How draft classes is Mahomes worth?

[Magnifico]

Why do people harp so much about paying Mahomes $40M?

He's the best QB in the league, comfortably, and still has plenty of room to improve. They're at worst a playoff shoo-in as long as he's healthy and playing well.

The floor is a .500 season, and the reality is, as long as the defence isn't 2014-2016 Saints Level bad, I'm certain he'll be playing playoff games for the next decade. With potentially multiple superbowls. Just because Aaron Rodger/Drew Brees won only 1 SB doesn't mean the Packers/Saints should have traded them at the height of his powers even for an entire draft.

[LeotheLion]

8 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

The people saying multiple draft classes aren’t enough are kidding themselves IMO. Imagine if the Packers had traded Rodgers away in 2011 for 3 draft full classes. They’d likely have won at least one SB since then. 

Not to mention, the team that got Rodgers would have 3 straight years without draft picks. The roster would be full of UDFAs and vets.

[HTTRDynasty]

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Likely? I disagree very much. So you take a team, not good enough to win another superbowl WITH Rodgers. You remove Rodgers. Assuming you take a QB that same offseason, you draft one of, Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, Kaepernick, Dalton as the heir? Huge downgrade there, regardless of how right or wrong they get it. Get it real wrong, you may have straight torpedoed that team for the next 3 years. Now, for the mass of picks, the Packers drafted 29 players between 2011 and 2013. 7, or about 1/4, of those players are still in the league (I'm not going to count Guy, as he never played a snap as a Packer.) All but one have moved onto other teams. Tretter, Hyde, and Heyward all left after their rookie deals. So even if you add 21 picks, get another 5ish long term players, keep a few more past rookie deals without paying Rodgers, you're not getting a superbowl team out of that swap. Even if they get absurdly lucky, wait until 2012 to trade him, send him to Indy for the draft that would include a shot at Luck, I still wouldn't say that team probably wins another superbowl.

Reality is, a huge chunk of those picks they get are busts or throwaways. You're getting, if you're lucky, a handful of good players from those picks. Not even great ones, but good ones. And you know the 2012 and 2013 picks will be lower as that team now has Rodgers and their prospects are improving. So only year one has high pick potential, and you'll know that from who you trade with. If they nail them all, sure, they'd likely win a superbowl, but that's not a realistic expectation.

My thinking:

Those extra picks allow you to be extremely aggressive moving around the draft to get "your guys".  You don't have to pick at the end of the round given all the draft capital you have to move up.

I could see them missing out on Newton in 2011, so taking one of the other elite talents at another position like AJ Green, Von Miller, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones, JJ Watt, Tyron Smith, etc. in the 1st round.  You build up the roster with weapons and defense in that loaded 2011 draft, then you take your QB in 2012.  Luck, Russell Wilson, Ryan Tannehill, Kirk Cousins, Nick Foles... it doesn't take a lot of luck to land at least one of these franchise QBs.  I'd have faith Mike McCoy can get the most out of whoever they select.  And you continue to build out your roster with the remaining picks in those drafts.

Plus, they wouldn't be taking an enormous cap hit due to their QB so could be more aggressive in FA.

That 2011 Packers team was already very good around Rodgers.  I think it's very realistic to expect them to win a SB with 3 extra draft classes worth of picks, especially if they landed a QB like Luck or Wilson.

[SpacemanSpiff]

10 hours ago, Elky said:

While you make sense from an economic perspective, Reid and Veach would be chased out of town by an angry mob if they even think about trading him.

Oh, for SURE. I'm not debating that at all. I'm saying that's what *I* think it's worth from a team building perspective when I have a salary cap I'm working against. My thing is: I think QB numbers are insane in the membrane. Thanks, Joe Flacco. Seriously. I think Mahomes is the only QB worth 20 million, much less 40. Yet when Joe Flacco sets the money standard in the NFL, yeah, you knew that was going to get out of hand fast. 

Someone's gotta be bold enough to buck the trend, trade a legitimate franchise QB, draft a new rookie or sign a cheap vet and moneyball their way to a title. Then we'll see things come back to earth a bit. But for now, in a league that holds passing offense tantamount to the heavens themselves, I'm probably dreaming.  

[SpacemanSpiff]

10 hours ago, RuskieTitan said:

I like you friend. But after you see how teams like the Browns blow first round picks like nothing, and just a draft isn't good enough for Mahomes. That's the kind of decision that gets people fired.

What can I say except

[Duluther]

All it takes is one injury, one freak accident in the real world, or some other incident to take a career away. Or is as untradeable as it gets, but if some franchise offered me 10 whole drafts, I’ll easily take that.

[Uncle Buck]

At this point, I'd say that Mahomes is about as untradeable as any player can get.  It would take a ransom of picks to even get the Chiefs to consider trading him.  The problem is that the price is so high you might just as well take those picks and trade up with whoever has the #1 pick in next year's draft and take Trevor Lawrence.  That way you have him for the entire five years of his rookie contract. 

For a team like the Vikings, the maximum I would be willing to offer the Chiefs is 3 first-round picks and their choice of any three players on my roster.  That's a huge price to pay, and if I were the Chiefs, I still wouldn't do it.  I'm sure the Vikings would never realistically offer that much either.

Making a deal for Mahomes would need to be in the Herschel Walker stratosphere, and it would require an owner who really, really wanted to get it done.  Otherwise, I think there are only two teams I could see that as being remotely possible.  One is the Steelers, whose ownership is incredibly loyal to their GM and HC.  Those guys might feel safe enough to make a move that bold.  The other team would be the Raiders.  Jon Gruden has his 10-year contract in place, and Mike Mayock would probably be given assurances that, if the move didn't work, his job would be safe for long enough to rebuild and recover.  

Edited May 19, 2020 by Uncle Buck

[SpacemanSpiff]

11 hours ago, RuskieTitan said:

I like you friend. But after you see how teams like the Browns blow first round picks like nothing, and just a draft isn't good enough for Mahomes. That's the kind of decision that gets people fired.

Actually I'm gonna follow up on this in more depth. One ENTIRE extra draft? In a deep year like 2020? Let's say that draft came from... say... Miami who had three first rounders and wanted Mahomes that bad. 

Ok, so let's say I'm the Chiefs and I've just traded Mahomes to Miami and now possess their entire 2020 draft. That means not only am I sitting there with FOUR first round picks as a result, I have an ENTIRE extra draft worth of talent coming in. 

Now, let's say we did this, I'm also sitting at 5 in 2020 with Tua Tagovailoa coming in. So now I've taken a generational talent, plugged in another potential generational talent (albeit gambling on injury, so I'll also draft Jake Fromm later or something) and then bagged a heck of a lot more. 

Let's say in my scenario Tua hit and I won big with it (No reason to see why not with Andy Reid... this is why you hire a QB guru to begin with) I'd have revolutionized the NFL and turned QB-churning into league dogma until QBs cut their price tags or the NFL had to figure out how to fix it.

You're right. You can miss in the draft, but that's why I say give myself as many shots as possible and free up as much cap space as possible. Create more opportunities for ME to work with instead of cap-strapping myself just to keep Mahomes on board. Mahomes is probably the only player, btw, who supersedes this argument. If this is Jared Goff? You're making that move 100/100 times. 

I'm telling you, though, even with Mahomes, it's not THAT crazy. It's probably the better move for your team long term. 

[RuskieTitan]

51 minutes ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

Someone's gotta be bold enough to buck the trend, trade a legitimate franchise QB, draft a new rookie or sign a cheap vet and moneyball their way to a title. Then we'll see things come back to earth a bit. But for now, in a league that holds passing offense tantamount to the heavens themselves, I'm probably dreaming.  

I mean... technically the Chiefs just did that with Mahomes, he's still on his rookie deal and they moved on from Alex Smith.

But when you see how many teams in the last two decades have won a Super Bowl doing that 'moneyball' method you describe... there's a reason people aren't being bold.

[Soko]

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

My thinking:

Those extra picks allow you to be extremely aggressive moving around the draft to get "your guys".  You don't have to pick at the end of the round given all the draft capital you have to move up.

I could see them missing out on Newton in 2011, so taking one of the other elite talents at another position like AJ Green, Von Miller, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones, JJ Watt, Tyron Smith, etc. in the 1st round.  You build up the roster with weapons and defense in that loaded 2011 draft, then you take your QB in 2012.  Luck, Russell Wilson, Ryan Tannehill, Kirk Cousins, Nick Foles... it doesn't take a lot of luck to land at least one of these franchise QBs.  I'd have faith Mike McCoy can get the most out of whoever they select.  And you continue to build out your roster with the remaining picks in those drafts.

Plus, they wouldn't be taking an enormous cap hit due to their QB so could be more aggressive in FA.

That 2011 Packers team was already very good around Rodgers.  I think it's very realistic to expect them to win a SB with 3 extra draft classes worth of picks, especially if they landed a QB like Luck or Wilson.

Imagine how many SBs any team could’ve won with this type of hindsight. You even omitted RGIII, what if they traded a bunch of picks for him instead of Washington doing it? There were plenty of busts in that time span too.

[DannyB]

11 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

The people saying multiple draft classes aren’t enough are kidding themselves IMO. Imagine if the Packers had traded Rodgers away in 2011 for 3 draft full classes. They’d likely have won at least one SB since then. 

Why would we have done that with Rodgers smack in the middle of a contract that he signed during his first season as a starter, and was SUPER reasonable money for several years after?

[DannyB]

 

11 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I mean... technically the Chiefs just did that with Mahomes, he's still on his rookie deal and they moved on from Alex Smith.

Moving on from an aging Alex Smith is WAY different than moving on from an elite QB in their prime.

12 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

But when you see how many teams in the last two decades have won a Super Bowl doing that 'moneyball' method you describe... there's a reason people aren't being bold

...Huh!? More teams have won that way than teams that have a QB on a taking-the-top-off-the-market megadeal

[SpacemanSpiff]

24 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I mean... technically the Chiefs just did that with Mahomes, he's still on his rookie deal and they moved on from Alex Smith.

But when you see how many teams in the last two decades have won a Super Bowl doing that 'moneyball' method you describe... there's a reason people aren't being bold.

Our own team came darn close this year. I'm just saying. 

[HTTRDynasty]

14 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Imagine how many SBs any team could’ve won with this type of hindsight. You even omitted RGIII, what if they traded a bunch of picks for him instead of Washington doing it? There were plenty of busts in that time span too.

I was highlighting the many QBs from that draft class who have gone on to have significant success.  It's not like there would be an extraordinary amount of luck involved in drafting one of those guys.

Re: hindsight... it's just as bad to assume most of those early round picks would have been busts as it is to assume most would have been solid contributors or better.

[RuskieTitan]

8 minutes ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

Our own team came darn close this year. I'm just saying. 

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades