• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

How Low Would You Go?

What's the lowest you'd pick in Round 1?

  • #3

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #4

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #5

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • #6

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • #7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #11

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #12

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #13

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No way I'm trading out of #2, there is nothing they can offer me

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • I'd go lower, let me give you the details in the comments

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Neophyte

Ring of Fame
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
10,392
Reaction score
1,400
Points
543
Location
Dallas
I understand that smart money is on Adam Peters staying at #2 and drafting either Maye or Daniels (assuming the Bears take Williams at #1) and right now I'm hard-pressed to disagree.

However, we are still 5 and a half weeks away from the draft, free agency has slowed down, we have beaten the "which-QB-do-you-want-more" horse to death, and we have to have something to talk about. Am I right?

So here is my question - if you were willing to trade the #2 pick, what's the lowest you are willing to go in this draft?

I ask this because after the Vikings picked up a second 1st rounder there is a lot of talk about them using that to try to jump up to #2 to get Maye. Is #11 too low for you if you got 3 1st round picks in the deal (#11 and #23 this year + 2025 1st)? Or is there a spot between #2 and #11 that you consider the lowest you'd go? Maybe take the Vikes deal and then try to move back into the Top 10? Or maybe you'd be willing to drop even lower if the compensation merits that consideration?

So tell me, you are in Adam Peters' chair and phone rings. Maybe it's the Vikes. Or the Broncos. Or the Raiders. What do you do and how low is too low?
 
I voted no way but there is always a caveat. If Minny were to offer 11 and 23 this year and a 1st next year, I don’t consider that 3 1’s, I consider that 2 1’s because we are giving them one.

Now it someone wants to trade a real 3 1‘s…I might reconsider. I prefer to roll the dice with the #2 this year than push the need down the road.
 
Six picks in the top 100.

A solid GM finds some immediate starters and contributors on day 2 of the draft. We have a chance, provided we hit on those picks to add several immediate starters to this roster on day 2.

Given that, I would be hard pressed to move anywhere outside of a spot that lands them a QB that they REALLY like. If that person is Maye or Daniels, I am moving no lower than 3.
 
If we hadn't traded Howell I'd be 50/50 on a trade down because I'd be happy with Alt/Fashanu and giving Howell another chance. With him gone, I think the furthest I would drop is six if I though there was a good choice that McCarthy or one of the other top guys would be there. Right now, we have no starting level QB. If we wound up with Mariota as the starter it would be very similar to relying on Fitzmagic or McNabb or any other of has beens that would be so unlikely to get it done. More, I hear that this is a strong year for QBs and next year is much weaker. Now, that could change. Daniels and McCarthy would never have made the strong QB list before this season started, but I don't know if I'd take that risk and I would hope even during a rebuild year we wouldn't wind up with such a high draft pick next year.
 
Don't overthink it. A bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush. Stick and pick your guy.
 
We need to come out of this draft ex-quarterback with one of the best players at one the 4 or 5 highest point value positions.

Drafting at #6 we are going to get a OT or WR or other that is rated among the best.

Going down any further say to #11 or lower dilutes the impact of the draft IMO.

We are one of the few team that doesn’t have an acknowledged ‘best of’ player on the roster.

It’s great to have a solid overall team but you need ‘X’ amount of stars to elevate your franchise.

We can’t pass on that just to get volume.
 
I said it in another thread too. I would go as low as 5, assuming they have as much confidence in QB4 as they do in QB2. The Chargers aren’t trading up for a QB, so if they make that move, you know that it’s going to be at most 3 QBs taken before you pick again. That would assume the Cardinals trade out from 4 if the Charger leap frog them to 2. But you have to have confidence in whoever QB4 is going to be. Because if you hate one of those 4, and the first 3 you like are taken, you are left holding the bag.

Outside the top 5, there are too many variables that come into play, and teams like Minnesota, Las Vegas, and even Denver come into play if you drop too low. The guy you think you may get, will get scooped up by someone else.

Really though, I agree that if they are going to take a QB, just stay at 2 and pick the guy you like. The trade down is more of a hope that someone wants to give up a lot to move up a few spots.
 
I voted no way but there is always a caveat. If Minny were to offer 11 and 23 this year and a 1st next year, I don’t consider that 3 1’s, I consider that 2 1’s because we are giving them one.

Now it someone wants to trade a real 3 1‘s…I might reconsider. I prefer to roll the dice with the #2 this year than push the need down the road.
That is an inaccurate statement though, you can't say "they are giving us 2 1s for our 1." They didn't just magically give us 2 1s for free. They gave us 3 1s for our 1. I see you mean, we netted 2 1s for our 1, but even that is inaccurate, because we didn't get an equal 1 for our 1.

So, you really need to have all of the value on both sides: 3 1s for our 1. We didn't "get 3 1s" just like we didn't "get 2 1s." We traded our 1 for 3 other 1s (because the positioning matters). Personally, I haven't done enough research on these QBs to know enough. I think if they get a smart enough guy to learn under Kingsbury, I think it could be good; almost whoever it is, as long as he has the smarts (and teachability). I like what I have read about Kingsbury, and I hope it's true; that is a lot of what that statement is based on. So I'd be good with the trade-down, as long as they think they can get a decent smart QB to pair with improvements all over the place elsewhere.

*I said, I'd go lower. I mean, if we're saying it could be an anything at all paired with going lower, I'll take 2025 Round 1 and 2, and 2026 Round 1 and Round 2, along with their 2024 Round 1. I am just saying, there's always a trade out there that would make me drop low. We have to set some kind of limit, if it's the limit of reason, I mean I have seen so many unreasonable trades (including the RG3 trade), things that I never thought a team would do. So, I guess if my supposed trades are too much, let's say 2024 Round 1 at any pick below 13, but combined with 2025 Round 1 and 2, and 2026 Round 1. That "may" be enough. If you add the 2026 Round 2, I'm in. If you add the 2027 Round 1, meaning you're talking 2025 Round 1 and 2, 2026 Round 1, and 2027 Round 1, I am also in. I just think you are going to have dynastic potential when you combine Peters' prowess with that kind of draft power.
 
Last edited:
That is an inaccurate statement though, you can't say "they are giving us 2 1s for our 1." They didn't just magically give us 2 1s for free. They gave us 3 1s for our 1. I see you mean, we netted 2 1s for our 1, but even that is inaccurate, because we didn't get an equal 1 for our 1.
Not to pick nits but I think you knew what I meant. 🙂

I commonly see an offer of 3 1st rounders with 1 being a trade of a 1st already owned as ‘x team is offering 3 1st’. It’s actually an offer of 2 1’s and a swap of 1’s with that 1 being of lesser value. That is all I was trying to say.
 
The chances of getting a consensus impact player at 23 is questionable. It’s a mid to low #1 pick, only 13 spots above our pick at #36.

We should be getting another 1st and a younger roster player.

If Minnesota had say the pick at #6 and the one at #11, that would be a different story.
 
By the way, just to add fuel to the idea that Harris may like the idea of trading down and NOT getting a QB: he has shown in past places (76ers famously) and in his words here (he has said that he wants to be patient and build a long-term winner) that he is willing to wait and eschew mediocrity. That could very well look like trading down or going for a plethora of picks that keep us rolling in the future as opposed to using the #2 this year.

Do I truly believe that will happen? No.
 
First off … Harris? Who cares what Harris thinks? He’s completely unqualified to have an opinion.

Good lord, please let us be done with having owners exerting influence on or outright usurping the football staff or even team-building strategies. Sign the checks and keep out of the rest of it.

Secondly, I think being in a position to theoretically grab a franchise QB who could be a lynchpin to success for a decade plus is a relatively unique opportunity that they are unlikely to pass up in the interest of more picks and being patient. We might not be in this position again for years and years.

Don’t get me wrong, more picks is a great thing and maybe they calculate that a guy a few picks later is someone they can get and like more than the guy everyone thinks they want. If that’s the case, go for it. But when it comes to not accepting mediocrity, for me what the past 20 years has made clear is that without a really good QB you are going nowhere. It’s got to be the overwhelming priority.
 
I voted "no way." The literal only way that would change would be if Peters and Co honestly have a coin-flip grade on QBs 2 and 3, assuming QB1 is Williams and he's off the board. And I don't think that's the case, which is why I voted "no way."

However, if they honestly don't care at all between Maye, Daniels and McCarthy (I don't believe the McCarthy smoke, but it's smoke, so I'll add him as an option), then I would be ok with them dropping 1 spot to #3 if the Patriots desperately wanted one or the other. I just personally think they're going to have a preference.

Otherwise, I'm sticking at #2, politely answering calls and telling people to shove it, and picking the QB who's the best prospect on the board at #2.

5 first round picks are meaningless if you don't have a QB.

There's no guarantee the QB you pick will work out. However, you pick the one who you think has the highest likelihood of working out as soon as you can. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
 
I don't believe Harris can keep out of it completely, Boone. When I say that, I don't mean that he is personally incapable of staying out of it but rather the situation requires some level of input from him.

Consider, Peters is very aware that Harris is the new owner of a team that has struggled to be relevant for most of the last 3 decades. He has to be aware of the flagging ticket sales and the "I'll believe its different when I see its different" attitude that much of the older fan base has. That is not to mention the "m'eh" attitude that most of the under-30 fan base has because they have never known anything but on-field futility and off-field scandal. Peters is also aware that while Harris is the managing partner he is still one voice among many in the ownership group that lacks a clear majority investor.

All that combines to apply a certain level of pressure on Peters. Intentional or not. Real or not.

Harris is the only one who can alleviate that pressure. He is the only one who can provide direction to Peters and Quinn that will allow for a patient rebuild. He has to be the one to say "If you think a QB is the way to go, do it. If you think a trade down is the way to go, do that." You are right in that he is unqualified to go choosing players or deciding if we stick at #2 or trade out. But at the end of the day, he is the CEO of the company, and while I've never worked for a CEO who made decisions for the VP of Engineering, every CEO I've ever worked for set the corporate vision that the VP of Engineering built their organization around.

This had to be a huge part of the interview process for both Peters and Quinn. If it had been me interviewing (on either side of the coin), I'd have been talking about this in January. However, I feel Harris will likely need to continue to reinforce his broad vision because of the win-now inertia that seems to engulf most NFL franchises this time every year.
 
What you’re describing is him staying out of it. He hired Peters as the defacto best GM candidate available. Of course Peters feels pressure. That’s a normal state for any new hire anywhere. Harris shouldn’t need to tell him anything. He’s said publicly that he hired football people to do football things. Now all Harris has to do is get out of the way and stay out of the way. I really don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

And of course Harris has not only a vested interest in the team making good decisions and being successful, but a responsibility to deliver it. His role in that was hiring great staff. He’s presumably done that. What we do in a draft (or any other directly football-related matter) is not in his purview. He needs to stay out of it.
 
And to be honest Neophyte and SkinsNumberOne, I probably wouldn’t deny my POV is skewed permanently by watching Dan Snyder eff this franchise up for 30 years.

No - I don’t believe Harris has much in common with Dan Snyder. But you know what they say about the road to hell and what it’s paved with…

I almost guarantee you, at some point even some of Snyder’s meddling had some good intentions driving it.

A CEO has a lot of responsibility but I will die on the hill that none of them have any business anywhere near the football side of things.
 
What Keim has said is Harris wants his team to present him all the options so he knows that they are well prepared. If they miss one, he asks for them to make sure they have it covered.

I think that's what a good owner should do.

That doesn't mean he is going to make any decisions, but he knows the process, gets the information, and is informed about the decision.

Which I think is kindof ideal state.
 
I don’t have a real problem with that - except we again have to recognize, when an owner is in the middle of a process, he influences the process (whether that’s the intent or not). And Harris is not immune to the possibility of exerting undue influence.
 
Joe Gibbs when interviewed discussed having to go to JKC on personnel decisions and explain the rationale behind it to his satisfaction.

The decision to sign Wilber Marshall and give up high draft choices as compensation was discussed over a number of meetings and took a week to get JKC’s approval.

That’s really not meddling by owner.

It’s sound decision making.
 
Reporting up is one thing, being in the room is quite different. Maybe Harris will do exactly as he said he would and what I want. And if he doesn’t it may still work out. I’m just saying that intent and impact are two separate things.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top