Forge Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 13 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said: That was going from 6 to 2 in a weak 1st round though. I mean, Trent Rirchardson, Matt Kalil and Justin Blackmon rounded out the top 5 lol. It shouldn’t cost anywhere near that much to move from 2 to 1 in this draft. Never said that is what it would cost. I was using that as an example of a trade that happened post rookie wage scale. But going back to trade markets 20 years old, before a rookie wage scale was in place, likely isn't the best way to establish value. This would hurt if Washington is the one calling. The main reason washington could get away without giving up a future first is because they do have both of those early seconds this year. Both of those picks, or one this year, one next year + early third this year I could see it happen. I think you're definitely looking at a Darnold-esque return (NYJ gave up 37, 49 and a future second) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 39 minutes ago, squire12 said: What if Poles and Chicago prefer Daniels/ Maye over Williams. What would a compensation package look like for WAS to trade up for 1.2 to 1.1? WAS has picks 2.4 and 2.8. Is 1.2 + 2.4 or 2.8 + 2025 2nd or 3rd enough? Better question is, When (not if) Caleb Williams pulls a Eli Manning refusing to go to Chicago? Do they dare draft him and attempt a SD/Giants type trade, forcing their hand? Hoping it doesn't backfire? Caleb is from the DC area and I'm fairly certain Kliff getting the OC job in some form or fashion was because of the potential drafting of Williams. I don't see a Bears/Washington trade occurring in the slightest tbh. Another team leap frogging Washington to #1, absolutely. I think it's about to get ugly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 Just now, Forge said: Never said that is what it would cost. I was using that as an example of a trade that happened post rookie wage scale. But going back to trade markets 20 years old before a rookie wage scale was in place likely isn't the best way to establish value. This would hurt if Washington is the one calling. The main reason washington could get away without giving up a future first is because they do have both of those early seconds this year. Both of those picks, or one this year, one next year + early third this year I could see it happen. I think you're definitely looking at a Darnold-esque return (NYJ gave up 37, 49 and a future second) Yeah, I could see that. At that point though, they’re definitely keeping Fields, so if I’m Chicago, I would trade further back than #2 and presumably recoup multiple Day 2 picks in this draft and multiple future firsts (all of which I think trumps drafting MHJ at #2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 6 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said: I don't see a Bears/Washington trade occurring in the slightest tbh. Another team leap frogging Washington to #1, absolutely. This is the other reason that I think it has to hurt Washington. If they do like Daniels or Maye more than Williams, I think they could gamble with a drop down to #3 and talk trade with New England. If they are keeping Fields (which i don't believe), then it really opens the floodgates. 1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said: Yeah, I could see that. At that point though, they’re definitely keeping Fields, so if I’m Chicago, I would trade further back than #2 and presumably recoup multiple Day 2 picks in this draft and multiple future firsts (all of which I think trumps drafting MHJ at #2). I agree with this. I think it gets pretty wild if they just decide to move on with Fields Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 31 minutes ago, Forge said: Yet in 2004, it cost the giants a current third + future first + future 5th to ostensibly do 4 to 1. The biggest problems with using these trades though is that they came before the rookie cap. What was the cost for Washington to move up and get Rg3? 2 future 1sts to go from 6 to 2. But as you said before, it’s not really about the pick differential. In this instance, WAS has much more leverage than they did back then. At that time, it was pretty much a 2 QB draft — all due respect to Tannehill — and Luck was already spoken for. It was either pay the piper or miss the boat. Obviously, if WAS is just totally head over heels for Williams, the same is true. But the fallback plan at 2 is much more appealing than it was at 6 back in 2011. It makes it a bit harder to be extorted when there’s sure to be two other pretty highly regarded QB prospects on the board. Especially when it’s starting to feel like Williams might try to force CHI’s hand in this thing. Hard to predict exactly where the leverage ends up, as it will hinge to a large degree on whether NE or NYG or ATL is cuckoo for Caleb. That would certainly be the best case scenario for CHI. But gun to my head, I guess I’d say that 2 + 40 + a future 3rd would be my best stab at the cost to go from 2 to 1. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said: Better question is, When (not if) Caleb Williams pulls a Eli Manning refusing to go to Chicago? Edited February 5 by HTTRDynasty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 27 minutes ago, e16bball said: 2 future 1sts to go from 6 to 2. But as you said before, it’s not really about the pick differential. In this instance, WAS has much more leverage than they did back then. At that time, it was pretty much a 2 QB draft — all due respect to Tannehill — and Luck was already spoken for. It was either pay the piper or miss the boat. Obviously, if WAS is just totally head over heels for Williams, the same is true. But the fallback plan at 2 is much more appealing than it was at 6 back in 2011. It makes it a bit harder to be extorted when there’s sure to be two other pretty highly regarded QB prospects on the board. Especially when it’s starting to feel like Williams might try to force CHI’s hand in this thing. Hard to predict exactly where the leverage ends up, as it will hinge to a large degree on whether NE or NYG or ATL is cuckoo for Caleb. That would certainly be the best case scenario for CHI. But gun to my head, I guess I’d say that 2 + 40 + a future 3rd would be my best stab at the cost to go from 2 to 1. The leverage is the tricky part here for sure. I don't know who has it. Is Chicago selling the pick, or Washington buying it? I don't know. Definite swings in value depending on that very important variable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Eaglesfan Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Kliff is not the coach you want to develop Caleb imo. He needs someone that will force him to sit in the pocket and learn how to play that way. Getting the guy that had Murray running around like a chicken with his head cut off on half his snaps to coach a player that already refuses to play from the pocket is a bad mix. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamq Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 2 hours ago, Jameson_Neat said: That's just...what? I'm not sure Kliff has been away long enough to think he needs to change much at all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, goldfishwars said: I was actually hoping it was Chip Kelly, but he's not wrong. 🥃 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 3 hours ago, Nabbs4u said: I was actually hoping it was Chip Kelly, but he's not wrong. 🥃 I was so scared this was going to happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 If I am reading twitter correctly: Because we got Kliff, we're going to run the air raid while putting up massive rush numbers. We're going to draft Caleb Williams, due to his connection last year, and also draft Drake Maye due to Phil Longo ties. Because of those ties though, we're going to run it back with Sam Howell. This is all the while drafting and developing Jayden Daniels because he actually fits Kliff's mold best. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 20 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: If I am reading twitter correctly: Because we got Kliff, we're going to run the air raid while putting up massive rush numbers. We're going to draft Caleb Williams, due to his connection last year, and also draft Drake Maye due to Phil Longo ties. Because of those ties though, we're going to run it back with Sam Howell. This is all the while drafting and developing Jayden Daniels because he actually fits Kliff's mold best. Don't forget giving up 3 firsts, Daron Payne, Terry McLaurin and somehow Trent Williams for Caleb 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 8 hours ago, adamq said: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.