Packerraymond Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Then you suck and get a good shot at a better QB in a year or two You mean the GM hired after you're terminated does?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: Then you suck and get a good shot at a better QB in a year or two And that's another thing, too. Don't tell me no GM is gonna do this. 10 years ago, the Cardinals go down with the Rosen ship and draft Bosa. We draft a crap QB, we still get a high second (minimum) in return and still have all the draft picks we got from trading our franchise QB before his second contract. So say we did this right before Aaron's contract extension instead of extending him. That gives us, at minimum, 2 first round picks from the Browns. One of them first overall. That's 25 million more dollars per year and THREE first round picks in this last draft. If you assume records stay the same, that's Mayfield, Gary, Savage plus Dexter Lawrence. But you can't assume records stay the same because we would have lost more games last year since in this scenario we don't have Rodgers. Let's assume the Browns do marginally better, we do marginally worse. That means you trade Gary for a higher pick (Williams, Bush, Oliver, White, Ferrell, Williams, Bosa). Browns pick is somewhere in the 20's, and we'll assume we still get Savage. Blah and blah and blah. In this league, draft capital and cap health are the two determining factors in Super Bowl wins. The Browns are screwing themselves by trading all their capital for the worst positions (Landry/Beckham) and they've got a lot of selfish players. That's the Browns though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Packerraymond said: You mean the GM hired after you're terminated does?? Get over this. It's stupid, and you're better than it. A GM doesn't make this move without consulting with the owner and agreeing it's a risk. Any GM who does this knows they have a 3 year window to follow through with the plan. It's a really bad argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: We’re the Packers, not the Redskins. I’ve always put a disclaimer that you’ve got to be a good franchise. This approach works for 20 teams in the NFL. If you’re the Bengals, Lions, Jaguars, Redskins, Dolphins, Jets, Bills, etc, once you get a franchise QB you hold on for dear life. That said, even the Redskins knew better than paying Cousins. They just screwed up so badly they couldn’t take advantage of it. Okay - but based on the draft - its exactly these teams - the mediocre to bottom feeding teams - that are gonna get the first shot at that "franchise QB" So - if they hit on the draft and hang on to the guy (as you suggest above.....) whats that do to the entire theory of getting rid of him for a haul of draft picks? Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Leader said: Okay - but based on the draft - its exactly these teams - the mediocre to bottom feeding teams - that are gonna get the first shot at that "franchise QB" So - if they hit on the draft and hang on to the guy (as you suggest above.....) whats that do to the entire theory of getting rid of him for a haul of draft picks? Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Rodgers was 24th overall. Brady was like 200th. The Chiefs got Mahomes by trading up. Wilson was a second round pick. Prescott a 3rd. Jackson 32nd. The best quarterbacks in this league don’t even require top 10 picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: Rodgers was 24th overall. Brady was like 200th. The Chiefs got Mahomes by trading up. Wilson was a second round pick. Prescott a 3rd. Jackson 32nd. The best quarterbacks in this league don’t even require top 10 picks. Right....and each of the above QB's - every one of them - either has been (or will be) kept by their current team. You need to find the QB trade (and draft/player return that worked out for the teams overall performance) to make this case. Otherwise, its all conjecture that runs contrary to common practice. The middle of the road talents. They're the guys that get moved - for middle of the road returns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 23 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Get over this. It's stupid, and you're better than it. A GM doesn't make this move without consulting with the owner and agreeing it's a risk. Any GM who does this knows they have a 3 year window to follow through with the plan. It's a really bad argument. Yes the owner says, um hell no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Yes the owner says, um hell no. The owner is someone who wants to win, not make money. We’re not talking about the Cardinals here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 I feel like all this discussion is missing the point that if this strategy does indeed work, then every NFL team will try and replicate. Teams will stop trading draft capital for Elite QBs that are now wanting Elite QB money. Maybe the strategy works in the beginning, but the league will adjust. This strategy is also making a lot of assumptions of what a QBs value would be. If it is so easy to find a QB in the later rounds, then why would any team trade such enormous draft capital for one? It would really take a perfect storm of Desperate GMs wanting to trade draft capital, insanely good draft classes, and a very patient owner for this all to work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 30 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: The owner is someone who wants to win, not make money. We’re not talking about the Cardinals here. I think that's a pretty big assumption. I imagine a franchise QB that allows an owner to both win and make money at the same time is an ideal situation. Plus an owner is not going to understand the hardcore principles of roster building and thus trading a franchise QB would seem extremely foolish to him/her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Packerraymond said: You mean the GM hired after you're terminated does?? Obviously the assumption here is that the owner is onboard with this strategy. I already stated the reasons an owner wouldn't be, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 14 hours ago, deathstar said: So we've got one wasted year where you draft a QB in the first round and your starting QB is pissed. We've got another wasted year where you have to trade the starting QB because he held out. Now you have a third wasted year where the QB you just took in the first sucks because that's what rookie QBs do. Boy this is sounding like a great strategy. His plan sounds EXACTLY like the one that has got the Browns being the NFL's worst franchise over the previous 20 years. Gather a bunch of first round picks and use a top 100 pick on a QB every year until it works. Between 2012 and 2018, they've had more drafts with multiple first round picks (5 out of 7 drafts) then they had with 1 or fewer. The 2019 draft was the first one since 2016 where they hadn't used a top 100 pick on a QB. Between 08 and 2016 they'd used as top 100 pick on a QB every other year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, SSG said: His plan sounds EXACTLY like the one that has got the Browns being the NFL's worst franchise over the previous 20 years. Gather a bunch of first round picks and use a top 100 pick on a QB every year until it works. Between 2012 and 2018, they've had more drafts with multiple first round picks (5 out of 7 drafts) then they had with 1 or fewer. The 2019 draft was the first one since 2016 where they hadn't used a top 100 pick on a QB. Between 08 and 2016 they'd used as top 100 pick on a QB every other year. The Browns are a crap franchise that has taken a 30+ year old QB in the first round, Manziel in the first round, that one WR who is out of the league... I’ve already stated this has to be a top half franchise. Not some joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 48 minutes ago, SSG said: His plan sounds EXACTLY like the one that has got the Browns being the NFL's worst franchise over the previous 20 years. Gather a bunch of first round picks and use a top 100 pick on a QB every year until it works. Between 2012 and 2018, they've had more drafts with multiple first round picks (5 out of 7 drafts) then they had with 1 or fewer. The 2019 draft was the first one since 2016 where they hadn't used a top 100 pick on a QB. Between 08 and 2016 they'd used as top 100 pick on a QB every other year. If you're bad at evaluating talent no strategy is going to work... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: If you're bad at evaluating talent no strategy is going to work... It's the draft though, it's always gonna be closer to 50/50. Pretty sure we had a front office that was infatuated with DeShone Kizer. It doesn't matter how many studs you draft on offense and defense if you miss at QB. We'd have set this franchise back 5 years if we'd moved Rodgers in 2017 for a package of picks that included him as the plan for the future at QB. Given how mediocre our recent draft history has been it's too risky of a move to trade Rodgers and just assume that QB is the easiest position in all of sports to fill. We can point at Nick Foles winning a Super Bowl but in doing so we're ignoring how stupid Jacksonville looks for sinking starting QB money into the guy right now at this moment. Edited December 5, 2019 by SSG 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.