Thread: What's your worst-case plausible scenario at #5?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

First of all...the Giants aren't giving up #2 for #5 unless next years #1 is included. So, the proposed trade is already ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is giving up that much for one of these 3 QB's. (Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield)

Basically this.

We will soon see how the NFL teams evaluate each of these QBs. If the Browns and Giants pass on taking a QB, leaving Darnold or Allen to the Jets at #3, then we will have confirmation of the sentiment among some draft experts, that there's really not a true #1 overall pick QB in this years' draft, that all of them are flawed in one way or another, and that there's not really all that much difference between the top 4 QBs and #5 or #6.

Six QBs are supposed to be taken in the first round, including Mason Rudolph, Lamar Jackson, or Kyle Lauletta (maybe 2 of those 3).

Teams are taking so many QBs because they are judged to be all about the same, roughly. Maybe Darnold and Allen have the most "upside potential" that scouts rave about but ordinary fans don't really understand. Who the hell knows what "potential" each of these guys really has?

But, we know from history that about (2 or 3) of these six QBs will wash out and maybe 1 or 2 of them will be really good, while the rest will be mediocre. So, in all likelihood you spent the 5th pick of the draft on a guy who will be mediocre or bad.

That's why Elway is betting his career on the choice, and has to be sure he's getting the right guy. And if he's not sure, then he has to take a player instead.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Moving up to #2 means you're okay with two distinct possibilities.

My comment is that I am okay with five distinct possibilities and saving those future picks. Let's say that three of those QBs are acceptable plus Nelson and Barkley. Why, then, would I trade up?

I’m okay with all these possibilities, I haven’t flipped my lid at the notion of any of these possibilities, unlike some of y’all.

Arguing against trading up is as old as this MB, but again, the reason to move up is to get the better player. It doesn’t mean that you’re closed off to all but two possibilities, that’s stupid.

Clearly I am open to possibilities that you’re not, and, most of those that you are open to, so let’s not get this twisted.

Originally Posted by Jaded

I’m okay with all these possibilities, I haven’t flipped my lid at the notion of any of these possibilities, unlike some of y’all.

Arguing against trading up is as old as this MB, but again, the reason to move up is to get the better player. It doesn’t mean that you’re closed off to all but two possibilities, that’s stupid.

Clearly I am open to possibilities that you’re not, and, most of those that you are open to, so let’s not get this twisted.

You're contradicting yourself. You trade up to #2 because there are only two players you consider acceptable at the top of the draft and you've decided you desperately need one of them. Let's say, hypothetically, that you've studied all the QBs and decided the only two you'd bet your career on are Darnold and Mayfield. You've rationalized they are franchise QBs to the exclusion of all the others (and JFE may have that belief for all I know). Then it makes sense to trade up, sell out next year's #1 and this year's to get up to #2. If that's Elway's position, I can get behind it, particularly if Kubiak feels the same.

I, personally, think that none of the QBs being discussed is a sure-fire star at the next level. If so, it makes more sense to wait and see what falls to us. That's why I would be distressed about a trade up. I feel there are five players worthy of being the #5 pick but perhaps none worthy of being the #2 pick. I would even be okay with trading down with Buffalo to get #12 and #21 if a few certain someones are on the board but that gets risky.

so, y'all probably gathered that drafting josh allen is my ultimate nightmare scenario. . . i really don't think JFE is dumb enough to do it, though. . .

#FingersCrossed

however, the other scenario that's making me a little nervous is all the "trade down" chatter i keep hearing. . . i'm okay with moving down IF we can get a premium price for our premium pick. . . moving down just to move down, because they don't love anyone at five, would suck. . . i think that might be my worst plausible outcome right now. . . doing some shit like moving back to fifteen without getting next year's first, and we end up with a harold landry, mike hughes kind of pick. . . IMO, even if our top guys are gone, we need to hold firm and take the best guy on our board unless somebody blows us away with a can't resist type of offer. . .

Allen

Ward

Originally Posted by chazoe60

Ward

I understand your aversion to a DB - but Ward is definitely not the worst case scenario. He'd be an immediate starter with speed and physicality, even if he's undersized. Allen would be our 3rd giant experimental QB who can't throw accurately and would come in as a backup.

Originally Posted by Buff

I understand your aversion to a DB - but Ward is definitely not the worst case scenario. He'd be an immediate starter with speed and physicality, even if he's undersized. Allen would be our 3rd giant experimental QB who can't throw accurately and would come in as a backup.

Not sure Ward would start over Roby and Harris.

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

Not sure Ward would start over Roby and Harris.

We are in base nickel at least half the time nowadays. Semantics.