I don't think you pry that pick out of the Browns, Jets, Lions or Giants.

Because if any of those teams are picking 1.1, the Manziel, Darnold and Jones experiments will have failed (with Stafford's just running its course). Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of those teams have front offices in place that selected their incumbent quarterbacks, correct?

And ultimately I just disagree with the idea that they're going to "get a damn good quarterback" as a given, even in the top 10. Because history says its just as likely as not that they don't.

It's a lot harder to get even an average NFL quarterback than most will admit. And Dak, for everything he may not be, is decidedly above average.
[Reply]

I think the Cardinals and Bengals probably belong on that list.

But if the rest might just move on to Lawrence or another top QB prospect if they end up with the top pick. At least I would. I mean Cleveland is somewhat all in on this year. top pick indicates there are serious problems most likely at QB, Rams really don't need too much more to consider Goff is a bust, the Jets and Giants might just do what Arizona did last year cut your losses and upgrade (Again bottom 5/top pick means some serious problems) Atlanta and Detroit their QB's are not getting any younger and probably new coach in Detroit might be a good time to start over...
[Reply]

This is what I’ve been telling my friend that’s a Cowboys fan for a while now.

It doesn’t even have to be Lawrence IMO. Trey Lance looks like a phenomenal prospect as well. I’m not a huge Fields fan, but as the #3 QB, he’s pretty damn good too.
[Reply]

Yeah, but if you're an NFL team you can't just say "If we don't have Mahomes, we're fucked..."

Even if you probably are.

So you have to pick the best of less than stellar options and then figure out how to make it work. Sure, they'd like to stumble into another Dak or Wilson and have him dirt cheap for several years. But man - Jordan Love is going in the first round these days. Teams are hard up for QBs and unless they draft top 5, attempting to draft a guy is likely to yield a worse QB than what they have. The demand for young QBs is so high that any truly good bets will go top 5.

The QB market is fucked up. Everyone knows this. But at the same time, nobody seemed to be too concerned about it during CBA discussions. If it was something the owners were really all that worried about, they'd have addressed it then.
[Reply]

Yea I totally get it. It’s fucking tough.

Thank god we don’t have to worry about it.
[Reply]

What's happened is crap teams have way over paid for ordinary QBs from from fear of starting over. Stafford, Ryan, Tanny, Cutler and so on and so forth. Now Dak is next for more money and recent history is that he should get more than the previous QB just becuse of the position.
[Reply]

And Kirk. Accomplished nothing but get big money.
[Reply]

Say some team offers the Chiefs a first for Chris Jones and they take it, then said team completely implodes and the Chiefs get 1.1.

Obviously the Chiefs aren't going to keep Trevor Lawrence, but how would you auction him off?
[Reply]

I guess I'd call the Cowboys :-)

I mean ultimately you answered your own question, didn't you? Pretty easy "highest bidder" analysis at that point. And I'd weight it more towards highest picks in 2021 in return given the weirdness of year to year performance in the NFL.

That 'high 2nd rounder' we got from SF for Dee Ford sure turned to shit in a hurry, didn't it?

So if I'm accepting bids, it's pretty much gonna be "who's gonna give me the most in 2021 because every last one of you is giving me at least a 1st in 2022 anyway..."

The return might be as big as anything the NFL has ever seen.
[Reply]

Hey man. Good to see you posting!

That’s a really fun and intriguing hypothetical.

I mean, your asking price and return price would be stupid, so stupid it might shift the NFL draft pick value chart.

I’d ask for a team’s next 3 first round picks - and then some.

2021 1st and 3rd
2022 1st and 2nd
2023 1st and 3rd

It’s Herschel Walker trade territory. But man, the flexibility it would give KC...

Fun thing to think about that will never happen...
[Reply]

But there's really no way for that to not be a parasitic relationship, is there?

There's not gonna be anybody that becomes a football fan BECAUSE the Chargers are there. Oh sure, they might be Chargers fans instead of Rams fans, but if the Chargers weren't there and they were football fans, they'd become Rams fans.

I just don't see how putting the Chargers in LA helped with total eyeballs unless there's some marginal benefit from the fact that one of them will be on the road (likely in the noon slot) while the other will be at 3 and so you may have the entire LA football fan market watching from noon to 6 (just watching the hometown team even if they don't root for them) rather than merely from 3 to 6.

I guess it's as good an explanation as any...
[Reply]

I'm just thinking about marketing/advertising dollars. I mean, we're not just talking about the private citizens watching from home, but the fact that every bar, sports bar, casual restaurant in SoCal will have the games on every Sunday/Monday/Thursday and that a lot of people go to such establishments to watch the game instead of staying home.

So even if only 30% or less of the customers on any given gameday are actual fans, all those eyes will see some of all those commercials. And that's big TV money. Advertisers will get charged more for game commercials, especially in SoCal because the potential audience is so much larger, even commercials before the game will be slightly more, because there's a higher chance of people actually watching as they get ready for the game.

So it's not just about actual fans of either team, but the entire captive audiences for those time slots. Which probably is at least 3 times larger than the fanbases.
[Reply]

I've been in LA for almost 28 years and before I was able to put a Direct TV dish in my home, I was out every single weekend at what few sports bars existed in LA during that time.

95% of the customers were East Coast guys, so the Giants, Jets and Eagles dominated the TV's. I was always relegated to the smallest TV in the bar, which was generally in a corner with about 3 or 4 other Chiefs fans.

I've been out a few times since the Rams returned to LA and literally no one in these sports bars were watching the Rams. There's very little interest, even after their Super Bowl run in 2018.

As for the Chargers, there is zero interest in the team and now that Rivers, Gates and Gordon are gone, they don't even have a single marquee player for them to hang their hat on in terms of marketing.

Moving one team, let alone two teams, to SoCal was a huge miscalculation on the part of the NFL.
[Reply]

He Dak out played Mahomes, according to Skip Bayless, so he deserves more money than Mahomes. :-)


[Reply]

It may have already been mentioned but in texas there is no state income tax.If Dak were to sign with a California team he'd be paying 12.3% so that 175 mill would have to be 196 mil just to equal out.
[Reply]