Jump to content

Should we trade up to the Lions 7th pick so we’re in position to take a top QB?


Should we trade up w/ the Lions to be able to draft a QB?  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we trade up w/ the Lions to be able to draft a QB?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5


Recommended Posts

I still think Trey Lance will be on the board when we pick. I’ll stand by this until it doesn’t happen. I don’t think the NFL will see him the same way draftniks do. I think he’ll be our pick and we’ll end up keeping Alex Smith for another year. Just a feeling. And no, there’s no way 4 QBs go in the top 10. That very rarely happens. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lavar703 said:

I still think Trey Lance will be on the board when we pick. I’ll stand by this until it doesn’t happen. I don’t think the NFL will see him the same way draftniks do. I think he’ll be our pick and we’ll end up keeping Alex Smith for another year. Just a feeling. And no, there’s no way 4 QBs go in the top 10. That very rarely happens. 

I hope you’re right.

I’ve been reading some very positive accounts about Lance recently, things that make me feel pretty bullish on his intangibles and ability to handle the mental aspect of becoming a star NFL QB. Still not thrilled with the accuracy. But I guess Allen and Lamar have kinda shown that that doesn’t have to be a death knell for a QB prospect. 

If what these folks have been saying about his intelligence and approach is accurate, I can’t see him getting past SF and NE. Both of them could easily put in a year with their incumbent QBs holding onto the reins and then turn the keys over to Lance. If we could just get him to fall to Denver at 9, I think that’s our shot. No way Dallas or NYG will play ball with us at 10/11, and they might even facilitate another team grabbing Lance if they know we’re looking to make a move for him. Depending on what’s left on the board for Denver, maybe they’d consider taking our 1st + 2nd. We could kick in a future pick or a young reserve (Tim Settle or...look away @Thaiphoon...JFM, maybe). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time we figure what it will cost to move from #19 to #7...

We might as well trade for Watson.

Let's see...

#7 pick is 1500 pts.

#19 pick is 875 pts

Next year's 1st would have 2nd Rd value in a trade up for this draft.

So we're looking at 438 pts for next year's 1st.

875 + 438=1313

187 pts needed to hit 1500. That's the pt range of this year's 3rd round pick.

So at MINIMUM...it's gonna cost #19 & next year's 1st Rd pick & one of our 3rd rounders that we have this year.

So for a little bit more? We could have Watson. We know he's good...

We don't know if Mond, Wilson, Fields or any of these guys are worth a damn.

I voted NO already 

But I ask we should ADD a "Hell No".

If you trade up, it has to be Lawrence, otherwise...go all in on Watson for trade, or for another good vet if you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, e16bball said:

I hope you’re right.

I’ve been reading some very positive accounts about Lance recently, things that make me feel pretty bullish on his intangibles and ability to handle the mental aspect of becoming a star NFL QB. Still not thrilled with the accuracy. But I guess Allen and Lamar have kinda shown that that doesn’t have to be a death knell for a QB prospect. 

If what these folks have been saying about his intelligence and approach is accurate, I can’t see him getting past SF and NE. Both of them could easily put in a year with their incumbent QBs holding onto the reins and then turn the keys over to Lance. If we could just get him to fall to Denver at 9, I think that’s our shot. No way Dallas or NYG will play ball with us at 10/11, and they might even facilitate another team grabbing Lance if they know we’re looking to make a move for him. Depending on what’s left on the board for Denver, maybe they’d consider taking our 1st + 2nd. We could kick in a future pick or a young reserve (Tim Settle or...look away @Thaiphoon...JFM, maybe). 

See I’m for it because I just love this guy. I know giving up assets for a one year starter is a huge risk but you just don’t force him keep Alex who’s smart to work with Lance who is a smart guy and I just think you get a Uber talent for a lot less money and less picks then a comparable talent who’s already in the league. Yes the vet would be a lot less risk but there’s nothing to say they translate here any better. I love Lance and I know moving up won’t be popular but if he is your guy and they identify him as that even if it’s Fields or Wilson the name isn’t what matters go get them. If he’s Your guy you believe you make it happen. I know it’s a risk but the risk is a lot less as far as future assets you get to keep and I just think if I’m going to take the risk it’s the guy that I get 5 cheaper years to groom in my system with less health issues then any of the vets that were or are still on the market that actually fit to the scheme

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

By the time we figure what it will cost to move from #19 to #7...

We might as well trade for Watson.

Let's see...

#7 pick is 1500 pts.

#19 pick is 875 pts

Next year's 1st would have 2nd Rd value in a trade up for this draft.

So we're looking at 438 pts for next year's 1st.

875 + 438=1313

187 pts needed to hit 1500. That's the pt range of this year's 3rd round pick.

So at MINIMUM...it's gonna cost #19 & next year's 1st Rd pick & one of our 3rd rounders that we have this year.

So for a little bit more? We could have Watson. We know he's good...

We don't know if Mond, Wilson, Fields or any of these guys are worth a damn.

I voted NO already 

But I ask we should ADD a "Hell No".

If you trade up, it has to be Lawrence, otherwise...go all in on Watson for trade, or for another good vet if you can.

If we moved in to the top 10 to get Lance it would most likely cost 19, one of our thirds, next years first and probably a fourth. It is in no way comparative to what we’d spend on Watson which would be franchise draining. We simply do not have the roster to support a Watson trade. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 4:27 PM, turtle28 said:

Yeah, could be but I think it’s unlikely that happens. That’s a lot of QBs got go in the top 6 picks. And, we all know this draft is stacked in other positions too. Even if we were sitting at 7 and missed on the top 4 QBs - highly unlikely- we’d still be sitting there at 7 and be able to take one of Parsons, Devonta Smith, Ja’marr Chase, Surtain, Farley or Pitts.

Any of those guys will come in day one and have a major impact on our D or O.

I think there is a very good chance that by the time 7 is on the clock... Lawrence, Wilson, and Field will be gone. Lance maybe if another team trades up, which is very possible. But I think realistically that Lance, Jones, and Trask will all be sitting there at #7 but I can see all six being gone in the first round.

This QB carousel is wild though and so much will dictate the draft in a few weeks. But WFT would be wise to have a package to showcase

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, e16bball said:

I hope you’re right.

I’ve been reading some very positive accounts about Lance recently, things that make me feel pretty bullish on his intangibles and ability to handle the mental aspect of becoming a star NFL QB. Still not thrilled with the accuracy. But I guess Allen and Lamar have kinda shown that that doesn’t have to be a death knell for a QB prospect. 

If what these folks have been saying about his intelligence and approach is accurate, I can’t see him getting past SF and NE. Both of them could easily put in a year with their incumbent QBs holding onto the reins and then turn the keys over to Lance. If we could just get him to fall to Denver at 9, I think that’s our shot. No way Dallas or NYG will play ball with us at 10/11, and they might even facilitate another team grabbing Lance if they know we’re looking to make a move for him. Depending on what’s left on the board for Denver, maybe they’d consider taking our 1st + 2nd. We could kick in a future pick or a young reserve (Tim Settle or...look away @Thaiphoon...JFM, maybe). 

I just asked Webby if I could give you a warning for this. 

He said no.

Thai is a sad panda.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lavar703 said:

If we moved in to the top 10 to get Lance it would most likely cost 19, one of our thirds, next years first and probably a fourth. It is in no way comparative to what we’d spend on Watson which would be franchise draining. We simply do not have the roster to support a Watson trade. 

Know what would've been better to get Lance and not have to give up a ton of draft capital? Having the 10th pick.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

Know what would've been better to get Lance and not have to give up a ton of draft capital? Having the 10th pick.

Nope

I'd rather have the #19th & knowing were a QB & a #2 WR away from representing the NFC in the SB next year....

Than sitting there with the 10th pick & debating with everyone here whether we should trade up for Fields or take Lance at #10.... Or possibly Wilson...

Then, when the draft comes...

We end up taking Trey Lance with WR Devonte Smith still miraculously still on the Board @#10.....

Then a yr or 2 go bye....

Trey Lance is still struggling with the playbook...IE D. Haskins

Devonte Smith is breaking NFL records...

And we start losing our Defense stars(Chase Young, Sweat, etc) when their contract is up, because their tired of losing...

Rinse... repeat

We need to make a move for a viable QB star, who can get us to the playoffs...NOW!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

Nope

I'd rather have the #19th & knowing were a QB & a #2 WR away from representing the NFC in the SB next year....

Than sitting there with the 10th pick & debating with everyone here whether we should trade up for Fields or take Lance at #10.... Or possibly Wilson...

Then, when the draft comes...

We end up taking Trey Lance with WR Devonte Smith still miraculously still on the Board @#10.....

Then a yr or 2 go bye....

Trey Lance is still struggling with the playbook...IE D. Haskins

Devonte Smith is breaking NFL records...

And we start losing our Defense stars(Chase Young, Sweat, etc) when their contract is up, because their tired of losing...

Rinse... repeat

We need to make a move for a viable QB star, who can get us to the playoffs...NOW!

 

 But being a QB away is the main reason why we remain a blow average  football team...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

Nope

I'd rather have the #19th & knowing were a QB & a #2 WR away from representing the NFC in the SB next year....

Than sitting there with the 10th pick & debating with everyone here whether we should trade up for Fields or take Lance at #10.... Or possibly Wilson...

Then, when the draft comes...

We end up taking Trey Lance with WR Devonte Smith still miraculously still on the Board @#10.....

Then a yr or 2 go bye....

Trey Lance is still struggling with the playbook...IE D. Haskins

Devonte Smith is breaking NFL records...

And we start losing our Defense stars(Chase Young, Sweat, etc) when their contract is up, because their tired of losing...

Rinse... repeat

We need to make a move for a viable QB star, who can get us to the playoffs...NOW!

 

And completely guts the team of young talent into the near future. 

Trading up for RG3 was a colossal mistake. I said so at the time. And got crushed by a ton of people for saying it. IMHO, it was a mistake to trade that much draft capital into the future for a QB that may or may not pan out. I knew we'd be one and done in the payoffs and be in this EXACT scenario we find ourselves in now. Which is why I said this wasn't the year to be king of the dunghill. You hopefully barely miss the playoffs, finished with the #10 pick and then are able to trade up if you need to and only cost you a 2nd rounder (or both 3rds) to do it. Going from #19 to inside the top 10 is insane.

And trading what we'd need to to get Watson (or even what we must've offered for Stafford) is too much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

And completely guts the team of young talent into the near future. 

Trading up for RG3 was a colossal mistake. I said so at the time. And got crushed by a ton of people for saying it. IMHO, it was a mistake to trade that much draft capital into the future for a QB that may or may not pan out. I knew we'd be one and done in the payoffs and be in this EXACT scenario we find ourselves in now. Which is why I said this wasn't the year to be king of the dunghill. You hopefully barely miss the playoffs, finished with the #10 pick and then are able to trade up if you need to and only cost you a 2nd rounder (or both 3rds) to do it. Going from #19 to inside the top 10 is insane.

And trading what we'd need to to get Watson (or even what we must've offered for Stafford) is too much. 

I’ve always wondered on the flip side would we have been any better if we hadn’t traded up for RG3 in 2012?

And I come to the conclusion that if the Shanahan’s had drafted Tanehill @ 6. And we had kept our 2012 second, 2013 first and 2014 first that we probably wouldn’t have been much better in 2013 & 14. 
 

Tanehill wasn’t a prize as a young QB, neither was Cousins until 2015. I’m not really sure if the outcome of the W/L column would’ve been different if we hadn’t trade up for RG3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2021 at 4:16 PM, turtle28 said:

I’ve always wondered on the flip side would we have been any better if we hadn’t traded up for RG3 in 2012?

And I come to the conclusion that if the Shanahan’s had drafted Tanehill @ 6. And we had kept our 2012 second, 2013 first and 2014 first that we probably wouldn’t have been much better in 2013 & 14. 
 

Tanehill wasn’t a prize as a young QB, neither was Cousins until 2015. I’m not really sure if the outcome of the W/L column would’ve been different if we hadn’t trade up for RG3.

Think longer term. You're talking Tannehill plus 2 starters (which your 1sts should be) and a potential starter (which your 2nd should be) at other positions. 2013 was a lower first round pick so possibly a guy who comes on in 2013 or probably 2014. But 2014 we had the #2 pick. Now, I'm assuming we don't improve the W/L record (in your scenario) even though I think we would've been better. But in your scenario we still end up with the #22 pick in the 2013 draft and the #2 pick in the 2014 draft. Know who we could've gotten?

2013 - DeAndre Hopkins, Zack Ertz, Travis Kelce, Travis Frederick, Desmond Trufant, Xavier Rhodes, and a few others

2014 - Aaron Donald, Khalil Mack, Jake Matthews, Mike Evans (yes, him), Zack Martin, Davonte Adams, Allen Robinson, Joel Bitonio, Jason Verrett, Dee Ford, and a bunch of other players.

Each of the above are just in their 2nd deal now. Pick one from each of those drafts. Think having Ertz/Kelce and Evans (just going offense) might make our offense legit right now and in the preceding years? Or go OL, think having Frederick and Martin might've helped us have a run game? Or defense, imagine having Trufant/Rhodes and Donald

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

Think longer term. You're talking Tannehill plus 2 starters (which your 1sts should be) and a potential starter (which your 2nd should be) at other positions. 2013 was a lower first round pick so possibly a guy who comes on in 2013 or probably 2014. But 2014 we had the #2 pick. Now, I'm assuming we don't improve the W/L record (in your scenario) even though I think we would've been better. But in your scenario we still end up with the #22 pick in the 2013 draft and the #2 pick in the 2014 draft. Know who we could've gotten?

2013 - DeAndre Hopkins, Zack Ertz, Travis Kelce, Travis Frederick, Desmond Trufant, Xavier Rhodes, and a few others

2014 - Aaron Donald, Khalil Mack, Jake Matthews, Mike Evans (yes, him), Zack Martin, Davonte Adams, Allen Robinson, Joel Bitonio, Jason Verrett, Dee Ford, and a bunch of other players.

Each of the above are just in their 2nd deal now. Pick one from each of those drafts. Think having Ertz/Kelce and Evans (just going offense) might make our offense legit right now and in the preceding years? Or go OL, think having Frederick and Martin might've helped us have a run game? Or defense, imagine having Trufant/Rhodes and Donald

Yeah if those guys work out for us. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/1/2021 at 11:52 AM, turtle28 said:

So 3 QBs go in the top 6 in your opinion? That’s very very rare like historic. I don’t know too many drafts - if any - where 3 QBs went in the top 6.

So historic that it happened last year? Or that it went 1, 3, 7 (and 10) in 2018?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...