Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jared Cisneros

Can we use Drew Lock to get a 2020 first round pick?

Recommended Posts

The Cardinals have Kyler Murray and won't choose Lock at 33. They also have little to no leverage with Rosen talks now that the first round is over and they drafted Murray. They won't trade the 33rd pick because they'll have no draft to build upon after drafting Murray and trading their 2nd round pick. My question is, would you trade pick 34 for a 2020 first round pick to a team that wants Lock tomorrow? We'd have 8 picks left and be a little thin, but Ballard would of effectively traded the 26th pick for a 1st and 2nd rounder next year (and technically moving down from 34 to 46). The reward could be huge next year in both rounds (especially the 1st round).

 

So would you do it? 

All comments are appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The Cardinals have Kyler Murray and won't choose Lock at 33. They also have little to no leverage with Rosen talks now that the first round is over and they drafted Murray. They won't trade the 33rd pick because they'll have no draft to build upon after drafting Murray and trading their 2nd round pick. My question is, would you trade pick 34 for a 2020 first round pick to a team that wants Lock tomorrow? We'd have 8 picks left and be a little thin, but Ballard would of effectively traded the 26th pick for a 1st and 2nd rounder next year (and technically moving down from 34 to 46). The reward could be huge next year in both rounds (especially the 1st round).

 

So would you do it? 

All comments are appreciated!

I would like to get some quality picks now to get up to speed. My one concern of trading for the next years 1st round pick is that every year we delay, Luck ages. If Luck was year 3-4, yes, in a heart beat because we have plenty of time but he is year 7 now and he may have 7-8 years left but will they all be elite level years or does he start to diminish in year 5 from here? If there are no quality guys up at 34 worth that pick that we can benefit from, fine, trade away but lets not get so cute here that we outsmart ourselves in the search for stockpiling of picks. I still trust whatever CB will do because he hasn't called to ask my opinion yet lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The Cardinals have Kyler Murray and won't choose Lock at 33. They also have little to no leverage with Rosen talks now that the first round is over and they drafted Murray. They won't trade the 33rd pick because they'll have no draft to build upon after drafting Murray and trading their 2nd round pick. My question is, would you trade pick 34 for a 2020 first round pick to a team that wants Lock tomorrow? We'd have 8 picks left and be a little thin, but Ballard would of effectively traded the 26th pick for a 1st and 2nd rounder next year (and technically moving down from 34 to 46). The reward could be huge next year in both rounds (especially the 1st round).

 

So would you do it? 

All comments are appreciated!

Yes.  To Miami or Cincy because neither of those teams would win their divisions and make for a early to mid round 1st.   More than likely and hopefully our 1st rounder will be in the high 20s to early 30's. So the early pick would be very helpful.

 

Basically wed be trading pick 34 for pick about 15 next yr.   

 

This is a team that became the hottest team in the NFL at the end of last yr and everyone is back with additions at WR and DE. And another WR in Caine  Add in some draft picks and some more FA additions we could be in better shape this yr even without the 34 pick. And the young guys are going to continue to develop 

 

I know ther are holes to fill, but we are still in building mode for the championship and its not going to happen over night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would trade #34 to Denver for their second and third round picks this year. But would they want Lock that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • As I said, it's never about "can you fit under the cap?", or "do you spend all your cap space?" Because you can fit under the cap certainly. Actually, you have to, that's the rule. And most teams do spend their cap space. That's the point. Use it all if possible. The Patriots use it all usually, the Steelers use it all usually, etc. Most teams do. Actually, the Colts do use almost all of their 2019 cap space too. (The 2019 total sum of contracts is a bit over 184 million, just a few mills under the cap. That "40ish cap space" is already nothing else but the rollovers from previous years.)   But, even with spending all the cap space, there is good cap management, and there is bad cap management. The Patriots spend all of their cap space, and they manage it very effectively. The Colts (now) spend all of their (excluding rollover), and I belive Ballard manages the cap very effectively. But the Jags didn't. They went over the line, and sacrifized their future effectiveness by getting into bidding wars and signing pricey free agents one after another. The problem wasn't Norwell. If it was only him, that would be ok. The problem was, that they also signed Moncrief for 10M, Jenkins for 6M, Church for 7M, traded for Hyde and payed him 4M and he barely saw the field, etc, etc. The list is very long.      I never said that having elite talents heading into their second contract is a burden. You are right, that is a blessing. Actually, that is the best that can happen to a team. That's what Ballard want's to do! The problem is, that the Jaguars got into a situation, when there is a very good chance that they cannot sign their own guys. And their roster got thin, because they could not refill it this offseason enough. They got worse. And they will become even worse in 2020, because they won't be able to retain their talent level. Yes, they can cut Campbell, they can cut Bouye, and they can trade Ngakogue, and fit under the cap. And then? Who will play at CB, who will play at DE? A mediocre somebody. So, instead of improving their team, they actually made it worse. That's the bad management. Cap wise and talent wise as well. (However, I do agree, that they kinda draft OK recently - one year exceptionally well, but still OK since then, so their talent infusion is somewhat OK. What they screwed up big time is cap management.)   Btw, this is an old story repeating itself. Coughlin has been with the Jags before. And he drove them into cap hell before. It was bad, it cost them years to recover. He's just doing it all over again. He is (was) a very good coach, but terrible at managing the cap.
    • https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/colts-say-no-trade-offers-sticking-jacoby-brissett-backup?fbclid=IwAR0IGDgC2r_pBbt7tUzbQjxiBv0zfXiUyxQtxziGhcsvuaRHI3Or6xVIT74   I like Reich's quotes here:  “It’s impossible for me to have a higher opinion of Jacoby than I do,” Reich says. “I said it last year, I think he’s a top 20 quarterback. I still say that. After watching him for a year, this guy’s really good.   “I tell Chris all the time, ‘Please don’t let him go. I don’t care what anybody offers him. Don’t let him go.’ I love Jacoby. The problem is now I’ve gotten to know Jacoby and, at some point, I hope that it works out for Jacoby. But not now.”
    • How is the number of UDFAs significant to anything?     For the record, the Colts actually signed 11 UDFAs...JAC signed 21.    BTW, here are some of the "better teams" and the number of UDFAs this year:   HOU - 20 KC - 23 CHI - 22 NO -17 LAR - 19 LAC - 19   I see no clear correlation between "better teams", thin rosters and UDFAs. There is more of a correlation between the number of draft picks and UDFAs, if anything. Those teams typically had less draft picks...and therefore...more roster spots to give to UDFAs. And UDFAs understand this as well...and see a better path to making a roster if a draft pick is not in their way.   In 2018, the Colts...in the first year of a new offensive and defensive scheme...coming off a 4-win season...signed only 10 UDFAs...because they had 11 draft picks...which makes sense. But that roster was by no means deep.  
  • Members

    • Shepman

      Shepman 220

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fourstar40

      Fourstar40 2

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Boiler_Colt

      Boiler_Colt 3,716

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 9,729

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 261

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HectorRoberts

      HectorRoberts 443

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • COLTS7

      COLTS7 283

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dgierhart

      dgierhart 3

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • That Guy

      That Guy 806

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,807

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...