Trade Back Might Be More Likely Than Some Think...

[Carlos Danger]

This article from Yahoo! explains a "glitch" in the collective bargaining agreement that makes it much more valuable to draft a QB in the bottom of the 1st compared to the top/middle of the 2nd.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--nfl-contract-rules-could-help-matt-barkley--other-qbs-get-drafted-in-first-round-150546269.html

 

Basically... a team that drafts a player in the 1st round has an option to extend the contract of said player for a fifth year at an "extremely controlled price."

 

To me, this means that any team that is picking in the 25-32 range has added value to their pick due to the interest that a QB needy team might have in their draft spot... The Colts might be more willing than some other teams near that range (Houston, Denver) to deal their 1st for extra picks...

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Blue]

Then let's hope some qb hungry team calls us up

[james_zeigler1994]

I hope so cause the colts could use more draft picks in this draft and next to make sure that this team can compete for Super Bowls for the next 12-16 years or better thoughts?.

[throwing BBZ]

Love to have the option to trade for sure.

 

 "have the option to pick him up for the fifth year, for which he would earn the average of the Top 10 quarterback salaries in the league"
Not cheap. Probably still $20M or more by then. What is the chance someone/QB drafted late in round one of this years draft will be worth $20M in 5 years?
This is a rather hit or miss bunch.
 

 Still, I`ll put my preferance at our Scout team/Griggs having more picks right?

[PrincetonTiger]

interesting info

 

The Colts need a few more picks

[Carlos Danger]

Love to have the option to trade for sure.

 

 "have the option to pick him up for the fifth year, for which he would earn the average of the Top 10 quarterback salaries in the league"

Not cheap. Probably still $20M or more by then. What is the chance someone/QB drafted late in round one of this years draft will be worth $20M in 5 years?

This is a rather hit or miss bunch.

 

 Still, I`ll put my preferance at our Scout team/Griggs having more picks right?

Yeah... this class might not warrant big moves into the 1st, but there are always teams ready to overdraft a QB... fingers crossed..

[NewColtsFan]

I don't know why it's being called a 'glitch'.....     that would imply a mistake....

 

This is not a mistake....   it's something the owners wanted and the players gave them,  just for the 1st round.

 

And I posted about this months ago as one of the reasons why a team would want to trade up into the first round....

 

As the Godfather of wanting to trade down....  this is preaching to the congregation....      I'm all for it!!

[DarkHorseColts]

Trade down sounds good to me. Unless the Colts think there is a real game changer at #24...

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

I'd rather stay where we are and get BPA. There will at least be one star that falls to us. There always is that one player that doesn't get that phone call pick after pick but gets picked late and becomes a superstar. Now that we don't necessarily have to draft for a need we can capitalize on that. 

[The Peytonator]

So let's say a team like Buffalo doesn't draft a QB with their first, and they want to trade up to get our first. Personally I'd like to get their first for next year, because we'd likely be getting an early first rounder along with whatever else they give us (probably a mid rounder or something). Obviously a lot of this depends on what is available when we pick. If all the guys they have targeted are gone, I'd hope they trade out.

 

Could that scenario play out? Our first for Buffalo's third and next year's first?

[DarkHorseColts]

So let's say a team like Buffalo doesn't draft a QB with their first, and they want to trade up to get our first. Personally I'd like to get their first for next year, because we'd likely be getting an early first rounder along with whatever else they give us (probably a mid rounder or something). Obviously a lot of this depends on what is available when we pick. If all the guys they have targeted are gone, I'd hope they trade out.

 

Could that scenario play out? Our first for Buffalo's third and next year's first?

 

I wouldn't like not having a pick until the 3rd round... no second round pick this year kind of kills a deal like that for me. How it actually plays out on Draft day, who knows?

[Carlos Danger]

So let's say a team like Buffalo doesn't draft a QB with their first, and they want to trade up to get our first. Personally I'd like to get their first for next year, because we'd likely be getting an early first rounder along with whatever else they give us (probably a mid rounder or something). Obviously a lot of this depends on what is available when we pick. If all the guys they have targeted are gone, I'd hope they trade out.

 

Could that scenario play out? Our first for Buffalo's third and next year's first?

I think our list of needs may be longer next year, so this sounds tempting...

 

Lots of good WRs in next years class and Buffalo's pick should be a fairly high one to go with our 2014 first...

 

I have no idea where a trade like this would end up looking like on the chart, but it sounds like insane value... we can add depth for 2013 with our remaining picks and add some real game changers in next year's draft... sounds good to me.

[The Peytonator]

I wouldn't like not having a pick until the 3rd round... no second round pick this year kind of kills a deal like that for me. How it actually plays out on Draft day, who knows?

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what I think about waiting til the 3rd, but they say this is a scout's draft. If Grigson does his homework he'll be able to find us some day 3 steals. It's just not as sexy for us fans. But next year we'd have two 1st rounders, one of which would probably be early with Buffalo starting some scrub rookie.

[The Peytonator]

I think our list of needs may be longer next year, so this sounds tempting...

 

Lots of good WRs in next years class and Buffalo's pick should be a fairly high one to go with our 2014 first...

 

I have no idea where a trade like this would end up looking like on the chart, but it sounds like insane value... we can add depth for 2013 with our remaining picks and add some real game changers in next year's draft... sounds good to me.

 

 

Their roster looks pretty bad in a lot of areas. With a rookie QB who has no receiving threats and a mediocre line, I could honestly see them contending for the #1 overall pick.....can you say 'Jadeveon Clowney'?

[dw49]

Love to have the option to trade for sure.

 

 "have the option to pick him up for the fifth year, for which he would earn the average of the Top 10 quarterback salaries in the league"

Not cheap. Probably still $20M or more by then. What is the chance someone/QB drafted late in round one of this years draft will be worth $20M in 5 years?

This is a rather hit or miss bunch.

 

 Still, I`ll put my preferance at our Scout team/Griggs having more picks right?

 

 

 

There is no way in heck that the figure would be 20 million for the 5th year for a QB drafted at 1.24. If somehow that was the case , it would indicate that the salary cap was "God knows where" and it would comparitively still be a bargain. Below is what the 5th year is for that spot..

 

 

 

"For the top 10 picks in the first round, the fifth-year salary is the average of the top 10 players at his position. For picks 11 to 32, it's the average of the third through 25th highest-paid players at that position."

 

 

The above is taken from the link the poster provided. I know the first part is correct. So Luck would get the "transition " price for QB's. That being the average of the salaries of the top 10 QB's.  For a QB at pick 24 , it would probably work out to less than half of what a QB drafted in the top ten would get. If true , the author is right . It's a no brainer to move up if you like your guy and are willing to part with the draft pick. You are in a win -win as you don't even have to gurantee the money for that year. Plus if you value the QB , you pretty much have to move up as another QB needy team might do so.

[chad72]

Out of all teams in the 24-32 range, the Colts are the ONLY team without a second round pick. If teams feel they will get a fair shake from the Colts because of that, they are more inclined to call the Colts, IMO.

 

Instead of a team in the top 10 of round 2 being hard balled to give a 2, 3, and 4 to a team like the Patriots, Falcons, 49ers, or Ravens (like Broncos did with Ravens when McDaniels moved up to draft Tebow), they may need to shell out just a 2,3, and 5 with the Colts. I think it is the third pick that will be the key to pulling off a successful trade back for the Colts. The more sweet the Colts make it, the better off a trade partner they will be.

 

The big question is, should the Colts be pro-active and send out a notification two picks prior to their pick to certain teams outside the division like the Eagles, Lions, Cardinals, Jets, and Bills drafting in round 2 that they would be willing to trade down for a 2, 3, and 5?

[NewColtsFan]

Out of all teams in the 24-32 range, the Colts are the ONLY team without a second round pick. If teams feel they will get a fair shake from the Colts because of that, they are more inclined to call the Colts, IMO.

 

Instead of a team in the top 10 of round 2 being hard balled to give a 2, 3, and 4 to a team like the Patriots, Falcons, 49ers, or Ravens (like Broncos did with Ravens when McDaniels moved up to draft Tebow), they may need to shell out just a 2,3, and 5 with the Colts. I think it is the third pick that will be the key to pulling off a successful trade back for the Colts. The more sweet the Colts make it, the better off a trade partner they will be.

 

The big question is, should the Colts be pro-active and send out a notification two picks prior to their pick to certain teams outside the division like the Eagles, Lions, Cardinals, Jets, and Bills drafting in round 2 that they would be willing to trade down for a 2, 3, and 5?

 

Great post, Chad.....

 

My hope is for a 2/3/5....   I think we'd have to trade back into the 40's to get a 2/3/4...  and a team in the 40's would have to want to trade all the way up to 24....    that happened a few years ago,  but it was for Tebow....

 

I think Grigson notifies teams before anyone leaves for New York that the Colts are willing to entertain offers to trade down and stay in the 1st round,   and trade down out of the 1st and into the 2nd round...   both contingencies....

 

That lays the ground work....   you're willing to take the phone call and listen to offers,  but you're not obligated to anything....

 

Hopefully,   the calls start coming once the draft reaches the 20's.....     then, if we get a deal we like,  we don't pull the trigger until the Colts are officially on the clock.

 

Nice job, Chad....

[throwing BBZ]

Oops. Shoulda read the article. Missed or forgot the 11-32 thingy.

Kinda hope BA likes Barkley.

 Or SF with their two 2nd rounders and earlier 3rd.

[dw49]

Oops. Shoulda read the article. Missed or forgot the 11-32 thingy.

Kinda hope BA likes Barkley.

 Or SF with their two 2nd rounders and earlier 3rd.

 

 

 

If someone likes Barkley , 24 might be a garden spot. Too bad that he's the only QB that seems to fall into the late 1st - early second. Maybe Buffalo and Nesbit is possible ? 

[deano]

So let's say a team like Buffalo doesn't draft a QB with their first, and they want to trade up to get our first. Personally I'd like to get their first for next year, because we'd likely be getting an early first rounder along with whatever else they give us (probably a mid rounder or something). Obviously a lot of this depends on what is available when we pick. If all the guys they have targeted are gone, I'd hope they trade out.

 

Could that scenario play out? Our first for Buffalo's third and next year's first?

Actually, this make a lot of sense

You could probably also pick up an additional pick as well this year.... Late 3-5

If we can fill the OG spot and pick up a phillips as OLB, plus the developmental players that could start in the future... This could work

[ColtJ82]

I understand the value of trading our first round pick for multiple picks. However, due to the quality of player potentially acquired, I would almost prefer trade in to the 2nd by sending out multiple late round picks (our 3rd and 4th for someones early second).....something along those lines.

 

9 times out of 10 there is no way I would do this. However, I think Free Agency has given us a little flexibility to mortgage ourselves like this. It would obviously have to be for a player we are head over heels for.

[Bulldog2012]

Out of all teams in the 24-32 range, the Colts are the ONLY team without a second round pick. If teams feel they will get a fair shake from the Colts because of that, they are more inclined to call the Colts, IMO.

 

Instead of a team in the top 10 of round 2 being hard balled to give a 2, 3, and 4 to a team like the Patriots, Falcons, 49ers, or Ravens (like Broncos did with Ravens when McDaniels moved up to draft Tebow), they may need to shell out just a 2,3, and 5 with the Colts. I think it is the third pick that will be the key to pulling off a successful trade back for the Colts. The more sweet the Colts make it, the better off a trade partner they will be.

 

The big question is, should the Colts be pro-active and send out a notification two picks prior to their pick to certain teams outside the division like the Eagles, Lions, Cardinals, Jets, and Bills drafting in round 2 that they would be willing to trade down for a 2, 3, and 5?

 

There will be a lot of good options for the Colts at the early part of round 2 and they would recoup the picks that they traded to Miami and SF. I hope a deal like this goes down.

[Hans Moleman]

There's 2 problems with trading down:

 

1) The rate for first round picks has become cheaper. We won't get as much as teams did before the new CBA

 

2) Every team knows the strength of this draft is in the middle rounds. We'll have a tough time selling unless a team really falls in love with who's there, because other teams are thinking the exact same thing we are and nobody's too eager to want to part with a 2nd and 3rd.

 

It's not impossible we trade down, it's just not likely. Our best bet is trying to shop to teams with a ton of picks like San Francisco, but the odds of us finding a trade partner that makes sense aren't in our favor.

[John Dee]

I think St Louis and Minny are the prime teams to make something happen.    They both have 2 first rounders.   and pick right around Indy,    They can trade back and still have a first rounder.    If they don't do anything I totally expect Indy to at least TRY to trade back.

[dw49]

There's 2 problems with trading down:

 

1) The rate for first round picks has become cheaper. We won't get as much as teams did before the new CBA

 

2) Every team knows the strength of this draft is in the middle rounds. We'll have a tough time selling unless a team really falls in love with who's there, because other teams are thinking the exact same thing we are and nobody's too eager to want to part with a 2nd and 3rd.

 

It's not impossible we trade down, it's just not likely. Our best bet is trying to shop to teams with a ton of picks like San Francisco, but the odds of us finding a trade partner that makes sense aren't in our favor.

 

 

 

Your number 1 has me at a loss. What does "the rate for first round picks " mean. Why does the new CBA make 1st round picks less valuable ? I would think that with the new slotting rules , it would do just the opposite... make the higher picks more valuable. 

 

Example ... under the new CBA , Washington gives up 3 1st and a 2nd to move up 4-5 spots and take RG3. Under the old format ,  they also have to pay Griffin around 75 million for 6 years. So besides giving all the picks , they also wreck their cap. Under  the new CBA , it was 4 years for 21 mill and an option for a 5th year. 

 

Further example is Brandon Weedon signed for 4 years at 2 mill per year. He was drafted at 22. So don't you think the lower salaries for players in the1st round make them more valuable. I think proof of this was all the trades we have seen take place the last two years at the top of the draft. Before the new deals teams often tried to trade out of the top 3-4 spots just to avoid giving huge deals to questionable rookies. More often than not , there were no takers.

[Hans Moleman]

Your number 1 has me at a loss. What does "the rate for first round picks " mean. Why does the new CBA make 1st round picks less valuable ? I would think that with the new slotting rules , it would do just the opposite... make the higher picks more valuable. 

 

Example ... under the new CBA , Washington gives up 3 1st and a 2nd to move up 4-5 spots and take RG3. Under the old format ,  they also have to pay Griffin around 75 million for 6 years. So besides giving all the picks , they also wreck their cap. Under  the new CBA , it was 4 years for 21 mill and an option for a 5th year. 

 

Further example is Brandon Weedon signed for 4 years at 2 mill per year. He was drafted at 22. So don't you think the lower salaries for players in the1st round make them more valuable. I think proof of this was all the trades we have seen take place the last two years at the top of the draft. Before the new deals teams often tried to trade out of the top 3-4 spots just to avoid giving huge deals to questionable rookies. More often than not , there were no takers.

 

It's a different ballgame when teams are pursuing a franchise QB at the top of the draft. Outside of that the prices to move up were quite reasonable (not to say Washington's trade wasn't, but that was a special situation).

 

For the bottom of the draft, where we're picking, last year:

 

- Denver trades 31 and 126 for pick 25

- New England trades 27 and 93 for 21

- Minnesota trades 35 and 98 for pick 29

-  Denver trades 31 and 126 for 36 and 101

 

 

In 2010, the last year the old CBA was in place, 

 

- It costs Denver a 4th rounder to move up from 24 to 22. That was the same pick Denver received for dropping from 11 to 13.

- New England trades 24 and 119 for 27 and 90

- Baltimore pick 25 for 43, 70, and 114

- Minnesota trades 30 and 128 for 34, 100, 214

 

It's cheaper for teams to move up now than it was. 

 

Looking at it, if we drop to the bottom of the first or top of the 2nd, we'll be in the range of one extra 3rd or 4th round pick. To me, that's just not worth the dropoff in talent between who we could pick at 24 and wherever we end up. It's a buyer's market, and it's going to be tough for us to get premium value for moving down. 

 

If we can get a 4th rounder for moving down 2 spots like in 2010, or turn one of our 4ths into a 3rd, I wouldn't mind it. If that's what we're getting by moving to the bottom of the 1st or out of it altogether, the value's just not there. 

 

The going rate is a 4th (either outright or swapping picks) for moving 5-6 spots lower. In 2010, the similar value could be had for dropping 2-3 picks. That's why I say it's a buyer's market, not a seller's one.

[dw49]

It's a different ballgame when teams are pursuing a franchise QB at the top of the draft. Outside of that the prices to move up were quite reasonable (not to say Washington's trade wasn't, but that was a special situation).

 

For the bottom of the draft, where we're picking, last year:

 

- Denver trades 31 and 126 for pick 25

- New England trades 27 and 93 for 21

- Minnesota trades 35 and 98 for pick 29

-  Denver trades 31 and 126 for 36 and 101

 

 

In 2010, the last year the old CBA was in place, 

 

- It costs Denver a 4th rounder to move up from 24 to 22. That was the same pick Denver received for dropping from 11 to 13.

- New England trades 24 and 119 for 27 and 90

- Baltimore pick 25 for 43, 70, and 114

- Minnesota trades 30 and 128 for 34, 100, 214

 

It's cheaper for teams to move up now than it was. 

 

Looking at it, if we drop to the bottom of the first or top of the 2nd, we'll be in the range of one extra 3rd or 4th round pick. To me, that's just not worth the dropoff in talent between who we could pick at 24 and wherever we end up. It's a buyer's market, and it's going to be tough for us to get premium value for moving down. 

 

If we can get a 4th rounder for moving down 2 spots like in 2010, or turn one of our 4ths into a 3rd, I wouldn't mind it. If that's what we're getting by moving to the bottom of the 1st or out of it altogether, the value's just not there. 

 

The going rate is a 4th (either outright or swapping picks) for moving 5-6 spots lower. In 2010, the similar value could be had for dropping 2-3 picks. That's why I say it's a buyer's market, not a seller's one.

 

 

 

I really don't think what you've posted proves much of anything. The sample you have is way too small to prove anything. Much would depend on how teams saw what was left on their draft boards. Furthermore when a team wants to trade back and there is not much interest  , they will take a lessor price to do so. Obvs... the reverse would be true. To believe what you are saying , there has to be some logic as to why the new collective bargaining agreement would make this happen. The fact that the rookie contracts for first rounders has gone down in a huge way would make a logical thinking person believe the "value" of those picks is higher not lower as you assert. Furthermore pick 24 is worth considerably morfe than those picks in the 30's that you cite.

 

Sidenote ... you use the 2010 trade as an example of paying a higher price. It also exhibits what the rest of us arfe saying about a team moving up for a QB at the later part of round 1. The team that Balt traded the pick to was Denver and the player they over-paid to draft was indeed a QB. That example pretty much would "mirror" what many think could happen. A team wants a QB and gives a 2nd around 2.12 plus a 3rd and 4th. Pick 24 is pretty close to pick 25.

[Hans Moleman]

Last year, Denver moved down to 31 to 25. That's 6 spots for a 4th rounder. We pick 24. In the same draft, they moved down 5 spots again from 31 and were only able to swap 4th rounders. So, the grand total from dropping from an almost identical spot as us (25 vs 24) to the second round netted them an extra 4th rounder and trading spots in the 4th. An extra 4th and trading 4th round picks for 11 spots. 

 

It is a small sample and much smaller than I like to use, but I'm sticking to my theory that we won't get a good price by moving down this year. The point we're debating is only one factor why.

 

I wouldn't mind being wrong if we can trade down for a king's ransom, but I'd rather us take the best player available because we still need an overall talent upgrade. If we can get a high 2, 3, and 4 for 25, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I just don't think that's realistic to expect this year.

[dw49]

Last year, Denver moved down to 31 to 25. That's 6 spots for a 4th rounder. We pick 24. In the same draft, they moved down 5 spots again from 31 and were only able to swap 4th rounders. So, the grand total from dropping from an almost identical spot as us (25 vs 24) to the second round netted them an extra 4th rounder and trading spots in the 4th. An extra 4th and trading 4th round picks for 11 spots. 

 

It is a small sample and much smaller than I like to use, but I'm sticking to my theory that we won't get a good price by moving down this year. The point we're debating is only one factor why.

 

I wouldn't mind being wrong if we can trade down for a king's ransom, but I'd rather us take the best player available because we still need an overall talent upgrade. If we can get a high 2, 3, and 4 for 25, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I just don't think that's realistic to expect this year.

 

 

 

Really Hans , you seem to miss a few that don't support your view , which when common sense is applied is perplexing.

 

I just opened up 2011 and here's one you somehow missed.

 

^ #6: Cleveland → Atlanta. (D) Cleveland traded this pick to Atlanta for Atlanta's first (27th overall, which later became #26), second (59th) and fourth-rounder (124th) and also Atlanta's first- and fourth-round selections in 2012.^{[source 1]}

 

 

Bottom line is there is no such eveidence that lower costs for players drafted in the 1st round and been accompanied by the picks becoming less valuable in trades. That is just absurd and if anyne can come up with any kind of reasoning that adds even a sliver of a reason why this would hold true.. I'm all ears. The value of pick 1.24 will depend on how the Colts view their "board in rounds 2-4 and how much another team values a player available at that pick and of coarse how they see the draft in rounds 2-4. It's really that simple... honest. There is no such buyer or seller market that has developed since the new CBA. If anything a team would be willing to give up more as the contracts are much cheaper for 1st round picks and haven't changed much for rounds 2-7. 

 

As far as the NE trade , I would think that most teams felt the board did not warrent them giving up much for moving 6 spots. It's really that simple. If you feel rounds 2, 3 and 4 are very strong and also feel that a player won't "slip" down to 24 , then your claim is more than likely right. I also agree that you have to get good value to make the move. You don't do it just to add another pick. However (I'm being repetitive) , nothing has happened to make this type move a "buyers market."

[iM COLTSSTRONG]

trade down unless warmack, cooper, rhodes, mingo, johnson is there at 24 (chances highly unlikely )

[FalseStart]

1. TRADE + 6th Rounder for 2,3,5th

2. Warford G, Hopkins WR

3. Lemonier, Buchanan B. Jenkins OLB

3. Bostic, Washington, J. Jenkins OLB

4. Kruger DE or Bailey G

5. Bell, Franklin, Barner, Gilislee RB or Evans FS

7. Hansen C or Armstrong FS

7. Nealy DE or Wood RB

 

*Talented OLB class this year...

[NewColtsFan]

1. TRADE + 6th Rounder for 2,3,5th

2. Warford G, Hopkins WR

3. Lemonier, Buchanan B. Jenkins OLB

3. Bostic, Washington, J. Jenkins OLB

4. Kruger DE or Bailey G

5. Bell, Franklin, Barner, Gilislee RB or Evans FS

7. Hansen C or Armstrong FS

7. Nealy DE or Wood RB

 

*Talented OLB class this year...

 

Am I seeing OLB's for both our 3rd round picks??

 

And your thinking here is what?

[FalseStart]

Am I seeing OLB's for both our 3rd round picks??

 

And your thinking here is what?

YES SIR.  The talent, our history...two "quality" OLBs in the 3rd would be wonderful.  This would allow the linebacking unit to always remain healthy. With Buchanan and Lemonier...I can see them on the inside as well...possibly replacing Angerer, Conner...in the future.  To many DT on the roster... To many CB on the roster...? DE...in the 3rd? With Kruger in the 4th and Nealy in the 7th? I know...the shell game. 8 WR...  Palmer, Sambrano, Whalen, Kelley, DHB, Hilton, Brazill, Wayne... 3rd...Maybe a C like Schwenke or Frederick?

[Valpo2004]

Is a QB selected late in the first round likely to be worth the 10 million in the first place?  

[dw49]

Is a QB selected late in the first round likely to be worth the 10 million in the first place?  

 

 

 

What 10 million do you speak of ?   Brandon Weedon was drafted at 1.22 and received 2 mill per year.

[FightLikeSin]

Trade down sounds good to me. Unless the Colts think there is a real game changer at #24...

 

There will be. Which is why I don't like the trade situation. I'd rather have a game changer at #24 than two question marks later in the draft.

[Valpo2004]

What 10 million do you speak of ?   Brandon Weedon was drafted at 1.22 and received 2 mill per year.

 

The thing talked about getting the player an extra year at a controlled rate.  Which they said would for QB's be 10 million for that year.

 

What is the likely-hood of getting a QB at the bottom of the first round that is worth 10 million per year. 

 

Not talking about the initial contract, talking about the extra year they are hyping as the reason to draft a QB late in the first rather then early in the 2nd. 

[dw49]

The thing talked about getting the player an extra year at a controlled rate.  Which they said would for QB's be 10 million for that year.

 

What is the likely-hood of getting a QB at the bottom of the first round that is worth 10 million per year. 

 

Not talking about the initial contract, talking about the extra year they are hyping as the reason to draft a QB late in the first rather then early in the 2nd. 

 

 

 

 

From what I've read , the 5th year is very easy for the club to opt out of. If true it would look to be a "win-win" situation for the club. But I'm not an expert on NFL contracts and I only read the one explanation of this. I would add that if the QB that was drafted at the end of round one turned out to be a good starting QB , the average of salaries 3-32 could be a good deal. There have been numerous good QB's taken from picks 1.24 and later.

[Valpo2004]

From what I've read , the 5th year is very easy for the club to opt out of. If true it would look to be a "win-win" situation for the club. But I'm not an expert on NFL contracts and I only read the one explanation of this. I would add that if the QB that was drafted at the end of round one turned out to be a good starting QB , the average of salaries 3-32 could be a good deal. There have been numerous good QB's taken from picks 1.24 and later.

 

Not that many.  The list of QB's taken after or on pick 24 that have solid starting jobs in the NFL currently are.

 

Tom Brady - 6th rnd - 2000

Andy Dalton - 2nd rnd - 2011

Matt Schaub -  3rd rnd - 2004

Tony Romo - UDFA - 2003

Aaron Rodgers - 24th overall - 2005

Drew Brees - 2nd rnd - 2001

Colin Kaepernick - 2nd rnd - 2011

Russel Wilson - 3rd rnd - 2012

 

So if you look at that list, Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, Tony Romo, and Russel Wilson don't count in this conversation because no one drafted them in either the 1st or the 2nd round.  Essentially they came out of no where and no one expected them to be as good as they are.  Even with the new rules, those guys still don't sniff the first round.  

 

So essentially we are operating this conversation on Dalton, Rodgers, Brees and Kaepernick.  As starting QB's who succeeded in the NFL being drafted between 24th overall and the end of the 2nd round.

 

Now here is the 2nd part. . . how many QB's have been drafted in that zone (between 24th overall and the end of the 2nd round) between 2001 and 2012 who are either A. out of the NFL without making much of a mark or B. Career backups?

 

Now maybe that's not entirely fair because there are players out there who might be awaiting their chance.  Osweilder in Denver comes to mind, but lets say from 2000 to 2010 NFL draft, how many QB's drafted from 24th overall through the 2nd round never even made for a solid starter??

 

My point is that over the course of recent history most of the starting QB's drafted after 24 where either accidental gems that no one knew about. (remember part of this relies on the team knowing this person is gonna be good) or where late 1st round/2nd round busts.  Dalton, Rodgers, Brees and Kaepernick are exceptions to the rule.  

 

And I will add that anyone drafted in the 2nd round or higher who never made for at least a solid starter is a bust.

[evilleseniorfan]

Assuming our Super Bowl year is a year away, we have some expensive assets ($14 mil/annually) that may help us MOVE UP in the draft, NOT DOWN. Think long term. Trust the front office.

If there is a long term, high quality DE or OLB available, why not put two of our favorites, Mathis & Vinatieri in play? Any team who believes this is their year, and needs a kicker, may pay handsomely for Adam. Mathis may be the missing piece some contender is looking for (and we're paying him $10+ mil). I don't think these talents will be with us when we make our next serious Super Bowl run, so let's trade for the value now.

I also think Buffalo may be interested in Hasselback, but this could be a very interesting transaction.