Breaking News Lions pick

[bigpoppachief]

Sources: QB's agent trying to close deal with Lions - NFL - Yahoo! Sports


They are saying that the Lions ARE taking Stafford which means the either we will egt Curry or someone will trade down to make sure they can get Sanchez ! This si getting exctiting !!!

[OPLookn]

If they're booking one being gone by 4 and the other not slipping past 10 I don't see how the value of our pick decreases, if anything it increases the value. Again everything is hypothetical here but I was referenceing trading out of the top 5-10 to a team looking for options at a potential QB neither of which will fall past 10.

I'd say it decreases. If there are two QB's left with Seattle taking one fine....there's another QB out there that's for the taking. They can just trade with #5 or who ever and not have to give as much for that spot than at #3. The only way our trade down value increases IMO is if Stafford is picked up by the Lions. Just my two cents though.

[Pro_Angler]

if curry goes #1 we can kiss our trading down goodbye. Crap this sucks.

[DT14PRIEST]

I'd say it decreases. If there are two QB's left with Seattle taking one fine....there's another QB out there that's for the taking. They can just trade with #5 or who ever and not have to give as much for that spot than at #3. The only way our trade down value increases IMO is if Stafford is picked up by the Lions. Just my two cents though.

The value of each pick decrease when a QB is taken off the board. If one team has Stafford above Sanchez on their board and both are avalible at 3 and they suspect that Seattle will take one of them at 4 then how can the value of the pick decrease at 3 when their top prospect is still avalible and they believe that he might be gone at 4? Do they settle for the 2nd best option? I think if they can make the deal for 3 then they do it and get their number one rated player.

Once again hypothetically speaking.

[dogbyte]

I do not see that many teams wanting to trade up to get either QB at 3. If Detroit could trade out they would, no one wants the cost of these players. I could see some action if these players drop out of the top 5.
None of the 3 QBs are that good to warrant being picked this high.

[Coach]

The only way our trade down value increases IMO is if Stafford is picked up by the Lions. Just my two cents though.

Absolutely. The only exception would be if a team wanted to pick Stafford ahead of Seattle's pick.

if curry goes #1 we can kiss our trading down goodbye. Crap this sucks.

Yep.

[bigpoppachief]

I'd say it decreases. If there are two QB's left with Seattle taking one fine....there's another QB out there that's for the taking. They can just trade with #5 or who ever and not have to give as much for that spot than at #3. The only way our trade down value increases IMO is if Stafford is picked up by the Lions. Just my two cents though.

Exactly ! That doesnt even make sense to say that if there are two QBs we have more trade bait ?

[DT14PRIEST]

Exactly ! That doesnt even make sense to say that if there are two QBs we have more trade bait ?

I don't see how settling for the '2nd best option' makes sense. If what I'm reading here is correct then the general consensus amongst everyone here is that Stafford/Sanchez are valued equally on every draft board; if thats the case then there shouldn't be a debate on either prospect or their position in the draft.

That just doesn't make sense. Someone has to be rated better then the other, its just the nature of the beast.

If I'm a team sitting outside of the Top 5 and the two top quarterback prospects are avalible at 3 and the likelihood that 'top prospect' is going to be gone by 4 do I sit back and let it happen and settle for the 2nd best prospect or do I trade up and go for the 'top prospect' on my draft board? Thats the arguement I'm trying to make here.

[jason1981]

it all depends on what you have to give up to trade up to get the QB. It all depends on the cons and pros.

[chief31]

I don't see how settling for the '2nd best option' makes sense. If what I'm reading here is correct then the general consensus amongst everyone here is that Stafford/Sanchez are valued equally on every draft board; if thats the case then there shouldn't be a debate on either prospect or their position in the draft.

That just doesn't make sense. Someone has to be rated better then the other, its just the nature of the beast.

If I'm a team sitting outside of the Top 5 and the two top quarterback prospects are avalible at 3 and the likelihood that 'top prospect' is going to be gone by 4 do I sit back and let it happen and settle for the 2nd best prospect or do I trade up and go for the 'top prospect' on my draft board? Thats the arguement I'm trying to make here.

I agree with you to a degree.

I think the value of #3 is higher with only one QB left, because those that need one, need on.

If they are both gone, then you don't get one. You have to settle for later rounds.

And I think most would be happier settling for one of the top two, than getting something in the third round.

So, while I don't think that two available QBs kills our trade value, I do feel that it lessens it.

[N TX Dave]

If they're booking one being gone by 4 and the other not slipping past 10 I don't see how the value of our pick decreases, if anything it increases the value. Again everything is hypothetical here but I was referenceing trading out of the top 5-10 to a team looking for options at a potential QB neither of which will fall past 10.

I have to agree with Heyderm if there are two QB at our pick there is no hurry for a team that wants one of them to trade up until one of them is gone. If someone does not care which one they get until the first one it gone there is no rush. If two of them are there when we draft another team is not going to give up what it will take to move up to our pick they will wait until Seattle takes one of them and then trade with the 5th or 6th picking team