A reason to draft Manning

http://www.gbnreport.com/index.htm

scroll down to the Dec 28th rumours. Manning denies it, but if true, this will get all the horndogs on the Manning bandwagon.

 

We know Palmer and Leftwich will be gone to Cin and Chi. Ari and Jac will be picking 6 and 8 (respectively) and both will be very interested in Eli. IF Manning declares and IF we could trade from the 10th to the 6th with Zona to pick him would anyone here do it if the cost was our 3rd this year and our 1st in 2004? Before you react with a “Hell No” consider that the only franchise QB projected to enter the 2004 draft is Roethlisberger so far and we (hopefully) won’t be picking high enough to get him. This might be our last best chance to get a genuine potential franchise QB for quite a while. With that trade we would still be able to get a decent WR or DB with the 42nd pick overall in the 2nd. In 2004 there is bound to be a good FA that we can sign to fill a need immediately that the 1st round pick would have been spent on.
Denver apparently has Plummer at the top of their list now and I don’t want Griese here. Jacksonville wants to trade Brunell and he’ll be 33 next year I think. Our FA options are going to get even thinner and I think the step from Manning down to guys like Boller, Kingsbury, Banks, Gesser, St Pierre, etc, etc, looks bigger every damn day. Let’s trade up for one of the top three QBs and be done with it. I have always crapped on the idea of trading away picks but it might pay off in this case, or maybe I’ve lost my mind . . . you tell me.)

 

Not worth two #1s to move up four spots. Bottom line.
Don't care about who he's dating.

 

I said our 3rd in 2003 and our 1st in 2004 to move up to the #6 spot for Manning and they would move down to our vacated #10 spot. That isn't two #1s, it's a 3rd and a single 1st in the next draft.
Any idea if Zona would go for that price, and does anyone out there besides me think Manning would be worth it by starting in 2004 and by being more effective than what we have right now?

 

It's two number ones and a third for a number one four spots higher. Dress it up all you want, it's still two #1s for one #1 that's right in the same neighborhood. That's just way too high a price.

 

i still want andre johnson in the first and as bad as you all hate him, i want simms in the second.

 

I'd be happy with Andre. I don't hate Sims, it's not his fault the media has hyped him needlessly due to genetics.

I'm hoping Roy Williams does a reversal so that we can be more confident that Andre will be there.

 

think you'd have to trade above 'Zona to get Manning. I'd give next year's #1 but would hate to have to chip in that #3 also. maybe a fourth ... and that would hurt, but might have to cough it up.

so, what was your opinion, canteen? you do it?

 

Cincy isn't going to draft a QB in round one, but all three of those guys will be gone by #9 at the latest.
I don't feel the need to trade up when we have other needs to consider. I'd stay put and go for LJ, McGahee or Trade down for a late first, and this and next years seconds.
Some good QB's will still be there in the second, if not...next years class is looking pretty solid. Get the FA vet, Peete and Fasani ready for 2003.

 

Magnus is right. An additional #1 would be too high a price. I suck at contract, money, and negotiation stuff. In rethinking it I need to use the details of the 2001 trade up for Vick to explain what seems reasonable -

Atl gave up:
‘01 1st round pick #5 overall (SD picked RB Tomlinson)
’01 3rd round pick #67 overall (SD picked CB Cody)
’02 2nd round pick #48 overall (SD picked WR Caldwell)
AND WR/KR Tim Dwight

To sacrifice three potential players (1st 2nd & 3rd round picks) in addition to a fourth existing player (their #3 WR/KR which they will now have to replace) for a single 1st round pick seems very steep. However, Vick was pretty much a consensus future superstar and hyped as one of the most exciting players in over a decade. In retrospect it looks relatively beneficial for both, especially if you consider that SD got QB Brees with their 2nd round pick that year. Atlanta only got THE quarterback of the future who has already begun redefining the position. Let’s face it, on two separate occasions Vick single-handedly inserted about 70 football-sized suppositories in our collective ass this year . . . Descriptive enough analogy for ya?

Assuming that we will be trading up to the 6th spot from the 10th the cost for us to move up 4 spots should be much less than the Vick trade for the following reasons:

We would only be trading for the 6th pick, not the 1st overall pick.
We would not be depriving them of a Vick “superstar” caliber player. There is really no player(s) that stands above the rest in the top 10 this coming year.

Sliding both extra picks down from a 2nd and 3rd to a 3rd and 4th plus negating throwing in one of our existing players sounds about right. We probably don’t have any spare players that another team would covet anyway. The talk of trying to trade the likes of Weinke and Anderson over at Char.com is comical at best.

Summary –

We trade to Zona:
‘03 1st round pick #10 overall
’03 4th round pick #120ish? (from Miami)
’04 3rd round pick #90ish? . . . we’ll be a wild card team by then

We get their ’03 1st round pick #6 overall and assure ourselves of getting one of the top three franchise QBs (assuming Manning declares).


I would think of paying this years extra 4th (from Miami) and next years 3rd to swap our #10 for their #6 would only cost us next years 3rd since we have already come out so far ahead on that Jay Williams/ Al Wallace trade. Miami’s 4th round pick was just a little icing on the cake. Hell, if they wanted Weinke and Anderson we could throw them in too for a couple of spiral cut Virginia Hams.
Okay magnus, does that scenario make a little more sense?