now, Forge said:

You're still treating it as though only one team is interested, which is not a guarantee. 

And even if there is only one team, you can still keep your leverage if you can afford to keep them both, which most teams could with one of them being on a rookie salary. You have to be willing to hold your ground though and it absolutely could blow up in your face. That's the risk you weigh.  If we are flat out telling them no, we have leverage. That simple. May not work in your favor in the end, but that is a risk you have to weigh. In the end, you may not get what you were originally asking, but they may also give up more than they were originally willing to, but that's just negotiation. 

But nothing you have said supports the notion that they are doing this "wrong" or anything if the team did go QB . 

A main reason for getting a young QB would be to save major cap space and go the cheaper route. So I don't get keeping both of them. Now that would really make no sense. Oh, we are taking a young QB in the first round, while keeping Jimmy over $25 million and still being in the same tough cap situation.

So yeah, we can agree to disagree but if they do go QB, I don't think this was handled well… like at all. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

A main reason for getting a young QB would be to save major cap space and go the cheaper route. So I don't get keeping both of them. Now that would really make no sense. Oh, we are taking a young QB in the first round, while keeping Jimmy over $25 million and still being in the same tough cap situation.

So yeah, we can agree to disagree but if they do go QB, I don't think this was handled well… like at all. 

I didn't say it was an ideal methodology, just stating that there is a way to maintain leverage in the situation lol.

But yeah, I'd be fine if they were handling it this way (so far...and that is an important caveat). That being said, I still don't think it much matters. Very few teams have the fortitude to make that kind of choice. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

Okay, so let's assume that we get a 2nd rounder for Jimmy this year and next year. Nothing changes in that regard. Even then, you are limiting your chances of winning THIS season by not moving him now and by not signing Brady, who wanted to come here. This way you keep your chances of winning a SB still alive with a similar level QB and you get to add to your team with a 2nd round pick.

Isn't the theory a 2nd round pick in the current year worth more than a 2nd round pick in the following year? 😁

[Forge]

16 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Okay, so let's assume that we get a 2nd rounder for Jimmy this year and next year. Nothing changes in that regard. Even then, you are limiting your chances of winning THIS season by not moving him now and by not signing Brady, who wanted to come here. This way you keep your chances of winning a SB still alive with a similar level QB and you get to add to your team with a 2nd round pick.

Isn't the theory a 2nd round pick in the current year worth more than a 2nd round pick in the following year? 😁

This is actually impossible for me to believe because I simply can't imagine that we don't get at least New England's first this year (since they would be the most likely suitor). 

But I do agree that if you pull the trigger on a trade now, then you've misplayed your hand at this point. IF you're drafting a quarterback at 13, I don't believe it's to start this year. Your quarterback is still Jimmy for this season. Next year, there will be potentially more suitors (Chicago could enter the mix, for example, the Raiders as well) for trade leverage. If we pick the quarterback and then trade Jimmy this year, we basically blew up our super bowl chances for this immediate season, and I can't believe that Lynch or Shanny would sign off on that. 

That being said, I did bring this up in a discussion with Y2, and I'm utterly fascinated by the idea of trading Jimmy and signing Winston or Cam (Winston in particular) to see what happens with Shanny. Not something I would advocate doing, of course. But come on, how is that not interesting as hell? 

[J-ALL-DAY]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

This is actually impossible for me to believe because I simply can't imagine that we don't get at least New England's first this year (since they would be the most likely suitor). 

But I do agree that if you pull the trigger on a trade now, then you've misplayed your hand at this point. IF you're drafting a quarterback at 13, I don't believe it's to start this year. Your quarterback is still Jimmy for this season. Next year, there will be potentially more suitors (Chicago could enter the mix, for example, the Raiders as well) for trade leverage. If we pick the quarterback and then trade Jimmy this year, we basically blew up our super bowl chances for this immediate season, and I can't believe that Lynch or Shanny would sign off on that. 

That being said, I did bring this up in a discussion with Y2, and I'm utterly fascinated by the idea of trading Jimmy and signing Winston or Cam (Winston in particular) to see what happens with Shanny. Not something I would advocate doing, of course. But come on, how is that not interesting as hell? 

Oh yeah, I think the Pats would definitely be willing to give up #23 for Jimmy. But just used a 2nd rounder for the hypothetical. 

Winston may drive Shanny all the way insane lol. If Jimmy's INTs get to him, imagine going through THAT. But see, if you sign Cam and trade Jimmy this year for a first, then that can work. It's basically my hypothetical with signing Brady, trading Jimmy and drafting a QB. I would be fine with that because you can really improve the roster through the draft this year and still can compete for a SB. Would I want to trade Jimmy and risk it with Cam? No, but if Shanny is hell bent on taking a QB at 13, then this should be the way to go. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

No doubt we manage the cap really well, but I will never understand restructuring Richburg's deal after his injury. I refuse to believe Marathe was behind this and pretty much was told what to do lol. Like this is arguably the best cap guy in the game and he's going to do THAT restructure?? No way. 

[N4L]

6 hours ago, Forge said:

You have to be willing to hold your ground though and it absolutely could blow up in your face. That's the risk you weigh.  If we are flat out telling them no, we have leverage. That simple. May not work in your favor in the end, but that is a risk you have to weigh. In the end, you may not get what you were originally asking, but they may also give up more than they were originally willing to, but that's just negotiation. You don't need "maximum" leverage. You just need leverage. The ability to say no is leverage.

QFT

you always have to be willing to say no. 

[NcFinest9erFan]