Want to draft a LT, trade with the Seahawks

[Looking For Number Four]

Trading down isnt an option for us if we think there is a franchise QB available. If there is, we take him. If there isnt, no one is going to give up what you said.

Shanny wants a franchise QB. He doesnt take 2nd round QBs and even after he had one take him to the playoffs, he was quick to replace Plummer with Cutler even as the record stood at 7-4. Shanny likes top QBs.

What are you talking about? Plummer nor Cutler were top 5 picks....

I was referring to SEA and SF as well as numerous other teams giving up the family nest egg to get our pick and draft Bradford. If we are so unsure about him I think we have to take the king's ransom over Okung, there are a lot of great OTs in this draft that can be had for less. We could fill out on entire roster with young depth for the price team's would pay for our pick.

[hitmandm]

I get the gut feeling he's going to be back.

All I keep hearing from the experts is how Shanny wants to "groom a young QB". My issue with that statement is who in the draft does he covet?

Most scouts will tell you this isn't the most "QB friendly draft", as far as rock star type QB's go. Unless, my opinion is way off I don't see "that" QB who stands out in the draft. People point at Bradford, but to me he just doesn't fit that Shanahan mold but that certainly just my opinion.

Well your opinion may be right. If there is no franchise QB available, then who knows what happens. I hope we draft an OLT like Okung if available. Or trade down, although the only time teams trade up in the top 5 is to get a franchise QB. I would even take Suh if both QBs and Okung are gone.

[jflow78]

No one knows what Shanahan thinks. He may not believe there IS a "franchise QB" in this draft. He might be a BPA guy. Allen might run the draft. He may want to trade down and believes the QB he wants will be there later (Cutler was 11th pick). He might believe, since JC will start next year, that he can take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and have him ready to start in a year.

IMO, if you take a QB at 4, that guy should be ready to play (you know any other position would), not a project, and from everything I've read, it sounds like the QB he picks will sit for the year.

[mistertim]

Trading down isnt an option for us if we think there is a franchise QB available. If there is, we take him. If there isnt, no one is going to give up what you said.

Shanny wants a franchise QB. He doesnt take 2nd round QBs and even after he had one take him to the playoffs, he was quick to replace Plummer with Cutler even as the record stood at 7-4. Shanny likes top QBs.

It all hinges on whether or not he and Allen actually think Clausen or Bradford are good enough to take at #4 overall. I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if they traded back if at all possible and stockpiled picks or took Bradford if he were there later in the 1st.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Your scenario means the Skins dont get a franchise QB or Franchise LT.

Neither does your scenario. There are no franchise QBs available in this draft and right now it doesn't look like any OTs will carry a top 10 grade either.

[hitmandm]

What are you talking about? Plummer nor Cutler were top 5 picks....

I was referring to SEA and SF as well as numerous other teams giving up the family nest egg to get our pick and draft Bradford. If we are so unsure about him I think we have to take the king's ransom over Okung, there are a lot of great OTs in this draft that can be had for less. We could fill out on entire roster with young depth for the price team's would pay for our pick.

I know. Here is the key for you. Shanny wants a franchise QB to cultivate. Consider that a fact, like the sun is going to rise tomorrow kind of fact. Exiting coaches said he will bring a young guy in. Shanny only won a SB with a a #1 overall pick QB. His only second round QB, Plummer (which he didnt draft) had a 7-4 record and Shanny replaced him with a rookie QB (Cutler) taken #11 overall. Now does this sound like a coach that will trade down if a franchise first round QB is available?

And if there isnt a franchise QB available, do you think all those teams will give up all those picks to move up Probably not....unless they are snookered.

If there is a franchise guy at 4, we will not trade down. We will take him. That is the coach that we have.

[Oldskool]

Oh I think they want Locker. I think thats why they traded for an extra first this year to get him. He is a U of Washington guy. Its like the Seattle version of Tebow playing for Jacksonville, but Locker is projected to be much much better of a QB.

I think its a 95% chance that we take QB if there is a true franchise QB at 4. The other 5% chance is if we get a great- I mean great- offer to trade down. No way do we take a OL with the 4th pick if we believe theres a franchise QB there.

We don't know who the decision maker is in Seattle yet as they haven't gone and hired the GM/President so that is complete speculation.

Also its not anywhere near a forgone conclusion that we are taking a QB this year, especially considering the state of our OL.

All in all moving back and getting more picks, especially only 2 spots back and getting another 2nd is genius.

[hitmandm]

Neither does your scenario. There are no franchise QBs available in this draft and right now it doesn't look like any OTs will carry a top 10 grade either.

All the ESPN and NFL draft gurus disagree with you. McShay, Kiper, Mayock. Plus all the other second tier draftniks as well.

[isle-hawg]

You make good points but QB is the most important position. LT is the second. If you want to rebuild, you address these as soon as you can. Its easier to find the other psotions later in the draft.

I agree, but my thinking is if we trade with the Seahags we should be trading down with them not up and giving away what I think may very well be a top 5 draft pick next year. This way we could still pick up a LT and QB this year if that is what the FO wants to do (swapping #1 picks) us picking up an extra pick or two as opposed to us once again mortgaging the future for a quick fix.

[The Rook]

Unless both Bradford and Clausen are gone by four, if the coaches think either of them are franchise QB material, we will draft a QB at 4. Its the right thing to do.

However, our OL is in shambles and Chris Samuel's unfortunate injury just sucks. Its clear we do need a franchise LT. So I propose this trade:

Washington get Seahawks #6 overall

Seahawks get Washington's Second rounder in 2010 and First next year.

With Seattle's pick, we can go a long way to getting a LT. It wont be Okung, but it will be Davis or Campbell.

Seattle has a first rounder later on, and they have a QB. The player they want is Locker, but he wont come out until next year. They can be motivated to make this trade so that they have a better chance to get Locker next year- he would be perfect for them- and they pick up a high second rounder this year.

Washington gets a franchise LT early and a QB to groom to take over from JC.

Its a win/win

What? Really what? We get to keep the #4 pick?

Seattle moves out of the 6th position for the 37th this year and our 1st next year? Are they that stupid? Let's do it ... but do you really see this happening? You do know that a pick next year is considered a round below the present year? So we get the #6 for the value of two 2nd round picks.

I'm all for it, but I don't think it is realistic.

:helmet:The Rook

[hitmandm]

We don't know who the decision maker is in Seattle yet as they haven't gone and hired the GM/President so that is complete speculation.

Also its not anywhere near a forgone conclusion that we are taking a QB this year, especially considering the state of our OL.

All in all moving back and getting more picks, especially only 2 spots back and getting another 2nd is genius.

Oldskool, there was an article on the WP that said he was. They said Shanny is going to get a young QB. Anyways-The only genius is getting a franchise QB. No one wins without one. Seattle understands this and that would be the only reason they would move up 2 spots and hand over a second round pick. And if one is there Shanny will take him, not trade him.

[hitmandm]

I agree, but my thinking is if we trade with the Seahags we should be trading down with them not up and giving away what I think may very well be a top 5 draft pick next year. This way we could still pick up a LT and QB this year if that is what the FO wants to do (swapping #1 picks) us picking up an extra pick or two as opposed to us once again mortgaging the future for a quick fix.

Ok...Im interested. How so?

[Jeff in D.C.]

Washington get Seahawks #6 overall

Seahawks get Washington's Second rounder in 2010 and First next year.

With Seattle's pick, we can go a long way to getting a LT. It wont be Okung, but it will be Davis or Campbell.

Seattle has a first rounder later on, and they have a QB. The player they want is Locker, but he wont come out until next year. They can be motivated to make this trade so that they have a better chance to get Locker next year- he would be perfect for them- and they pick up a high second rounder this year.

Washington gets a franchise LT early and a QB to groom to take over from JC.

Its a win/win

There's one big problem with that trade idea and a couple of possible other ones.

First, there's no guarantee that both Bradford & Okung are going to be available at 4 & 6. I suppose they could wait until the draft itself to see how things unfold, and take Okung at #4 and Bradford at #6 (I doubt the Chiefs would take a QB at #5). But I could see how it would be possible to come away with both. The Rams are the key in this. If they take Clausen with the 1st pick, then the Lions will probably take Suh and the Bucs take a defensive player. That scenario means that Okung is on the board at 4. If the Rams take Suh however, the Lions probably take Okung.

Secondly, unless the rookie salary structure is changed, it would be a huge hit to pay the #4 & #6 picks in the draft. Now the positives are that there probably won't be a salary cap next year, Danny isn't shy with the checkbook, and Bruce is a master working the salary cap.

The third issue is the big one, which is losing a player out of the deal. As of right now, we have four 1st & 2nd round picks the next two drafts. In your trade scenario, we would only have three. With all of the need areas there are on this team, we need more picks, not fewer.

What I would propose is this...... trade down from the 4th pick (not too far back) and grab a late 1st/early 2nd from whichever team we trade with. Take Bradford if he's there and a LT with our next pick. If Bradford is gone before our first pick, we can still grab a franchise LT and we would have picked up more picks in the process, and we can still take Lefevour AND a RT or RB in the 2nd round. That goes a long way towards completely rebuilding the offense.

[hitmandm]

What? Really what? We get to keep the #4 pick?

Seattle moves out of the 6th position for the 37th this year and our 1st next year? Are they that stupid? Let's do it ... but do you really see this happening? You do know that a pick next year is considered a round below the present year? So we get the #6 for the value of two 2nd round picks.

I'm all for it, but I don't think it is realistic.

:helmet:The Rook

Perhaps. Logical rebuttal. Ive heard that but I have also heard differently. I dont think they value first rounders that way...especially from teams that may have top 10 picks. I heard, as I originally posted, that they value the pick in the midround of the first round. Plus they may want Locker.

The Jets gave up 3 stiffs, the 17th pick and the 52nd pick to move up to 5 to draft a franchise QB. Seattle will not be sitting on a franchise QB this year and the draft is deeper than last year, so our 37 will be like a first rounder most years. Plus, there is very little chance we will be drafting outside 12 next year. I think it is not as poor a trade as you say.

[hitmandm]

There's one big problem with that trade idea and a couple of possible other ones.

First, there's no guarantee that both Bradford & Okung are going to be available at 4 & 6. I suppose they could wait until the draft itself to see how things unfold, and take Okung at #4 and Bradford at #6 (I doubt the Chiefs would take a QB at #5). But I could see how it would be possible to come away with both. The Rams are the key in this. If they take Clausen with the 1st pick, then the Lions will probably take Suh and the Bucs take a defensive player. That scenario means that Okung is on the board at 4. If the Rams take Suh however, the Lions probably take Okung.

Secondly, unless the rookie salary structure is changed, it would be a huge hit to pay the #4 & #6 picks in the draft. Now the positives are that there probably won't be a salary cap next year, Danny isn't shy with the checkbook, and Bruce is a master working the salary cap.

The third issue is the big one, which is losing a player out of the deal. As of right now, we have four 1st & 2nd round picks the next two drafts. In your trade scenario, we would only have three. With all of the need areas there are on this team, we need more picks, not fewer.

What I would propose is this...... trade down from the 4th pick (not too far back) and grab a late 1st/early 2nd from whichever team we trade with. Take Bradford if he's there and a LT with our next pick. If Bradford is gone before our first pick, we can still grab a franchise LT and we would have picked up more picks in the process, and we can still take Lefevour AND a RT or RB in the 2nd round. That goes a long way towards completely rebuilding the offense.

1. You are correct. Okung and Bradford wont be there at 4 and 6. Thats why I said take Davis or Campbell.

2. There wont be a salcap next year. It wont be impactful to an owner to shell out 25 mil guarenteed to an OLT when he just shelled out 35 mil for the coach and probably 40 million to the QB he took at 4.

3. Positional importance plays a role. OLT is the second most important position behind QB. Becuase of their longevity, teams have no problem trading up for them....and I wouldnt either.

Unless Suh falls, I dont see anyone trading up into the top 5 except for a QB. It doesnt happen. Shanny doesnt like 2nd round QBs. Know your coach.

[hitmandm]

It all hinges on whether or not he and Allen actually think Clausen or Bradford are good enough to take at #4 overall. I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if they traded back if at all possible and stockpiled picks or took Bradford if he were there later in the 1st.

You are right. If there isnt a franchise guy available, I dont expect for them to reach for one. But the catch is if a QB is worth a top 10 pick, they will take him 4. Just how it works with QBs. If there isnt a top 10 QB, everyone will know it and no one will trade up to us- especially ina deep draft.

[Madison Redskin]

I heard that future first rounders are valued at the middle of the first round.

A first next year is typically worth a second this year. Given how many problems we have, I don't think it would be wise to give up next year's first rounder. Sadly enough, that could be a top 5 pick.

[MumboSauce]

Keep draft picks yeesh. Thanks to Jason Taylor and Jarmon we are already missing picks this year.

[MTree]

I know. Here is the key for you. Shanny wants a franchise QB to cultivate. Consider that a fact, like the sun is going to rise tomorrow kind of fact. Exiting coaches said he will bring a young guy in. Shanny only won a SB with a a #1 overall pick QB. His only second round QB, Plummer (which he didnt draft) had a 7-4 record and Shanny replaced him with a rookie QB (Cutler) taken #11 overall. Now does this sound like a coach that will trade down if a franchise first round QB is available?

And if there isnt a franchise QB available, do you think all those teams will give up all those picks to move up Probably not....unless they are snookered.

If there is a franchise guy at 4, we will not trade down. We will take him. That is the coach that we have.

Two things

1. Just because Shanahan benched Plummer doesn't mean he has some sort of vendetta against all QB's not taken in the first round of the draft. (Although I do agree that Shanahan wants a young quarterback to develop)

2. If Shanahan decides that he doesn' think Bradford or Clausen are franchise quarterbacks doesn't mean that every other team will share that opinion.

I'm not sure how I feel about trading away next years 1st rounder but I will say that 2 years ago the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan and then moved back up into the first round to grab Sam Baker and that move seemed to work out pretty well for them

[mistertim]

You are right. If there isnt a franchise guy available, I dont expect for them to reach for one. But the catch is if a QB is worth a top 10 pick, they will take him 4. Just how it works with QBs. If there isnt a top 10 QB, everyone will know it and no one will trade up to us- especially ina deep draft.

Well, as MTree said, not all teams will rate QBs the same. It also depends on need. Some teams are simply stuck and will almost have to reach. For example if the Rams take Clausen at #1 I think that is a reach. But what choice do they have? They have nobody (literally, if Bulger hangs it up). Hasselbeck is pretty much done for so Seattle might need to reach for a QB. While some people on here seem to think it, we don't need a new QB right away. Would some in the organization want one? Probably. But Campbell is not a bad QB. Average, but IMO he did ok with the surrounding cast he had. That is why I don't see us reaching at 4, even if we think the guy might be worth a top 10 pick. I could see them taking Bradford if we traded back and he fell to us, but if they think he isn't worth a 4th overall pick, I don't see them picking him. Campbell is a perfectly serviceable guy for now so if need be we can wait until either later rounds or next year and look for a QB if Shanny and Allen aren't particularly enamored of the guys on the board at 4.

[Jeff in D.C.]

1. You are correct. Okung and Bradford wont be there at 4 and 6. Thats why I said take Davis or Campbell.

2. There wont be a salcap next year. It wont be impactful to an owner to shell out 25 mil guarenteed to an OLT when he just shelled out 35 mil for the coach and probably 40 million to the QB he took at 4.

3. Positional importance plays a role. OLT is the second most important position behind QB. Becuase of their longevity, teams have no problem trading up for them....and I wouldnt either.

Unless Suh falls, I dont see anyone trading up into the top 5 except for a QB. It doesnt happen. Shanny doesnt like 2nd round QBs. Know your coach.

Good points, but:

1. From what I've heard Davis & Campbell aren't top-10 picks, and therefore shouldn't be drafted as such. Either one can be had in the late 1st, maybe even early 2nd round.

2. Fair points on the salary cap, and even if it comes back in 2011 I'm sure Bruce could find a way to manage it.

3. In theory I like the idea of getting a franchise QB and franchise LT in one fell swoop, but the problem is that giving up the picks you propose in order to get in that position.

[Oldskool]

Oldskool, there was an article on the WP that said he was. They said Shanny is going to get a young QB. Anyways-The only genius is getting a franchise QB. No one wins without one. Seattle understands this and that would be the only reason they would move up 2 spots and hand over a second round pick. And if one is there Shanny will take him, not trade him.

WP saying something and it being true are not always the same thing. Shanny may get his QB but he will fix the OL first before spending a high draft pick on one. As stated before, Shanahan's offense is almost 50% run, and you can't do that without an OL.

The assertion that no one wins without a franchise QB is blatantly false and been disproved multiple times. You certainly can't win without having starting caliber OL on your roster.

Also, Shanahan drafted 6 QB's in the 14 years he was with the Broncos, but only one of them was a 1st rounder.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_query.cgi?pos=QB&round_1=1&round_2=30&tm=den&year_1=1995&year_2=2008&conference=any&type=

Going back to the original topic, this team would be better off both in the long run and the short run by doing something to recoup the 3rd round pick that they do not have this year. Trading back with one of the teams with multiple 1st round selections is the best bet.

[Tenjikuronin]

Locker actually isn't that big of a deal to the Seahawks. I don't see them placing all their bets on him.

[hieverybody]

I'd rather trade our first rounder for their 2010 second and first next year. I hate giving up future picks.

[hitmandm]

Good points, but:

1. From what I've heard Davis & Campbell aren't top-10 picks, and therefore shouldn't be drafted as such. Either one can be had in the late 1st, maybe even early 2nd round.

2. Fair points on the salary cap, and even if it comes back in 2011 I'm sure Bruce could find a way to manage it.

3. In theory I like the idea of getting a franchise QB and franchise LT in one fell swoop, but the problem is that giving up the picks you propose in order to get in that position.

1.Well you may be right about Davis and Campbell, although Im stuck to amateur mocks that having them go top 10 and say differently than you. If that is your assumption, my proposal lacks merit.

2. ok

3. Yes...the trade would have to be a first rounder next year and a secund rounder this year. A tough bullet to bite and I can understand why you are hesitant. I think Shanny gets aggressive and locks down the main pieces, QB, OLT and OL rather quick. He wants to turn this around quick as he can, and starting to groom a franchise QB in yr 1 will make that happen. I also see him trading upo for a LT. My proposal may have been an aggressive hard to reach aggreement,but Unless your point #1 happens, the Seahawks may not be the best trade partners. That works as theyre are a few teams between 9-13 would would be much more inclinded to drop places. Get the best LT. You dont always get a chance of them.