Re: Yes, and as you know, hindsight is 20/20

Quote
Flipper336

Quote
Billy_T
Not many are defending it. But those who are, IMO are trying to create a false equation:

"Those draft picks are in exchange for Trubisky. It's a great investment, for that reason. Not a very high price to pay for a starting QB."

No, those draft picks moved Chicago one spot up so it could draft one of several QBs (or athletes at other positions) with similar grades. As in, the extra picks didn't go straight up in return for just Trubisky. They went straight up in return for the DIFFERENCE between him and those other QBs. It's not an exchange for a whole QB, IOW. It's just for the perceived difference between athletes.

If I'm the GM, I never, ever think in terms of trading draft picks to move up in that way. I'm not going to think, "I trade X number of picks and I get X player." I'm going to think, "I trade X number of draft picks for the difference between players. And if I don't think that difference equates to the draft picks, one to one, I don't do the deal."

I was against the Goff trade for that reason. To me, there wasn't enough of a significant difference in talent or potential between Goff and the next few QBs to warrant so many lost draft slots. And each of those slots likely represented a starter or a future starter for the Rams. I'm not going to trade starters or likely starters in exchange for slight differences.

That is the difference one spot can make for the right player, particularly a QB.

If San Diego trading what Chicago paid PLUS how many more picks to move up ONE slot...does your one spot argument hold water?

You're a draft junkie, so I know you know this. But . . . a GM goes into the draft knowing nothing about how any player's career will end up. None of these players have played a snap yet in the NFL. Which means, you gotta go on the basis of college production, health, interviews, combines, perception of intangibles and the state of your own team, etc. etc. And at this level, elite players are all really, really close to one another in talent and likely impact on your team. There's not much difference between the top guys. To me, there's not enough difference to give up a chance to draft several other starters, and I'd personal always take the offer to trade back one slot for a bunch of picks for that reason alone. Honestly, I can't think of a scenario in which I'd turn down a bevy of picks to go from slot 2 to slot 3.

My strategies might change a bit if I had a great team and felt just one guy could put us over the top, and saw a serious difference between the top guys. I might be willing to trade up then, but still not if it meant mortgaging the future. But that's not the Rams right now. They need a bunch of players to just get back to being competitive.

As for the Leaf/Manning deal: Going into the draft, they were neck and neck. Leaf was almost unanimously considered the better physical talent, while Manning was thought of as the better field general. More mature, too. So a team might gamble on Leaf's superior physicality, or Manning's superior football IQ. At the time, it was a coin flip who was going to be better. Reminds me also of the debates regarding OJ and Leroy Keyes. Both players were considered close, talent wise. Kinda 1a and 1b, based on their college careers. But it turned out, Simpson had a significantly better football career than Keyes.