Would you do this trade?

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

I agree with Guru and that’s why I said we’d have to throw in JJ too. And it sounds like maybe even more. Some in this thread are seriously underestimating Watson and/or the value of an elite QB.

Half the franchises in the NFL have never once in their team history had a top 5 QB at any given time. They win games and they sell tickets.

The best season the Vikings have had in the past 20 years was the one season we got top 5 QB play (Favre, 2009).

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

a to be 33 year old QB, with about zero mobility in the pocket, set to make about 60 million over the next 2 seasons with a "meh" track record in big games?   to the right team he's probably still worth a late first round pick if all they need is an average QB to put them over the top and plenty of cap space.

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

a to be 33 year old QB, with about zero mobility in the pocket, set to make about 60 million over the next 2 seasons with a "meh" track record in big games?   to the right team he's probably still worth a late first round pick if all they need is an average QB to put them over the top and plenty of cap space.

I guess my point wasn't to bag on Kirk at all. Personally I don't have much of an issue around what he is getting paid. But a team in need of a QB would at least have a conversation about giving up a 1st for him. But when it comes to Kirk there is more of a conversation around "do I give up a 1st for the player" or "do I use the first to trade up for my QB". Answer could go different directions depending on team.

Where I think you can have more of an argument is bound in this offensive system how much better is Watson than Kirk? In a pass first oriented offense I think there is quite a large difference. But in this offense I think you'd only see a marginal difference since Watson wouldn't have the same ability to use his legs and take over the game himself. 

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

a to be 33 year old QB, with about zero mobility in the pocket, set to make about 60 million over the next 2 seasons with a "meh" track record in big games?   to the right team he's probably still worth a late first round pick if all they need is an average QB to put them over the top and plenty of cap space.

I guess my point wasn't to bag on Kirk at all. Personally I don't have much of an issue around what he is getting paid. But a team in need of a QB would at least have a conversation about giving up a 1st for him. But when it comes to Kirk there is more of a conversation around "do I give up a 1st for the player" or "do I use the first to trade up for my QB". Answer could go different directions depending on team.

Where I think you can have more of an argument is bound in this offensive system how much better is Watson than Kirk? In a pass first oriented offense I think there is quite a large difference. But in this offense I think you'd only see a marginal difference since Watson wouldn't have the same ability to use his legs and take over the game himself. 

Far too many holes on this team to give up multiple ones for anybody. Were this 1970-1971 and we could make a move to replace the Cuozzo/Lee/Snead triumvirate, that would have been a different story.

Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

@"Zanary" said: Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

Was the offense the overarching problem? Our line is bad for our QB, and he still had one of, if not the best statistical year in his career. The fact is our defense sucking like a junior girl's soccer league is the reason we're sitting  at home for the playoffs. I can't recall a game where I said if only we had Watson, we would have won that game.

Kirk's not perfect. The offensive play calling from Kubiak left a lot to be desired. Biggest thing is we need as many as 5 players on defense, and at least 2 on offense. That's a lot of holes to fill. Giving up that kind of booty for a QB in our particular situation would be insane.

@"Wetlander" said:

@"Zanary" said: Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

I actually think a mobile QB would solve a number of our OL "issues".

@"Zanary" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"Zanary" said: Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

I actually think a mobile QB would solve a number of our OL "issues".

Didn't solve Houston's.

If we wanna say the cost is too high then that’s fair and that’s one thing. But insinuating Kirk is Watson’s equal is laughable. Kirk is a good QB but Watson is better. I’m pretty sure every GM in the league would trade Kirk for Watson straight up. 

Also, if Guru is right and the Vikings could actually get a 2021 first for Kirk (I personally doubt that), they should think long and hard about doing it!

Draft a QB, sign Dalton or Fitzpatrick, save money, maybe recoup our second rounder... seems like a big win for a team counting on Hunter’s health, Pierce’s weight, new coaches yet again, and maybe or maybe not Barr to get us over the hump next year. 

@"pattersaur" said: I agree with Guru and that’s why I said we’d have to throw in JJ too. And it sounds like maybe even more. Some in this thread are seriously underestimating Watson and/or the value of an elite QB.

Half the franchises in the NFL have never once in their team history had a top 5 QB at any given time. They win games and they sell tickets.

The best season the Vikings have had in the past 20 years was the one season we got top 5 QB play (Favre, 2009).

Some fans here might be fooled into thinking he could be acquired for just a few picks because they accepted the idea Diggs for 1 premium draft pick (which, regardless of how well it turned out, was a huge gamble) and a handful of day 3 picks was "a haul". Diggs forced his way out and lowered our leverage to trade him, but it wouldn't be the same with Watson.

Profootballtalk.com says:

So how high will it go? Based on conversations with multiple General Managers, the loose consensus was three first-round draft picks. As one G.M. put it, if the first of the first-round picks lands in the top 10 of the 2021 draft, that would help get it done
Source: Profootballtalk.com

@"Vikergirl" said:

@"Zanary" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"Zanary" said: Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

I actually think a mobile QB would solve a number of our OL "issues".

Didn't solve Houston's.

To be fair Houston has so many other issues such as being fucked over by Bill O'Brien.

@"Zanary" said:

@"Vikergirl" said:

@"Zanary" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"Zanary" said: Hell, no.  Watson is THE LESSON: no matter how good your QB, the team can still blow the season.

Trading for him instead of fixing the gaping line issues would be stupidity to rival the Walker fiasco.

I actually think a mobile QB would solve a number of our OL "issues".

Didn't solve Houston's.

To be fair Houston has so many other issues such as being fucked over by Bill O'Brien.

...and both of our lines are needing addressing, our secondary is half brittle children, but we still put up the 3rd highest point total in team history.

I just don't see Cousins as the problem, especially with a season of timing/chemistry with Jefferson in the books.  I don't WANT to start over at QB again, and I've seen trends come and go (look at Vick! RGIII! We need a mobile QB!!) while Brady, Mannings, and Roethlisberger were stacking multiple rings each.

Russell Wilson, golden boy of the NFL and prototypical running QB, is watching the rest of the playoffs from his couch (or, on Ciara).  Mahomes is obviously special, but can he repeat?  We'll see.

I think the trends get overblown, albeit because they do make for exciting footage.

I'd just prefer that the team work at fixing its issues rather than trying to sidestep them after what was actually a very productive season on offense.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@"Hawkvike25" said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said: The Texans aren't going to trade Watson. But more realistically an offer would have to be much larger than this. Think in the neighborhood of 3-4 1st round picks, a few 2nd/3rds, and likely a promising player. That just is a deal that won't happen because you'd add Watson but be at such a resource disadvantage you couldn't build anything sustainable around him. 

Wait, you think it would require three, maybe four 1st round picks, two 2nd-3rd round picks, and a player for Watson? Lolz please tell me you aren't serious because it would take much less than that.

I'm nearly certain of it considering the team trading the picks would likely be offering mid to late 1st's. You are trading for a top 5 NFL QB on a discounted deal since the Texans paid and keep the entire signing bonus of $20M on their salary cap. 

In 2016 the Rams traded the two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and two 3rd round picks to trade up to #1 and select Jared Goff. In 2012 the Redskins traded three 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick to trade up to #2 for RG3. In both of these scenarios the presumptions is that the team trading up would be getting a high-end starter. 

So tack a premium on for knowing you are getting a top 5 QB who is 25 years old. Its insane but if you take the RG3 deal you for sure can argue for three 1sts plus at least one second. So take your choice of four 1sts and a 2nd or three 1sts and a combination of 2nd and 3rds. Its insane but what the market dictates. There would be multiple teams bidding for his services even at that exorbitant price. 

There is absolutely no way in hell it would require that much to get Watson, no way.

With that said, what do you perceive he would be traded for if they were to actually move him? 

If the trade is simply Watson and nothing else I would guess 2 first round picks and 1, maybe 2 second round picks would be plenty. Trading for players is much different than moving up in the draft because you arent getting cheap players. When you account for the additional swap of picks, Khalil Mack was essentially traded for two first round picks and he's way better of a player than Deshaun

you dont get them on a cheap contract,  but you dont have the bust risk that comes with every drafted player.   Mack is a LB,  while a damned good one,  his impact on a game is no where near what a top tier QB can have and the draft picks would show that.  think of it this way,  aside from QB, what other position has teams trading multiple first round picks to move up to take a player that they covet?

Khalil Mack was a two time first team all pro when he was traded and he certainly can take over games, just like Aaron Donald can. He may not put points on the board but I have single handedly watch him destroy Minnesota for an entire game. Since the LB/DE position is different I added the 1-2 second round picks. Deshaun is good, not great, and not on Khalil Mack's level.

As far as trading up for non QB's, easy one to bring up is Ricky Williams. It doesnt ever happen because you obviously want a great QB to build your team around and I get that. I'm just saying Deshaun is on the same level as Kirk so let me turn the table and say what would you trade Kirk for?

a to be 33 year old QB, with about zero mobility in the pocket, set to make about 60 million over the next 2 seasons with a "meh" track record in big games?   to the right team he's probably still worth a late first round pick if all they need is an average QB to put them over the top and plenty of cap space.

I guess my point wasn't to bag on Kirk at all. Personally I don't have much of an issue around what he is getting paid. But a team in need of a QB would at least have a conversation about giving up a 1st for him. But when it comes to Kirk there is more of a conversation around "do I give up a 1st for the player" or "do I use the first to trade up for my QB". Answer could go different directions depending on team.

Where I think you can have more of an argument is bound in this offensive system how much better is Watson than Kirk? In a pass first oriented offense I think there is quite a large difference. But in this offense I think you'd only see a marginal difference since Watson wouldn't have the same ability to use his legs and take over the game himself. 

Really,?  I think a mobile QB in this system would kill.  Those play action boots with a real threat to turn it up field if the edge bites or the olb commits to soon would open up so much more.  It would force teams to commit a safety to the box more which would open the vertical passing game more.  And I think teams wouldn't be as blitz happy if we had a QB that could escape and make them pay with his legs.