2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[Rufus T Firefly]

Just now, KDawg said:

Wouldn’t dwell on it. We’re going to somehow win two games. We all know it.

At least one for sure. 

 

With our luck, I kind of envision a crazy scenario where everyone wins games and we lose out, setting everything up perfectly... and then we lose three tiebreakers by fractions of percents and pick 4th anyway. 

 

Probably a Taylor Heinicke Hail Mary on the last play of the season and Atlanta's win adds just enough to our strength of schedule to drop us 3 spots form the number 1 overall pick. 

 

No, I'm not snakebitten by this franchise or anything, 

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

If we end up top 3 and QB becomes a key part of the conversation, it sets up a couple of months of conversation I will personally find hysterical on this board. 

 

We will have a bunch of people who are claiming that Howell is too good for us to consider drafting a top of the draft QB, while simultaneously telling us no team would give more than a 2nd round pick for Howell if we deal him. 

 

Eventually I am sure I will become tired of it, but for a while it will amuse me greatly. 

Lol, I was just thinking about that, thinking, I like Howell, but I'm highly skeptical of us getting a 2nd for him, he would need to perform well down the stretch. I think he's a guy who'd get you a day 3 pick at this point, and it's very relevant to say: only 2 cheap years on the deal, if he hits, that's nice, but not HUGE. You get 5 years on the cheap with a 1st round hit like Stroud. 

 

I am very close to who you'd be making fun of needless to say because I do like Howell, but not so miuch that I wouldn't draft a QB if we could get Maye or Williams, Daniels, I'm less confident in, I'd need to know a ton more. Apparently, this problem is gonna persist, supposedly a gazillion high profile QB's are entering the transfer portal this winter too, so guys like Daniels and Williams may become the rule rather than the exception. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

If we end up top 3 and QB becomes a key part of the conversation, it sets up a couple of months of conversation I will personally find hysterical on this board. 

 

We will have a bunch of people who are claiming that Howell is too good for us to consider drafting a top of the draft QB, while simultaneously telling us no team would give more than a 2nd round pick for Howell if we deal him. 

 

Eventually I am sure I will become tired of it, but for a while it will amuse me greatly. 

Yeah, it's going to be fascinating.  

 

I really don't care one way or the other personally. I guess if I had a leaning, I'd prefer to figure out how to solve the other 20 problems on the team before bringing in a high first round QB and then trying to develop them while building the rest of the roster.

 

And for good reason, this fan base has become insanely impatient. We've been patient for close to 30 years, basically since 1992.  

 

But the fan base is going to turn on a young guy and pass judgement that he's not the guy after 3 games. Hell, I think it was Bosewell who wrote Chase Young was a bust after like 6-7 games of his rookie season.  (Also, the VAST majority of the media covering this team are insanely low football IQ people, and that has now seeped into the fanbase.  Idiots like Doc, BMitch, that fool Russell, Grant, Danny, the Junkies, even JP at times, somewhat Sheehan, have lowered the overall IQ of this fan base by at least 80% because of their stupidity. 

 

So, for me, I'd like to have the team built up a bit more before we bring a guy in and then he struggles as most rookies do, and the fan base immediately turns on him.  It isn't good for business.  

[RWJ]

1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Something like this: Trade Howell to Bucs for a 2nd. Trade Allen to Bills (or whoever, Idk who needs a DT) for a 2nd.

 

I keep Howell and do this with just 3 rounds.  

 

 

[The Consigliere]

I would not assume a 2nd. I think we might be able to get a 4th for Howell, maybe if we're lucky a late 3rd, I see no chance whatsoever we get a 2nd. It's kind of pointless to argue that to me. It would be one thing if he was taken in the late 1st, had that 5th year option and was drafted in 23, reasonably cheap deal for a draft pick, solid first season, 3 years left on the deal with an option. He's none of that. He's a guy who can only be had cheaply in '24 and '25, comes with very low draft capital, has had uneven and erratic season, I think the perception of him leaguewide is that he's a good backup, and a low end starter. Even If I'm wrong about that guess of team evals, I'm not "that" wrong. On top of all that you also have a market where Kyler, Justin Fields will likely be available for trade, maybe Mac Jones too, and then a first round with at least 3 QB's. It's a buyers market, not a sellers. My objective with Howell is to try to sell him next year if we draft a QB, otherwise, there's no reason to trade him because the comp is gonna be crap, and not worth the cost of losing his upside, and value as a cheap backup. We already can see that with literally NOTHING working right, and horrible coaching, he can pretty easily produce starter #'s in that 17th-23rd area. That's more value for the owner, less for the team trying to acquire him. Reminds me of Dynasty valuations when a player is right in that sweet spot where:

I Will sell him for a mid to late 1st

You will only buy him for a mid to late 2nd

His production says that he's not worth a late 1st, but he is worth a very high 2nd.

 

In Dynasty you get situations like that all the time, where a player's upside is more valuable to you, than the potential downside to a guy trying to buy him off you cheap.

 

At the trade deadline this year, and this offseason a good example of this kind of player is Treylon Burks. A bust through 2 seasons, but a guy who produced a couple of good games in the rare moments when he wasn't hurt. I'd love to acquire him , but considering his trade value right now (mid to late 2nd in 12 team 1QB leagues), is anyone really gonna sell him for that little? Thus far nearly all trades I can search up on the DLF trade finder show him in big packages, no straight up for picks because his owners are deeply mired in the sunk cost fallacy (something I'm afflicted with this all the time too), they simply don't want to deal a guy they used a top 5 pick on in 2022 for a 17th-24th pick in 2024. 

 

Thats kinda the situation with Howell to me. We didn't invest a ton in him, but his value to us as a backup, potential solid starter is so much more valuable than an early day 3 pick where the hit rates on QB's is what, sub 10%? Maybe even sub 5%? Feels like we struck gold, but to other teams, more than likely, he's someone they'll send us that dynasty mid 2nd rookie pick for, maybe late 2nd, but no chance are they sending a top 64 pick for him. 

 

So for me anyway, I keep him, period, and only sell him if we have 2 QB's next year, and both are studs. Then we can sell him. Otherwise play that contract out, and do not let it dictate what action you take with the 1st (though admittedly I remain convinced we'll pick 1.05-1.07, and QB will not even be an option). 

[Dark Acre]

6 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Minimum high 2nd and a 2025 3rd is my asking price for Howell. Whoever wants him will pay that because they likely have nothing else they're comfortable with.

That's fair for a QB who would be top half with a functional OL.

[The Consigliere]

54 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, it's going to be fascinating.  

 

I really don't care one way or the other personally. I guess if I had a leaning, I'd prefer to figure out how to solve the other 20 problems on the team before bringing in a high first round QB and then trying to develop them while building the rest of the roster.

 

And for good reason, this fan base has become insanely impatient. We've been patient for close to 30 years, basically since 1992.  

 

But the fan base is going to turn on a young guy and pass judgement that he's not the guy after 3 games. Hell, I think it was Bosewell who wrote Chase Young was a bust after like 6-7 games of his rookie season.  (Also, the VAST majority of the media covering this team are insanely low football IQ people, and that has now seeped into the fanbase.  Idiots like Doc, BMitch, that fool Russell, Grant, Danny, the Junkies, even JP at times, somewhat Sheehan, have lowered the overall IQ of this fan base by at least 80% because of their stupidity. 

 

So, for me, I'd like to have the team built up a bit more before we bring a guy in and then he struggles as most rookies do, and the fan base immediately turns on him.  It isn't good for business.  

 

My issue with this strategy is that that approach tends to play you entirely out of the bluechip zone, and you end up like the Titans, the Browns, the Broncos, the Rams, the Saints, the Vikes, the Bucs, etc where you're consistently 6-11 to 9-8, too good for a blue chip pick and a stud QB, too bad to be relevant. Honestly that's what we've been most of the time the past 30 years when we weren't making the playoffs in '99, '05, '07, '12, '15, '20: most of the years inbetween those years we were simply too good of a bad team to be able to peel off the blue chippers when there happened to be elite QB's like Peyton manning in '98, McNabb in '99, Brees and Vick in '01, '04 we could have, but traded for Boonell instead, even when we rock bottomed during that Stafford, Ryan, Cam, Luck era, we were still just a little too good. Some years we could have solved if we were forward thinking, Gibbs could have solved it in '04 with Rivers or Ben Roth, Ron wouldn't be getting fired if he'd taken Tua or Herbert instead of Chase nearly four years ago etc.

 

The problem with fixing the other stuff and waiting is that you don't bottom out as a roster that often historically, and you rarely do it in line with a good or great QB class. We've bottomed out in '94, '04, '11, '13, '19, and now '23. Of those years, '94 and and '13 had terrible QB classes, and in '04 we addressed it via a stupid trade. In '11 we drafted a bust (and later a hit), in '20 we were too stupid to draft Tua or Herbert, preferring to see what we had in Haskins, and now four years later, we're in position potentially to fix it again. Will we? I tend to doubt it, we'll play our way out of the pick with a stupid win or two, I'm fairly certain of that, but even if we don't, I'm skeptical they go QB. And that may be the right decision. I don't know what Howell is, but its obvious already he has more than Haskins did years ago. But what happens if we don't? The '25 class aint the '24, '26 is too far away to know, and Howell unfortunately can probably play us out of good slotting. Time will tell, but I think you're plan will require us to be able to find one of those QB's that slips out of the 1-3 zone in a class, maybe we do. The Texans, Chiefs, and Ravens have managed it this past decade, probably some more I'm forgetting, but with our track record of drafting and developing franchise QB's (Sammy Baugh and that's it), do you really want to bet on us making that happen? I guess we're due. 

7 minutes ago, Dark Acre said:

That's fair for a QB who would be top half with a functional OL.

There's no chance at all that that happens. Btw, if I'm wrong, and he can fetch that this offseason, feel free to correct me, but I don't see it AT ALL. A QB class with 3-4 first round prospects, 3+ QB's teams are willing to trade like Kyler, Fields, Mac Jones, maybe more. It's a buyers market (maybe Kyler can't be moved, sounds like its cost prohibitive until '25, but they may draft a replacement, in which case they are moving him), and Howell has only 2 years left on his deal and this board is the highest place around in terms of his talent, i dont think for a second the rest of the league see's him like we do.

Which is fine. I think we should keep him knowing that, as I believe I do. 

[Dark Acre]

I'm fine with keeping Howell but if we hit #2 and someone is willing to pay a 2nd for him, then sure.  Otherwise, almost everyone else goes and we rebuild the team from the ground up.  Terry needs to have a chance to make the playoffs other than by sneaking in with a losing record.

[Rufus T Firefly]

23 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I would not assume a 2nd. I think we might be able to get a 4th for Howell, maybe if we're lucky a late 3rd, I see no chance whatsoever we get a 2nd. It's kind of pointless to argue that to me. It would be one thing if he was taken in the late 1st, had that 5th year option and was drafted in 23, reasonably cheap deal for a draft pick, solid first season, 3 years left on the deal with an option. He's none of that. He's a guy who can only be had cheaply in '24 and '25, comes with very low draft capital, has had uneven and erratic season, I think the perception of him leaguewide is that he's a good backup, and a low end starter. Even If I'm wrong about that guess of team evals, I'm not "that" wrong. On top of all that you also have a market where Kyler, Justin Fields will likely be available for trade, maybe Mac Jones too, and then a first round with at least 3 QB's. It's a buyers market, not a sellers. My objective with Howell is to try to sell him next year if we draft a QB, otherwise, there's no reason to trade him because the comp is gonna be crap, and not worth the cost of losing his upside, and value as a cheap backup. We already can see that with literally NOTHING working right, and horrible coaching, he can pretty easily produce starter #'s in that 17th-23rd area. That's more value for the owner, less for the team trying to acquire him. Reminds me of Dynasty valuations when a player is right in that sweet spot where:

I Will sell him for a mid to late 1st

You will only buy him for a mid to late 2nd

His production says that he's not worth a late 1st, but he is worth a very high 2nd.

 

In Dynasty you get situations like that all the time, where a player's upside is more valuable to you, than the potential downside to a guy trying to buy him off you cheap.

 

At the trade deadline this year, and this offseason a good example of this kind of player is Treylon Burks. A bust through 2 seasons, but a guy who produced a couple of good games in the rare moments when he wasn't hurt. I'd love to acquire him , but considering his trade value right now (mid to late 2nd in 12 team 1QB leagues), is anyone really gonna sell him for that little? Thus far nearly all trades I can search up on the DLF trade finder show him in big packages, no straight up for picks because his owners are deeply mired in the sunk cost fallacy (something I'm afflicted with this all the time too), they simply don't want to deal a guy they used a top 5 pick on in 2022 for a 17th-24th pick in 2024. 

 

Thats kinda the situation with Howell to me. We didn't invest a ton in him, but his value to us as a backup, potential solid starter is so much more valuable than an early day 3 pick where the hit rates on QB's is what, sub 10%? Maybe even sub 5%? Feels like we struck gold, but to other teams, more than likely, he's someone they'll send us that dynasty mid 2nd rookie pick for, maybe late 2nd, but no chance are they sending a top 64 pick for him. 

 

So for me anyway, I keep him, period, and only sell him if we have 2 QB's next year, and both are studs. Then we can sell him. Otherwise play that contract out, and do not let it dictate what action you take with the 1st (though admittedly I remain convinced we'll pick 1.05-1.07, and QB will not even be an option). 

I'm nowhere near as high on Howell as much of this board (I'm not saying "most" or a "majority" so KDawg doesn't fly into one of his trademark fits of rage), but I think his trade value would be a good deal higher than you think. 

 

While yes, you can hear hyperbole about him, you can listen to commentators on our national broadcasts or talk radio or ESPN or wherever and plenty of people talk pretty glowingly about him. Pretty much everyone thinks he's at least a good QB. Most everyone thinks he can still develop more. 

 

I don't think he'll be "great" or a franchise level guy, using some hard to define labels. That's why I'd be interested in taking someone else who I thought could reach that level. 

 

But there's only so many of those guys to go around and a lot of QBs get valued who aren't at that level. I think plenty of teams could potentially be interested. 

 

My first thought on an ask would be a 2 now and a conditional pick probably in 2026. Like a 7th if he does much of anything, maybe all the way up to a 2nd if he really excels and earns another contract. Something like that would be reasonable, imo. 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

So ... do you build the roster out and figure out QB later knowing you COULD already have that QB on the roster? Or do you acknowledge that you only have so many shots at a top pick in a QB loaded draft class, and secure what you think is the most critical piece to franchise success?

Whatever this future front office chooses to do, I don't think the choice will be wrong.

 

BUT, if we have the #2 or #3 pick, I think it would be criminal to use that pick on an OL or a WR. You would have to take advantage of it being a QB needy league an absolutely load up on draft picks. Either draft a franchise QB there or trade out and set yourself up for future success, if you have the right FO in place.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think you prioritize 2025 picks in any trade down. Get a 1st, 2nd this year, and a 1st next year. Build through this draft, and set yourself up in 2025 to do the same thing again. If Howell is the QB we want him to be, and 2024 is a step toward competitiveness, then you have 2 #1s next year and IF one of those is a high draft pick, you can do it all over again, trading back for 2026 draft capital. 

 

If we are lucky enough to be drafting #3, someone is going to want to trade up for that pick. Take their 1st and 2nd, a future 1st, and go from there. And you can always do what Arizona did last year ... trading out and then coming back up for an OT. So if we traded down to say, #11 with the Raiders and got their #1, #2 and 2025 #1 ... you could trade #11 and a 3rd to come back into the Top 8 and grab your OT if you fear one won't fall.

Edited December 9, 2023 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Stone Cold]

6 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

So ... do you build the roster out and figure out QB later knowing you COULD already have that QB on the roster? Or do you acknowledge that you only have so many shots at a top pick in a QB loaded draft class, and secure what you think is the most critical piece to franchise success?

Whatever this future front office chooses to do, I don't think the choice will be wrong.

 

BUT, if we have the #2 or #3 pick, I think it would be criminal to use that pick on an OL or a WR. You would have to take advantage of it being a QB needy league an absolutely load up on draft picks. Either draft a franchise QB there or trade out and set yourself up for future success, if you have the right FO in place.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think you prioritize 2025 picks in any trade down. Get a 1st, 2nd this year, and a 1st next year. Build through this draft, and set yourself up in 2025 to do the same thing again. If Howell is the QB we want him to be, and 2024 is a step toward competitiveness, then you have 2 #1s next year and IF one of those is a high draft pick, you can do it all over again, trading back for 2026 draft capital. 

 

If we are lucky enough to be drafting #3, someone is going to want to trade up for that pick. Take their 1st and 2nd, a future 1st, and go from there. And you can always do what Arizona did last year ... trading out and then coming back up for an OT. So if we traded down to say, #11 with the Raiders and got their #1, #2 and 2025 #1 ... you could trade #11 and a 3rd to come back into the Top 8 and grab your OT if you fear one won't fall.

Pretty much right on target with my feelings as well.  Gotta make sure we nail the value of that top 5 pick.  

[slinky]

We owe it to ourselves to see what we have in Logan Thomas as QB1 for the rest of the season... though I won't mind seeing Forbes getting the start at QB vs Dallas. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

43 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

So ... do you build the roster out and figure out QB later knowing you COULD already have that QB on the roster? Or do you acknowledge that you only have so many shots at a top pick in a QB loaded draft class, and secure what you think is the most critical piece to franchise success?

Again, if you don't have a franchise QB and you have an opportunity to take player you think is one, you do it. There is really no argument to be had there. 

 

This franchise hasn't found one of those guys since literally Sonny Jurgensen. To hkeep reading people saying basically "well, let's wait a year or two to grab one of them" is just hysterical. Or maddening, depending on your perspective. 

 

Now, whether or not you think Howell is that guy, or whether you think Williams, Maye, Daniels, or whomever is. Well, those are fine arguments to have. But as to whether you take a stud QB when presented with the chance, there is only one serious answer. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Agreed @Rufus T Firefly. If we pick #2 (we won’t but we like sniffing glue on ES 😆) we should take a QB. And that’s coming from the biggest Sam Howell fan on this site. 
 

[MrJL]

5 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

We will have a bunch of people who are claiming that Howell is too good for us to consider drafting a top of the draft QB, while simultaneously telling us no team would give more than a 2nd round pick for Howell if we deal him. . 

 

 

 

that's not a contradiction.  That's people looking at the fact we got a guy like Alex Smith who had a 50-26 record with the Chiefs for a third and an average CB.  That  Matt Ryan was traded for a second. Hell, he Jets/Packers trade for Rodgers involved all kinds of trading picks(picks 13 for 15, 170 for 207) and the only thing the Jets gave that didn't involve the Packers giving picks back were TWO second rounders

 

Teams would say  that if he was first round quality then we wouldn't be looking at a QB in the first.

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Again, if you don't have a franchise QB and you have an opportunity to take player you think is one, you do it. There is really no argument to be had there. 

 

This franchise hasn't found one of those guys since literally Sonny Jurgensen. To hkeep reading people saying basically "well, let's wait a year or two to grab one of them" is just hysterical. Or maddening, depending on your perspective. 

 

Now, whether or not you think Howell is that guy, or whether you think Williams, Maye, Daniels, or whomever is. Well, those are fine arguments to have. But as to whether you take a stud QB when presented with the chance, there is only one serious answer. 

we didn't find Jurgenson, we traded for him

 

I think all drafting a QB would do with our current OL would do is waste a draft pick

 

 

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Again, if you don't have a franchise QB and you have an opportunity to take player you think is one, you do it. There is really no argument to be had there. 

 

This franchise hasn't found one of those guys since literally Sonny Jurgensen. To hkeep reading people saying basically "well, let's wait a year or two to grab one of them" is just hysterical. Or maddening, depending on your perspective. 

 

Now, whether or not you think Howell is that guy, or whether you think Williams, Maye, Daniels, or whomever is. Well, those are fine arguments to have. But as to whether you take a stud QB when presented with the chance, there is only one serious answer. 

Agreed....Howell might be the guy, but he hasn't nailed it down that he IS the guy. You only get so many shots at top 5 QB's so if a dynamic one comes up that we like better than Howell then Howell becomes a tradable asset that we ask  a high price for because he's shown that he can be very good. Nothing wrong with seeing what the market is for Howell and that's why I sit him the rest of the season except for the one game we dont play SF, Dallas or NYJ. We need him healthy for this offseason.

[Rufus T Firefly]

12 minutes ago, MrJL said:

 

that's not a contradiction.  That's people looking at the fact we got a guy like Alex Smith who had a 50-26 record with the Chiefs for a third and an average CB.  That  Matt Ryan was traded for a second. Hell, he Jets/Packers trade for Rodgers involved all kinds of trading picks(picks 13 for 15, 170 for 207) and the only thing the Jets gave that didn't involve the Packers giving picks back were TWO second rounders

LMAO. 

 

This response brought to you by Context Never Matters, LLC.

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

My issue with this strategy is that that approach tends to play you entirely out of the bluechip zone,

Here’s the problem with that: most of the QBs who are picked 1/2/3 fail also. Since 2012, when Luck was a hit, rheee has been one other QB picked in the top 3 who’s been worth the pick: Joe Burrow.  I guess you can put Lawrence in that category too, but he hasn’t quite made it yet.  Close though.  Otherwise you’ve had guys like Wentz. Trubisky, Baker, Trey Lance and Zach Wilson.  
 

The best QBs in the league picked recently, excluding Burrow and Lawrence:

Mahomes - 10

Allen - 6

Tua - 5 

Herbert - 6

Lamar - 32

Purdy - Mr. Irrelevant 

Hurts - second round 

Dak - 4th round. 

You don’t need a top 3 pick to get a top QB.

 

You need to get as lucky. 
 

You also need to have a really good situation to put the QB in so he doesn’t fail.  
 

Statistically, if Williams, Maye and Daniels go in the top 5, 2 will fail.  
 

The question is which 2? 
 

Last year Bryce Young went #1 and that already looks suspect.  Could turn it around, it’s way too early to pass judgement.  But it’s not starting off well.  
 

The idea you have to have to get the first or second QB on the board is fraught with issues.  So many of these guys fail. 
 

As I said, I don’t really care.  And I certainly am not going to jump up and down for Howell.  
 

But if you don’t put a guy in a good situation, you’re dooming them to fail and it’s a wasted pick. 
 

 

[MrJL]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

LMAO. 

 

This response brought to you by Context Never Matters, LLC.

 

Please explain the context then

 

Because the context to me is that was the best old greatness gets.  Sam is pretty good, with potential, but he hasn't touched greatness.  So why should they pay like he has?  I guess it's possible you'd pay more for potential.  I wouldn't.  It's likely those other people you;re talking about wouldn't either

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

The more I think about it, the more I think you prioritize 2025 picks in any trade down. Get a 1st, 2nd this year, and a 1st next year. Build through this draft, and set yourself up in 2025 to do the same thing again.

Only if the trade down for this year is in the same “tier.”  If the top tier of players is 1-8, then there is a drop off, you need to stay in the top 7.  You don’t want to go to tier 2 and have a significantly lower grades player.

 

If that’s all that is available, you stay and make a pick.  
 

Personally, if I’m trading back, I’m only going back far enough to guarantee I get one of the top 3 marquee tackles.  
 

So I agree with the philosophy but I caveat.  If somebody offered me 2 additional firsts, one in 2025 and one in 2026 to move from 3 to 12, I’d almost certainly say no.  We need an elite player.  Not multiple good players. 
 

At least in my opinion. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

6 minutes ago, MrJL said:

 

Please explain the context then

 

Because the context to me is that was the best old greatness gets.  Sam is pretty good, with potential, but he hasn't touched greatness.  So why should they pay like he has?  I guess it's possible you'd pay more for potential.  I wouldn't.  It's likely those other people you;re talking about wouldn't either

No thanks. The context that effects the trade value of all mentioned should be obvious enough that if you need it explained to you you're not worth the effort. 

 

Your responses are also a straw man, which I don't bother with. 

[88Comrade2000]

At best Sam may get a 3rd but more likely a 4th rounder.

 

Until we know who the Gm and head coach are; we have no idea what we will do at qb. Sam goes into the offseason as the presumed qb1 but doesn’t mean he will be by training camp or even still on the team.

[MrJL]

I've been thinking about it, and I joked about using our second and thirds to move back into the first but I'd actually be cool with using our 2025 first in a trade

 

 

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

No thanks. The context that effects the trade value of all mentioned should be obvious enough that if you need it explained to you you're not worth the effort. 

 

Your responses are also a straw man, which I don't bother with. 

 

then I'm just going to assume you;re full of it

Edited December 9, 2023 by MrJL

[kingdaddy]

44 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

At best Sam may get a 3rd but more likely a 4th rounder.

 

Until we know who the Gm and head coach are; we have no idea what we will do at qb. Sam goes into the offseason as the presumed qb1 but doesn’t mean he will be by training camp or even still on the team.

Then we don't trade him if all he can return is a 3rd round pick. He has a lot of value, both as a developing QB prospect and for a teams salary cap. I could see a team like Atlanta, Vegas or maybe even the Rams giving up a 1st round pick for Howell. Maybe Minnesota too? 

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

Then we don't trade him if all he can return is a 3rd round pick. He has a lot of value, both as a developing QB prospect and for a teams salary cap. I could see a team like Atlanta, Vegas or maybe even the Rams giving up a 1st round pick for Howell. Maybe Minnesota too? 

I think all who believes this are dreaming.  Maybe a desperate team in training camp loses their starter to injury and is willing to burn a second round pick.  In a normal non desperation situation; you aren’t getting anything greater than a 3rd.

 

Sam would only be traded if we have drafted a qb in the first or second round; with the intention of him being the starter.