2019 NFL Draft

Thread for the upcoming draft. Here are some general thoughts, mostly about the Seahawks, Raiders, and Cowboys:

  1. I was just thinking that if the Raiders had a draft like the 2018 Colts–landing two great players–the Khalil Mack trade might be worth it. Then again, since they gave up Cooper as well, I think they might have to also get a few solid starters as well. I think the bigger question is, what are the odds that the Raiders would find players that made both trades worth it? Also, the value of the players (including Cooper and Mack) should be factored in. That is, both Cooper and Mack are going to be very expensive for a team. Their performance would have to be really high to give good value to their teams. On the other hand, the rookies will be relatively cheap, so their performance need not be as high to provide good value.
  2. I think the Cowboys and Seahawks handled free agency well, while the Raiders did not. Specifically, my sense is that you don’t want to go crazy in free agency–going after players quickly, spending a lot. The likelihood of getting good value on these FAs is not very high. Picking up more modest FA later might not help a team much, but the team won’t be spending a lot, either. (I think the Cowboys didn’t get Robert Quinn for cheap, but that seems like a good risk. Unless there’s something bad about him I don’t know, he could be a huge steal.)
  3. Seahawks: I think they should focus on the trenches. A pass catcher is also something I’m concerned about. Because of these two things, I’m enamored with the idea of getting a really good TE–someone like Hockenson (who likely won’t be on the board when they choose). Getting a TE can address both needs. Also, for run-oriented offenses a good TE (and FB) can really take the offense to the next level–maybe not turning the team into a high-scoring offense, but making it better at ball control and modestly improving the scoring. Suppose the Seahawks land a player of the caliber of Zach Miller, but lose Doug Baldwin. With Tyler Lockett and a Miller-esque TE, I think the offense could still function well. (I wish the Hawks could find a good FB. They seem incapable of doing this.)
  4. Raiders: They need a lot of help in a lot of areas, but I’d like to see them strengthen the DL/OL. Also, if they can get a really good MLB, that would be great. That’s been a big hole for a long time.

67 thoughts on “2019 NFL Draft

  1. When I see things like this, especially so close to the draft, my inclination is to believe these things aren’t true. My sense is that the teams are putting this information out there–versus the reporters finding a source that gives information the team doesn’t want to release. I have no idea if this is true, though. But there’s so much talk that Murray is going to be #1, I tend to believe he won’t.

    By the way, watching Murray, the thing that stands out is how small he looks–i.e., his frame and size. Will he really be able to take hits? Russ is short, but he’s stocky and solid. Then again, I would question whether a QB that had Wilson’s build could take the pounding as well.

    I didn’t listen to the clip, but I tend to agree with the tweet. I would only draft a WR in the first if there was strong consensus among scouts, GM, coaches that the player could be a good #1. And if this were a top ten pick, the WR would have to be dominant #1. If there were red flags and other question marks, I wouldn’t want to take a WR in the first.

    To some degree this doesn’t just apply to WRs for me. Basically, if I’m going to use a first round pick, I want to have high confidence the player will be a good starter. For the top 10-15, I’d want to have high confidence that they player could be top 5 at their position. If I can’t find a player like that, I’d want to trade down. For me, I don’t want to use first round picks on players based on their potential, unless they have a relatively high floor.

    1. When you say relatively high floor, do you mean relative to the rest of the players at the position in this draft, or do you mean relative to NFL starting WRs, or do you mean relative to something else?

      I know you’re not a (metaphorical) gambler, but what if you had a guy who you thought could be Julio Jones? Would you have to be nearly certain he could be Julio Jones? Around what percent of certainty would you need? Or, rather than thinking of certainty on the ceiling, would you stick to what you thought the floor was? What if the ceiling was Julio Jones but the floor was Ted Ginn Jr.?

      I’m with you on draft speculation. I kind of wish everyone would shut up for the whole week leading up to the draft. However, I did listen to what Mike Lombardi said on Kornheiser, and he seemed to feel strongly that Rosen would be traded by Friday, and that teams should stay away from Murray if they’re thinking about a franchise QB.

      I read enough stuff last season about how the concept of the small NFL QB is changing, and that we should get it out of our heads that small QBs can’t be super successful. They were convincing arguments in today’s NFL, but we still really haven’t seen it outside Brees and Wilson, right?

      Anyway, as I have said before, I hate pre-draft talk, but I do love the draft. Looking forward to having it open in one window at my desk while I try to get work done. 🙂

      1. When you say relatively high floor, do you mean relative to the rest of the players at the position in this draft, or do you mean relative to NFL starting WRs, or do you mean relative to something else?

        I think I mean relative to other NFL players. A high floor would basically mean a player that could come in right away and be a solid starter.

        I know you’re not a (metaphorical) gambler, but what if you had a guy who you thought could be Julio Jones? Would you have to be nearly certain he could be Julio Jones? Around what percent of certainty would you need? Or, rather than thinking of certainty on the ceiling, would you stick to what you thought the floor was? What if the ceiling was Julio Jones but the floor was Ted Ginn Jr.?

        A couple of things. First, with the answers I’m about to give, there would have to be fairly strong consensus among scouts, GM, and coaches. Second, the floor would have to be higher than Ginn. I think it would have to be something like Golden Tate in his prime–a really good #2, bordering on a solid #1. With that, the third thing is that the chances of the player being another Julio Jones would have to be in the 80% or higher range–and maybe higher if we’re talking about the top 10 picks.

        ….nd that teams should stay away from Murray if they’re thinking about a franchise QB.

        I like these type of comments if they gave reasons for saying this. Generally, I like evaluation that talks about the strengths and weaknesses. (By the way, listening to Danny Kelly’s comments about the top WRs, I don’t think I’d want to draft any in the first round. There were too many flags/question marks.)

        How would you feel if the Raiders drafted Murray? I would not feel good–especially if they used a first round pick.

        They were convincing arguments in today’s NFL, but we still really haven’t seen it outside Brees and Wilson, right?

        Yeah, although maybe we could add Mayfield. I think a short QB can have success, but I think you better have a really good OL–or have someone that can scramble and improvise like Wilson.

        But I was thinking specifically about Murray’s ability to take hits. He seems so tiny.

    2. As a way to flesh out my approach to the first round, I’m going to respond to and comment on these 7 points:

      1. Good advice. However, when you’re evaluation team (made up of scouts, GM, coaches) identify players with little or no red flags, and good potential to be top 5 or even hall of fame caliber, these are the type of players worth taking a chance on.

      2. If a RB meets the criteria I mentioned above–and your team employs run-based offense—using a first round pick is justified.

      3. I tend to agree about run-stuffing LB, but I think a really good run-stuffing DT is more valuable than Kapadia. I tend to think this type of player gives your defense the ability to shut down the run with the front seven, or even the front four. That’s something I really value.

      4. I think you can trade up if the criteria in #1 is met. If the player has Hall of Fame potential, then you can justify trading up higher.

      5. Seems sound.

      6. Don’t have any opinion on this.

      7. Generally I agree with trading back–unless player meets #1 criteria.

      1. That’s the impression I’m getting, too. Here are some other comments:

        I like that he has good character, but if he’s not a really great player, I’d prefer that they trade down.

      2. What I’m hoping is that the discrepancy of their evaluation is based on their knowledge of their system and other pundits’ lack of knowledge of their system. Also, I’m hoping they’re seeing things that others aren’t. It could also be that the other players are higher risk/higher reward type of players.

  2. If the rumors were right that the Jets tried to move their pick, I think people might regret not moving up for Quinnen Williams. Based on what pundits have said, he can do it all. He may not be the pass rusher Bosa is, but he is athletic and strong enough to play anywhere on the d-line – inside and outside.

      1. Maybe you won’t get bachi:

        I mean, I kinda favor the idea of sitting QBs, but three years?! That seems like a long time. Maybe Rodgers sat for 3? Rivers? Still, that seems like a long time…or maybe he’s saying this because he’s so confident that Eli can play three more?

        Eli seems done, but what makes me hesitate is that he hasn’t look good for long stretches when he was younger, too. But then he’ll play well in the playoffs. So who knows? But I’m skeptical.

    1. They should go for a pass rusher – Allen or Sweat. Actually when I heard the Bills were going to take Allen I thought what they already have Josh Allen.

  3. …and now Hockenson is not available…

    1.8 Lions–T.J. Hockenson (TE, Iowa)

    They need a TE, and in Darrell Bevell’s offense, a TE like him is a good one to have. Lions were in somewhat similar situation to Seahawks: They need WR help, but they could use help blocking, too. This kills two birds with one stone. If Hockenson is as good as advertised, Golladay and Hockenson should be enough to get the passing game going, and Hockenson should help in the run game.

  4. Steelers move up to Denver’s spot:

    1.10 Steelers–Devin Bush (LB, Michigan)

    (I heard the Steelers really wanted him.)

    Broncos get– Pick 20, 52 and a 2020 third round pick.

  5. QB for Miami? They should probably take the DT from Clemson or Sweat. Sweat was supposed to be a top ten (maybe top five) guy, but had doctors say he had a heart problem. Doctors just recently said Sweat’s heart is okay, wonder if teams didn’t study him enough so don’t have enough info to pick him.

    1. With regard to Sweat, I’m now wondering if teams don’t really trust the recent news about the combine diagnoses being a mistake. On some level, you could see how the Sweat team would want to find a doctor to say this–to help his draft stock. This is pure speculation on my part. But if he’s as good as people think, and the re-diagnoses is legit, then you would think he’d go higher, right?

      1. I don’t get the impression that Sweat’s team “fixed” this diagnoses in their favor. I just took it that as more test were done, it was discovered that the original imagining of his heart may have been off. But I don’t know either.

        Many teams took him off the board, which means they probably didn’t choose him for a visit (only 20 players can visit, I believe), which means teams probably had limited exposure to Sweat the person. But again a total guess.

        Not as good news for Cowboy fans as the draft pick by the Giants for sure, if he turns out to be the steal of the draft.

        1. My understanding is that he was a top 10 pick, if not higher–but the diagnoses dropped him off. So if the new diagnoses could be trusted, then I would assume more teams would have taken him. (Seattle passed up on him as well.) This doesn’t mean the second diagnoses was bogus or fixed, but I would guess teams were really cautious about it.

  6. 1.13 Dolphins–Christian Wilkinson (DT, Clemson)
    1.14 Falcons–Chris Lindstrom (G, Boston College)
    1.15 Redskins–Dwayne Haskins (QB, OSU)
    1.16 Panthers–Brians Burns (DE, FSU)
    1.17 Giants–Dexter Lawrence (DT, Clemson)
    1.18 Vikings–Garrett Bradbury (C, NC State)

  7. 1.19 Titans–Jeffery Simmons (DT, Miss. State)

    This is the guy coming off an ACL, right? Also, did he have domestic violence issues?

    1. Yeah he has high risk, but I heard his arrest was for hitting a woman (what?) that was fighting his sister, not really a domestic abuse situation. I’m not saying he’s a good guy, but the situation seems a little less likely to happen again than a guy beating his girlfriend, ala Greg Hardy. Add to that, that teammates seems to love this guy.

      1. This is this is type of guy I’d rather not use a first round pick for. Then again, if the Titans medical staff are confident about his recovery, and the FO has high confidence the off-field issue is an anomaly, then I’d be OK with this.

  8. 1.20 Broncos (from Steelers)–Noah Fant (TE, Iowa)
    1.21 Packers (from Seahawks)–Darnell Savage (S, Maryland)

    Seahawks get 1.30, 4.114, and 4.118–Those last two are 4th rounders, right?)

  9. 1.23 Texans Tytus Howard (T, Alabama State)
    1.24 Raiders–Josh Jacobs (RB, Alabama)
    1.25 Ravens–Marquise Brown (WR, Oklahoma)
    1.26 Redskins–Montez Sweat (DE, Miss. State)
    1.27 Raiders–Jonathan Abram (S, Miss. State)

    I hope Jacobs is really good. I think there’s a need, but given the Raiders offense, I tend not to think using a 1st is worth it.

  10. 1.28 Chargers–Jerry Tillery (DT, Norte Dame)
    1.29 Seahawks–LJ Collier (DE, TCU)
    1.30 Giants (traded with Seahawks)–Deandre Baker (CB, Georgia)

    (Seahawks get Pick 2.37, Pick 4.132, Pick 4.142.)

  11. 1.31 Falcons–Kaleb McGary (T, Washington)
    1.32 Patriots–N’Keal Harry (WR, Arizona State)

    My theory on the Patriots: They’re shifting to more pro style run-based offense. If true, you one or two WRs/TEs that can win one-on-one match ups. If you rely more on spread, you can rely on schemes and finding best match up against opponent. With pro style, a good run game will force one-on-one situations with pass catchers. If you have one or two pass catchers that are good-to-great in this, the defense is in a bind.

  12. On a side note, for what it’s worth, if I were Rosen, I’d be super fired up and motivated at this point. I’d take picking Murray and then being traded as a really big insult. That fuel would last a long time.

    1. Not that it matters, but I have a theory that this trade was completed some time ago. The commissioner didn’t want the Cards to announce prior to the draft who they were going to take so not to ruin the suspense (or keep it a TV show). A trade of Rosen before the draft would have surely gave it away. Miami also didn’t seem to be shopping for nor did they draft a QB.

      On a separate note, the news was New England was interested in drafting Rosen and was interested in trading for him. They didn’t want to give up a second round for him? Well I guess Miami’s second round is a whole lot better than New England’s so that could be why. This seems like a good deal for Miami.

      1. The theory is plausible in my opinion.

        I’m not sure how many more picks Miami has, but the trade for Rosen seems sound, or at least a decent risk.

  13. 2.33 Cardinals–Byron Murphy (CB, Washington)
    2.34 Colts–Rock Ya-Sin (CB, Temple)
    2.35 Jaguars (trade with Raiders) Jawaan Taylor (T, Florida)

    2.36 49ers–Deebo Samuels (WR, South Carolina)

  14. 2.37 Panthers (trade with Seahawks) Greg Little (T, Miss.)

    Seahawks get 2.37 and 3.77

    (I hope Seahawks don’t pass up on O-linemen that turn out to be really good.)

  15. 2.38 Bills–Cody Ford (G, Oklahoma)
    2.39 Buccaneers–Sean Bunting (CB, Central Michigan)
    2.40 Raiders–Trayvon Mullen (CB, Clemson)

    Man, I also hope these linemen the Raiders passed up don’t turn out to be great–or the Raiders find good linemen later on.

  16. End of Day 2 Comments

    Seahawks

    I don’t want to say this to other Seahawk fans, as I hate to be a wet blanket. What’s worrisome is seeing other teams go after O-linemen while the Seahawks ignore the position–focusing mostly on defense. This feels like the same thing they’ve done in years past, which is not surprising as Carroll seems like the typical DC-to-HC–i.e., they gotta have a great defense and ST.

    But after the OL disaster they went through, I would think he would be more reluctant to put a lot into the defense while ignoring the OL. Now, they picked up Mike Iupati (after losing J.R. Sweezy in free agency)–but Iupati is no spring chicken, and he’s struggled to stay healthy. ‘Hawks will be fortunate if he gives them 8 good games. The other guard, DJ Fluker, has had injury issues as well. The backups are iffy. Pocic didn’t look so good when he played last year. The other lineman, Simmons, looked solid, but he tore his ACL, and he’s done this before, struggling to stay healthy. The starting RT, Ifedi, doesn’t inspire confidence. In my opinion, the Seahawks are banking on these backups to play and play well. They better be right or this could get ugly.

    I’m not that excited about the WR they took, D.K. Metcalf. What I’ve heard is that his route running is really limited–basically only knowing how to run a deep ball. The guy is a monster, but who cares if you can’t run routes. My hope is that he can block and is great ST player. Or if he can be like another Kelvin Benjamin, I’ll be happy.

    (By the way, the possibility that Doug Baldwin may retire seem stronger every day. What a bummer.)

    (Edit: I forgot to mention–they traded up to get a…linebacker, which is probably one of the deepest positions they have. That to me just reinforces my impression that Carroll’s just gotta have a really good defense, even at the expense of the OL.)

    Raiders

    I heard one guy say the players they got are physical, and good character guys (I think). I love to hear that.

    I’m a little concerned about using a first for Jacobs, the RB, though. If the Raiders become more run-oriented, and he’s really good (but not great), then I think he’d justify the pick. But if they’re not a run-centric team, I tend to think they could get a productive RB later, or in FA. This guy will have to be quite good to make this pick worth it (or the Raiders have to be more run-based).

    Mitchell, any thoughts about the Raiders picks?

    Don, how’d you like what the Cowboys did?

  17. I think Metcalf seems like a good fit for the Hawks. Wilson is a great long ball thrower and Metcalf is a great long ball catcher. His lateral quickness was terrible (worse than some defensive linemen), but he seems like a guy Seattle could use. If the Cowboys took him, yeah that would be terrible, but Seattle could really use this guy well and a lot of pundits think he was a steal at the end of the second round.

    The Raiders probably should have gotten one of the “real stars” with their first pick. But they got probably the safest in terms of being a “great guy” off the field. Hopefully he can be an all-star on the field as well. I’m not sure about their last first round pick, Abram, who a lot of pundits are saying this guy isn’t great in coverage. He is a hitter or one even said linebacker playing safety. Of all the picks, just based on what I read, I like the RB pick. Yes, first round RBs might not be great choice in many cases, but they got the consensus number one RB in the draft. If the Raiders had only one first round pick and used it on a RB, that would be concerning, but I like that pick based on the fact they had other picks to use.

    The Cowboys used their first pick of the draft, in the second round, picking a player that didn’t start last year. Or didn’t start the entire year, or whatever. And it’s not like he was playing for an Alabama. That being said though, Dallas has drafted very well recently and this guy supposedly fits Marinelli’s scheme. They also got an o-lineman that can play multiple positions, which is really a need as a backup. They picked up a few RBs to back up Zeke. I like what they did in terms of positions drafted, but who knows if these guys are any good.

  18. Don,

    I think Metcalf seems like a good fit for the Hawks.

    Hearing more about him, I’m warming up to him a lot more. Several things: 1) Carroll said he’s a hard worker; 2) Carroll said that he would be involved in the run game (which I assume meant blocking); 3) Metcalf, in a quote about himself on the Seahawks site said that he loves blocking. I don’t know if he can play ST, but if he can and becomes another Ricardo Lockette, that alone might make me like him.

    (By the way, in addition to the limited route running, I assume heard he has issue with drops. Those are two really damning red flags. However, I also heard that Ole Miss didn’t really utilize him well–didn’t showcase him on other routes very often. As for the hands, I’m a little concerned about that.)

    If the Cowboys took him, yeah that would be terrible,…

    Actually, if he is a good vertical threat, I would think he’d be good for the Cowboys. Cooper seems really good with routes and could work underneath.

    I can’t help but feel Metcalf is the typical super fast WR who ends up not being that great on the deep ball. I really hope I’m wrong about that, though.

    Of all the picks, just based on what I read, I like the RB pick.

    What’s the chances that there will be a RB in the later round whose production and impact will be in a similar ballpark? I bet the chances are pretty good–unless Jacobs ends up being top 3 or HoF type of back. Having said that, the pick would be justified if the Raiders go to a run-based/run-heavy attack–but I doubt they’ll do that.

    That being said though, Dallas has drafted very well recently and this guy supposedly fits Marinelli’s scheme.

    The defensive players that the Cowboys get may not elevate the defense significantly, but they seem to find players that produce a solid defense. The guy I’m thinking of is Quinn. If he returns to form, not only could they have one of the best defenses, but maybe approaching all-time level. (DL-LB-secondary could all be very good. I think they’re missing one more pass-rusher–which Quinn could fill–and maybe a great safety.)

    They also got an o-lineman that can play multiple positions, which is really a need as a backup.

    The thing that caught my eye is that Frederick might return. If he returns to form that will be a big deal.

    Did the Cowboys not draft any WRs? I feel like they should have drafted like the Seahawks. By the way, Seahawks drafted John Ursua. He seems like a good guy that could have replaced Beasley. I kinda like the pick, but I wonder if he can play ST, because if he can’t, he’s going to have to be unreal WR to make the team.

    1. Actually, if he is a good vertical threat, I would think he’d be good for the Cowboys. Cooper seems really good with routes and could work underneath.

      I’m guessing you either forgot about Gallup or don’t think much of him. If Metcalf is better than Gallup, Seattle will get a steal. I do think Metcalf’s ceiling is higher than Gallup, just because of his size and straight ahead speed, but he could be a total bust as well. Even with Gallup, Dak hasn’t been able to find him deep all that often, I just think that’s not his strength both in accuracy and seeing the field. Hopefully the second part will change, because Dak did a decent job with the long throws his first year to Dez.

      Did the Cowboys not draft any WRs? I feel like they should have drafted like the Seahawks.

      Dallas has ton of receivers right now: Gallup, Cooper, Cobb, Tavon Austin, and many more that can compete for a position. I’m guessing they are hoping Cobb will be their Beasley replacement.

      By the way, Seahawks drafted John Ursua.

      Of course I’ll be cheering for him, but I’m not that confident. Do you know what kind of forty he ran if he did run one? He was injured. My guess is 4.5 range, maybe even closer to 4.6? If I’m right that’s not promising.

      1. I’m guessing you either forgot about Gallup or don’t think much of him.

        I don’t think of him as a good #1 or even a very great #2. Suppose he’s a really good #2. Metcalf could be the #3 initially, and be a deep ball threat.

        With Dak and the deep ball, my sense is that the issues are the OL and WRs more than Prescott. Maybe with a better QB the Cowboys would be hitting on more deep balls, but I’m a little skeptical about that. I’ll say this: I will not be surprised at all if Prescott hits on more deep balls if OL and WR improves.

        Dallas has ton of receivers right now: Gallup, Cooper, Cobb, Tavon Austin, and many more that can compete for a position. I’m guessing they are hoping Cobb will be their Beasley replacement.

        I don’t think that’s a lot–or I’d want to bring in more guys. Cobb in the slot makes sense. Cooper’s your #1 or really good #2. I’d want someone to compete with Gallup and Austin.

        My guess is 4.5 range, maybe even closer to 4.6? If I’m right that’s not promising.

        I’m not sure but I think it’s in that range. I’m not worried about his straight line speed. Did guys like Welker, Edelman, Beasley, Humprhies, Cobb, have better times than that?

        In any event, I’m much more concerned about his ability to play on ST. If he can’t really do that, I think the odds of him making the team are much lower. He’s have to be very, very good in the slot for him to make the team in my opinion. Somehow I think his quickness and ability to find holes and hold onto the ball will be bigger factors than his straight line speed.

  19. Man I have no comments on the draft. I know even less about this year’s draft class than I usually do, and I usually don’t know much of anything.

      1. Same with me–and I didn’t study them a lot.

        But with Seattle, I can get overall impressions. For example, they drafted two linebackers–when the LB group might have been the strongest. This, along with the other players they drafted suggests to me they’re trying to build their ST.

        Also, some guys like to build from the inside out–i.e., start with the trenches, especially interior, and then build outward from there. I favor that approach, but the Seahawks took almost the opposite approach. The Hawks will vindicate their draft if they have a great ST next year, and if they can have a good passing game even if they lose Doug Baldwin. Also, if their OL maintains the same level of play as last year.

        But if not, I think this draft won’t look good, at least for next year. Unless they get more players, their pass rush is not very strong now (unless players really improve). I think their OL is not solid, if you consider that their two starting guards struggle to stay healthy. I would have preferred they solidified the trenches, especially on the OL. (Carroll and Schneider said a lot of the good D-linemen were gone by the time they picked, so I can’t blame them for that.)

  20. Why Didn’t More Teams Trade for Josh Rosen?

    The Ringer guys brought this up, and I think it’s a good point. They mentioned that the Dolphins gave up a 2nd and 5th for him, and would have to pay him $6 million for the next three years, or something like that. (And I assume the Dolphins could cut him after one year without paying him very much.) The Ringer guys mentioned teams in a situation where taking Rosen would make a lot of sense–e.g., Jaguars, Buccaneers, and Bengals. I agree. I think Foles and Winston are not really certainties. Why not bring in Rosen as a backup to start? I’d also mention the Bears, Giants, Patriots–Saints would be good, but they have Bridgewater–even the Rams and Raiders (if Gruden really not confident in Carr).

    I have to conclude that teams either don’t think Rosen is a franchise QB, or they think the odds are low, risk that he’s not is pretty high. Suppose a lot of these teams would trade a 3rd and 5th for him. That would mean the likelihood he’d be a franchise QB is kinda low, right? Or maybe it’s an off-field issue. What else could it be?

    Correction: Dolphins will have to pay Rosen $6.2 million for all three years, not each year!

    1. Didn’t it seem like Arizona wanted a first round pick for Rosen pre-draft? I thought that was the reason why other teams weren’t going for him. Most draft pundits said if Murray was in last year’s draft that he would probably be predicted to go below Rosen.

      For the Jags, I think it’s tough to pay a guy (Foles) that much and then give up a pick (or two) to get a back up that might compete for the job. But I can see the Bucs and Bengals for sure.

      Bears – they seems set on Trubisky especially considering what they gave up to grab him in the draft.
      Giants – seem to really want the Duke kid all along, if not why spend such high draft capital to grab him especially since the Giants had another first round pick that they could use on a QB if Jones got picked before their second first round pick.
      Pats – yeah I thought the speculation was they liked him going into the 2018 draft. They seem to be an enigma during the drafts though, like no one knows what they are going to do and are baffled by what they end up doing.
      Saints – they got Bridewater who chose to stay there instead of compete (against no one at the time) for the Miami starting job.

      1. Didn’t it seem like Arizona wanted a first round pick for Rosen pre-draft? I thought that was the reason why other teams weren’t going for him.

        I heard that, too–but then the Dolphins got him for a 2nd and 5th–and paying him for 6 mill total for 3 years. If you believe there’s a decent chance Rosen can be a franchise QB, this is a great deal.

        Most draft pundits said if Murray was in last year’s draft that he would probably be predicted to go below Rosen.

        I heard at least Scot McLoughan say that. Did you see the Andrew Brandt article about the way the Cardinals’ contracts with QBs last year? It’s a total mess–like late career Al Davis bad. After reading that article, if I were a Cards fan, I’d be nervous about the Murray pick. (By the way, my sense is that the Cardinals choose a lot of WRs and didn’t really work on the OL. I know they got two vets in the offseason–Gilbert and Sweezy, but Sweezy is a run-blocking guy. In any event, if the OL is bad, it could be a bad situation for Murray and the team overall. With Murray OL, especially in the interior, should be a top priority.)

        As far are your specific comments about each team, if those teams think Rosen has good potential and a decent shot at becoming a franchise QB, then those arguments you’re giving aren’t very compelling. For the next three years, Rosen is going to be pretty cheap, too.

        With the Bears, the amount they gave up for Trubisky should be secondary if they have serious doubts he can be a franchise QB–and I personally have them. I’m at the point where I’ll be surprised if he becomes a really good QB.

        With the Giants, they better really, really like Jones, or at least be confident that Rosen’s chances of being good are pretty low.

        The Saints not going for Rosen makes more sense.

        Other teams: Steelers and Chargers. Their QBs are closer to the end.

        1. In terms of the Bears, I know you do not think much of Trusbisky and I would add me neither. But I’m guessing you are thinking of bringing in Rosen to compete for the job not serve as a backup? I don’t get that the Bears think Trubisky needs to be replaced. Do you think Buffalo and the Jets should bring in Rosen to compete for the starting job as well? What about the Rams? Traditionally teams won’t spend high draft capital on another QB once they feel they already have a starter. I believe the Redskins drafted both RG III and Cousins in the same draft, but I think Cousins was picked in the fourth round. And at the time, many pundits were chastising them for it (It worked out in the end, but mostly because of RGIII injuries.). But isn’t trading a second round pick for Rosen if you think you got an established QB, sort of like drafting a QB with your first round pick and your second round pick?

          My point with the Giants is they must have really really liked Jones. I think most pundits had Haskins, Jones, and Lock all around the same. Giants could have surely gotten one of those with their second first round pick (17th overall). And in fact some argued the Giants could have gotten Jones with that 17th pick. But they forgo some really good players to get Jones with the number 6 pick overall because they didn’t want to risk losing him. So if I had to guess, they would clearly have Jones over Rosen if given the choice just based on my assumptions on how they handled the draft. Let’s say they had Jones over Rosen (right or wrong), is it your belief because of all the unknowns, that they still trade for Rosen? That goes back to my picking a QB with your first round pick and your second round pick.

          My assumption is that you feel based on the two previous posts, that any team that has questionable QBs should trade for Rosen? Is that correct or a wrong assumption on my part?

          1. But I’m guessing you are thinking of bringing in Rosen to compete for the job not serve as a backup? I don’t get that the Bears think Trubisky needs to be replaced.

            I would, if he has legitimate chance to be a franchise QB. If he doesn’t, keeping as a backup, just in case Trubisky doesn’t pan out. The only downside of this, and it’s not insignificant, is that this might shake the confidence of Trubisky, and could cause a QB controversy. If the Bears wanted to avoid that, I can understand. From what I’ve seen, I’m pretty much ready to move on from Trubisky.

            Do you think Buffalo and the Jets should bring in Rosen to compete for the starting job as well? What about the Rams?

            With Darnold and Allen, you’ve got two guys that look like franchise QBs–or at least the jury is far from decided and there’s a decent chance. So I wouldn’t want to adversely affect their confidence or split the lockerroom. Still, if I could find a way to avoid that I would bring in Rosen. (Cowboys might be another team for this as well.)

            With the Rams, my confidence in Goff’s ability to play better when pressured is quite low, so I would like to bring in Rosen.

            But isn’t trading a second round pick for Rosen if you think you got an established QB, sort of like drafting a QB with your first round pick and your second round pick?

            I don’t think so. I’m for a teams using a second round pick on a QB, even if they have a really good QB–as long as they’re confident that the QB has a solid chance at being a franchise QB. If the QB develops into a great QB, at worst, you can get great trade value for that QB. You could potentially move on from the QB and have a cheaper one. Or if your starter gets a major injury, you’re still in good shape.

            My assumption is that you feel based on the two previous posts, that any team that has questionable QBs should trade for Rosen? Is that correct or a wrong assumption on my part?

            That sounds accurate–with the caveats I mentioned above. However–my position is based on fairly high confidence that Rosen can be a really good QB. If the confidence is not very high, and it’s sort of a high risk move, then I would want to give less than a 2nd.

            I forgot to answer this:

            So if I had to guess, they would clearly have Jones over Rosen if given the choice just based on my assumptions on how they handled the draft. Let’s say they had Jones over Rosen (right or wrong), is it your belief because of all the unknowns, that they still trade for Rosen?

            No, if they’re sold on Jones, I wouldn’t use the second on Rosen. But if their assessment and confidence was similar, then I’d trade for Rosen, but I guess that’s obvious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *