Jump to content

Are teams trading too many assets to get a QB?


Recommended Posts

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Josh Allen was a high risk and high reward payout, J Allen success was much more the exception to the rule than "the rule".  And the Bills brought him up correctly, kept same system, some HC,  OC,

No, the modern game is structured in a way that all the talent in the world is meaningless without a QB. 

It’s worth it only if you still have the finances to have real weapons, to include an Oline so that the QB you gave up huge assets for can actually help your team, and don’t forget you need a defense

The Josh Allen was a high risk and high reward payout, J Allen success was much more the exception to the rule than "the rule".  And the Bills brought him up correctly, kept same system, some HC,  OC, got actual NFL receivers around him.  Had J Allen gone to a dysfunctional team like the Adam Gase Jets, i would think J Allen would be viewed as a failure right now.

 

And no three #1 is NOT too much to give up to a proven TOP TIER  franchise QB.  D Watson pre scandal was easily worth 3 #1s imo.

Edited by RoyBatty is alive
  • Like (+1) 6
  • Agree 5
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree that teams are giving up too much.

 

If you're right, and get your guy, all is well.  But if San Fran whiffs on this pick.. they're set back 3-4 years, and probably more from the earliest point when they could be a legit contender.

  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

The Josh Allen was a high risk and high reward payout, J Allen success was much more the exception to the rule than "the rule".  And the Bills brought him up correctly, kept same system, some HC,  OC, got actual NFL receivers around him.  Had J Allen gone to a dysfunctional team like the Adam Gase Jets, i would think J Allen would be viewed as a failure right now.

 

And no three #1 is NOT too much to give up to a proven TOP TIER  franchise QB.  D Watson pre scandal was easily worth 3 #1s imo.

 

Unfortunately, these guys are NOT "PROVEN ANYTHING" at this point. And let's not forget that the 49ers currently have a QB on a reasonable contract though he is somewhat injury prone perhaps. Sure it's one thing to acquire a PROVEN QB like a Watson but that is not what we are talking about here. These are unproven rookies.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to what the saints gave up for Ricky Williams(and yes I know you said qb) but no. Talent is still around after the first round. 

Edited by The Wiz
Link to post
Share on other sites

The meatheads who run NFL football teams are *slowly* learning that the modern game of NFL football is entirely about the QB.

 

Either you have one who can win it all, or you don't matter.  It's just a question of when your season is going to end.

 

As is almost always the case, look at the Final Four from last year, and look at the QB names involved.  No surprises here.

 

Because of all of this, you can't give up too much for a QB IMO.

 

In fact, 10 or 20 years down the road, you are going to see QBs and a small handful of skill position offensive points scorers getting *ALL* the money, with everyone else on the field getting league minimum.

 

Just watch.

 

 

Edited by Nextmanup
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jobot said:

100% agree that teams are giving up too much.

 

If you're right, and get your guy, all is well.  But if San Fran whiffs on this pick.. they're set back 3-4 years, and probably more from the earliest point when they could be a legit contender.

I mean even if you don't trade away those 1st round picks taking a top 10 pick QB and missing on the pick will set you back 3-4 years, unless you don't really give them time to develop.

Edited by Warcodered
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean even if you don't trade away those 1st round picks taking a top 10 pick QB and missing on the pick will set you back 3-4 years, unless you don't really give them to me to develop.

 

What I love about the NFL is there's no shortcut to being a super bowl contending team. (Maybe Brady is the only exception) But you have to win in the draft, free agency, player development, coaching, and scheme.. Sure you can hit on a few of these and make some noise in the playoffs, but the super bowl winners hit on all of these.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you hit on the QB, everyone is a genius, from the team owner on down. Your team owner is savvy (and even attended some practices and really liked ______), your GM is a mastermind, your head coach is a top guy in the business, your coordinators are always candidates for head coaching jobs, your skill players are making plays and getting paid, your fans love the team and players, you're selling merchandise, your team is on primetime a few times a year, and you're going to at least be in the conversation as a contender for the next 15, maybe even 20 years.

 

Nobody will care about the picks you traded to get the guy in the above scenario. 

 

 

 

 

 

Just now, Jobot said:

 

What I love about the NFL is there's no shortcut to being a super bowl contending team. (Maybe Brady is the only exception) But you have to win in the draft, free agency, player development, coaching, and scheme.. Sure you can hit on a few of these and make some noise in the playoffs, but the super bowl winners hit on all of these.

 

and Tampa Bay has been a really stacked team for a while. Their GM has done an amazing job of drafting and signing free agents for several years, so as much as I'm not a Brady fan it was nice to see that get rewarded.

 

But Tampa is the perfect example... loaded roster that kept going 8-8 (ish) until a real QB showed up. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s worth it only if you still have the finances to have real weapons, to include an Oline so that the QB you gave up huge assets for can actually help your team, and don’t forget you need a defense too.   A QB alone can win you some games, but the rest of the structure has to be in place or you are just spinning your wheels. 

Edited by Don Otreply
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For a proven stud QB like Russell Wilson or Watson (pre-legal issues) you almost can't give up too many picks. To trade up in the draft is a gamble but one type of gamble that is needed as you have to take a chance on finding a cheap QB who can anchor a franchise for 15+ years and be super valuable the first 5 years. As for trading for mid-level or even upper mid-level QB's like Matthew Stafford teams are absolutely overpaying. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

The meatheads who run NFL football teams are *slowly* learning that the modern game of NFL football is entirely about the QB.

 

Either you have one who can win it all, or you don't matter.  It's just a question of when your season is going to end.

 

As is almost always the case, look at the Final Four from last year, and look at the QB names involved.  No surprises here.

 

Because of all of this, you can't give up too much for a QB IMO.

 

In fact, 10 or 20 years down the road, you are going to see QBs and a small handful of skill position offensive points scorers getting *ALL* the money, with everyone else on the field getting league minimum.

 

Just watch.

 

 

I think the OP's point is that, yes an actual franchise QB is worth giving up a ton of picks for, but identifying said franchise QB coming out of college is not so easy, so it's not necessarily a good idea to trade, say, three number ones for the right to draft a college QB, because those making the pick are wrong far more often than they are right.  I can't think of a single team that's given up multiple first round picks to move up in the draft and then hit on a franchise QB with that pick.  The Texans, Chiefs and Bills all gave up far less to get their guys.  But maybe I'm forgetting someone.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

Let's not forget originally Beane had planned on giving the Broncos pick #12, pick #22 and a 2nd Round pick to move up to pick #5 to land Josh and a third round pick from the Broncos. Yet the Broncos chose to not take the deal when Bradley Chubb ended up being available and took him instead. I guess we could say that lucked out in ended up giving up less. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course QB is important.  But getting the right QB is what matters.  And you need the pieces around the QB to be successful, including the right coaching.  The Bills have done a great job coaching up Josh Allen.  Putting a scheme together that plays to his strengths, and surrounding him w talented WR's and a solid O line.  But with all those good pieces in play, we still fell short of the Super Bowl because our defense was not good enuf front to back.  (Yes Levi Wallace for all you Levi fans is not a solid starting NFL CB.  He is not the worst, but his lack of athleticism is a problem)  So yes QB is very important.  But you sure as hell better have a defense that can bring it also.  

 

But there is far too much hype about a lot of QB's that come out every year.  Lets see what they can do when there are defenders on the field covering their receivers and trying to knock their heads off.  (Which unfortunately is not allowed any longer)  For every Josh Allen there are far more Josh Rosens.  And scouting is definitely not an exact science.  What were the Dolphins thinking drafting Tua in the top 5?  He has no arm.  Lets call him the lefty Chad Pennington.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you are confident in the QB. Most important player on the field, but if you find yourself in an EJ Manuel or Geno Atkins type of draft you’re better off staying put and drafting BPA. I see one QB worth three 1sts in this draft and that’s Trevor Lawrence. Would give up multiple picks for Trey Lance as well, but not three 1sts. Maybe swap 1sts and throw a 2nd in there with a mid round pick the next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jobot said:

 

What I love about the NFL is there's no shortcut to being a super bowl contending team. (Maybe Brady is the only exception) But you have to win in the draft, free agency, player development, coaching, and scheme.. Sure you can hit on a few of these and make some noise in the playoffs, but the super bowl winners hit on all of these.

 

Have to agree.  Look at the jets of the last 3 years.  They missed on coaching, spent a ton on free agency - now they're right back where they started

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

Let's not forget originally Beane had planned on giving the Broncos pick #12, pick #22 and a 2nd Round pick to move up to pick #5 to land Josh and a third round pick from the Broncos. Yet the Broncos chose to not take the deal when Bradley Chubb ended up being available and took him instead. I guess we could say that lucked out in ended up giving up less. 

And even luckier that Elway was too dumb to draft Josh Allen instead of a defensive lineman, at a time when the Broncos really had no decent QB.

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...