Trade the fuck up for Kizer, damnt.
[Reply]

Watson has the profile of playing well in big games. It sounds tebowish, but you've got the eye test there and for me, he's not in the Tebow category throwing the football. He needs cleaned up a little, but I don't really know that it would be that difficult.
[Reply]

I really like Kizer. If he got I to the late teens, I'd be very interested. I don't think he gets by Arizona though.

It sucks in that, I'm not sure many cases where trading up for a qb has worked. It's so much about being lucky.
[Reply]

Say the Browns trade for a QB (or sign one) and take Garrett at #1. I would offer up a package to move to #12 and take Kizer (if he fell that far).
[Reply]

That's a long way to go to get a guy that's not sure fire. 27 to 12, would cost quite a bit.

2 1st, a 2nd and 2 3rds?
[Reply]

For Julio Jones at #6, the Falcons gave up...

First round pick (#27), 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick that year. Then a 1st round pick and a 4th round pick the following year.

That was to move up 21 spots. We wouldn't be moving up that high.
[Reply]

We would get raped on compensation alone.
[Reply]

By all means.....keep waiting for the right opportunity to take one. We do that and we'll never end up with one. You think Mahomes will be there at #27? He won't.
[Reply]

I want to move up, just not in the top 15. I think the 17-20 area is our sweet spot.

Plus it's been proven over and over that QB's don't have to be first rd picks to be good players. It's not always the shiny top 15 QB that's best
[Reply]

If they think Kizer is their guy....I don't give a shit if they move up to #12 to get him. Our team has enough depth right now....that we don't need 12 picks. Move some of them and go get your guy.
[Reply]

We don't need 12 picks but giving up premium picks in other classes is what it would take to get that high.

I don't like doing that.

I'm not against trading up, but to go that far, that's tough.
[Reply]

We are pretty much at a spot where we either trade up for a QB.....or end up taking shots on 2nd round picks at QB. We aren't going to be bad enough that we draft high enough to get one. It's either going to be trade up for one this year or trade up for one next year.
[Reply]

This is a very dangerous game to play. I'm fine with giving up multiple picks but not giving up the farm.

You need high draft picks every year regardless. Look at how the Seahawks have declined without a 1st round pick for a few years? The league is made for cheap draftable talent.

Kizer has been a top 10 pick in the recent mocks I've seen. I don't think we could realistically go that high.
Mahommes seems like a guy who we could move up to obtain without cutting both of our arms off as compensation.
[Reply]

I wonder if Dorsey will try to work out a deal with Ballard for pick #14? Colts need draft picks to fill a myriad of holes on their roster.
[Reply]

Posted it in another thread but this belongs here my thoughts on Watson.

I gotta be honest guys I'm a born Alabama fan and what I've seen from Watson last two years was remarkable. I saw two years ago an overmatched Clemson team play toe to toe with one of the best Bama teams of alll time. Watson just kept bringing his team back time and time again. I saw this year a QB play one of the worst halfs of football I've ever seen. I watched him come back with such amazing poise and leadership that I msgd my friends and said Bama is gonna lose because of him.


Now to the detractors yes he overthrew and under threw receivers, but the kid was on the sidelines rallying his team.

Those that have known me over the years know I was screaming for us to take russel Wilson based on what I saw against Bama when he played for NC State. All I heard was he's too short he misses passes etc now look at him.

Gentleman and ladies the combine and tape can show you stats and highlights but the one thing it can't judge is leadership ability and Watson has this. I have no doubt if we got him we would solve our needs. Sorry for long post but felt like I needed to say something bout this subject.
[Reply]