Chuck Wagon

How are they going to fill their holes?

It's entirely possibly they flip 23 & 31 for Beckham, figuring if they were going to have to pay Cooks, may as well just give up #31 and pay Beckham instead. I'm still not sure it's good for us, it gives the Giants 3 1st round picks, potentially devaluing what we can offer and letting them take a QB at #2 and still load up with young players for a run with Eli.

But it's cool, we'll get a really good linebacker at 12.

Gronk / 23 / 31 / 2019 1st / 43 / 63 for OBJ / #2

I agree, but I worry about Beane trying to play too much poker and BB just saying ""eff it", here's 4 1st round picks and some seconds, give us #2."

I'm not a "I quit on the team guy". That being said, if Beane sits on these picks and watches the Jets and Pats move in to take QBs, I quit.

I think it's absolutely agent driven. Lamar has no one out there pounding the drum for him. Rosen fired an agency and there's been rumors they've been the ones trashing him.

Looking back, no, there are no guarantees there's anyone good after the big 4 (or even in the big 4). Going back, arguably the best QB drafted after the 1st round: 15 - Brett Hundley / Trevor Siemian 14 - Carr / Garoppolo 13 - Mike Glennon 12 - Wilson / Cousins / Foles 11 - Dalton / Kaepernick / Tyrod 10 - Colt McCoy / Joe Webb '09 - Curtis Painter '08 - Chad Henne '07 - Trent Edwards / Drew Stanton So no, there's not necessarily great players waiting to be picked in the later rounds. Most years, you are doing well to find a legitimate backup QB after the 1st round, but more often than not you simply light the pick on fire.

Yep. If there's anywhere close to equal value in a deal to go from 12 to 7 with Tampa, do it now, it's one step closer.

You know, we could get one of "the four" and still draft a guy later.

We clearly have a good relationship with the Browns too (some likely bleed over from Dorsey with the Chiefs). There was a story that Hue gave Beane insight into McCarron.

I see both side of the coin. The thing I worry about, and I think it's what Beane worries about, is with a gradual climb you chip away at the value bit by bit. Say we can offer the Giants a 150% premium on the pick currently. But with the small climb we chip off 10% here and there, suddenly we can only offer the Giants 120%. Is it better to just offer the full 150% to get where you want to go, or risk chipping away bit by bit in hopes of a more attractive offer? Ultimately I don't buy the Giants - Darnold story. I think there's certainly a chance if Allen goes #1 then the ability to pick Darnold is worth more, but until they turn the card in with a player (and don't pull an Eli - Rivers) I'm convinced they are going to sit and wait to extract maximum value.

I've always taken Ballard's comments to be much more "we weren't looking to trade out of the top 10 when a trade was there that would give us multiple day 2 picks while remaining in the top 6" and much less "we don't want to trade out of the top 10, period". 6 is a great spot, they can likely have one of Barkley or Chubb, or sell the last QB. Assuming there's a QB still on the board at 6 it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Colts trade again. Say you have a dollar. Two different people are willing to give you $1.25 for that dollar. But you know you can sell person A's $1.25 for an additional $1.25, leaving you $1.50. That's what happened with the Colts - Jets deal imo.

Between GMs I think there's a healthy mixture of honesty and gamesmanship. These guys are busy and aren't going to waste each other's time, but by the same token they don't show all their cards. The infamous Buddy Nix phone call gave a little bit of insight, basically guys having a small talk conversation while they talk around different players. I think these guys are pretty good at separating work and personal relationships when it comes down to a hard negotiation. I've seen articles about how the phone calls are almost dead in sports, almost everything gets worked out in text. Teams know what other teams need. If the Bills are calling someone they have a good idea it's for a QB. If the Broncos actually actively engage in conversation, it's a pretty clear sign they are leaning away from QB. But relationships are very important, there were plenty of stories about Sachi Brown's regime offensively lowballing players in FA and teams in trades.

I would give them one of the picks in the 53 - 65 range and probably want pick 102 or 144 back. The Bucs are willing to move from 7 to 12 because they know they are going to get the same caliber player at 12 as 7 and they are a team that strictly drafts BPA. I wouldn't give any sort of premium for that pick. #7 / #144 for #12 / #56 is about dead equal on the value chart.

Gronk + #31, but I was being facetious. Everyone takes things way too literal.

Exactly. The offseason played out such that it seemed we saw there were more QBs who thought they should be a starter than teams offering an actual chance at a starting job. We simply waited until the last guy standing without a chair needed somewhere to sit down and took our offer, well below what other QBs received. That's a far cry from the intent it seems some are assigning to McCarron.

When he was signed, the contract he was given and the stories about the signing sure make it seem AJ was simply the right price, not a guy identified as being the right guy. The thing the AJ and/or Peterman people fail to understand is no one is saying we need to cut McCarron or Peterman the instant we draft a QB. Just that neither have shown anything near enough to eliminate pursing another option.

Schefter, Rapoport, Glazer, Mort..... Those guys are legit. Most everyone else is trying to make a name for themselves by posting a bunch of general rumors then claiming they had the scoop.

Also, you mean this guy: https://espnmediazone.com/us/bios/greg-mcelroy/ He isn't exactly working to cure cancer....

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/outlier

The Eagles had some key pieces in place for sure, Peters / Lane Johnson / Ertz / Cox / Graham. But they added a ton of talent last year, Jeffery / Darby / McLeod / Jernigan / Ajayi. Just like the Rams, having a cheap young QB and a clean cap sheet can allow you to bring in a lot of talent very quickly.

I don't care about what happened 30 years ago. Look at the Browns in 2016. 14 draft picks. They got one guy who made the Pro Bowl at linebacker. That's about it. If you trust the FO to hit on multiple draft picks, you should trust them to trade up for a QB who'll hit.

I think it's a combo of what people think about these QBs and the other players available to draft. There's no "blue chip" WR available, no franchise LT, no lock down corner.

You are right. Some of those teams legitimately stunk and drafted a player with their own pick. But they all have the same thing in common. Having a young cheap QB in place offers you a dramatic advantage when it comes to building a deep talented roster around them. By drafting a QB who hits, you open up a 5 year window of having an insane luxury at the post expensive position in the sport. There are no guarantees in any draft pick. That "stud position player" we might draft at 12 might be complete garbage. We could whiff on one or both 2nd round picks. But I'm not being any more intellectually dishonest than the "Too many holes to trade" club who would lead one to believe we just wouldn't put 11 players on the field if we don't have multiple 2nd round picks.