At what point would you Trade Up to get Jimmy Clausen?

idiots...Mccoy is going to be awful...why are people thinking we would take him? You have to look at the only 3 QB's that we are interested in seeing work out...bradford, clausen, and tebow. It's going to be one of those 3..and with bradford going first, we are taking clausen...best case scenario is trading our 2nd next year to get another first to get an OL...perhaps Iupiati, or B. Campbell, or A. Davis. BUT, we can't miss on Clausen, he is the best prospect at QB in a while, we will be set if we get him.

This is the stupidest thing that I've ever read.

idiots...Mccoy is going to be awful...why are people thinking we would take him? You have to look at the only 3 QB's that we are interested in seeing work out...bradford, clausen, and tebow. It's going to be one of those 3..and with bradford going first, we are taking clausen...best case scenario is trading our 2nd next year to get another first to get an OL...perhaps Iupiati, or B. Campbell, or A. Davis. BUT, we can't miss on Clausen, he is the best prospect at QB in a while, we will be set if we get him.

Idiots is a little rough chief. Those workouts mean nothing...Bradford and Clausen workouts are obvious ones since they have the #4 overall pick but they could purposely not schedule a meeting with the QB they like best outside the top guys just to hide their interest. Remember in Denver no one knew Shanny was targeting Cutler.

At this point the Skins front office is playing it very close to the vest. I have a hard time believing that the draft will be any different, leading me to believe that they'll either try to trade down or draft who they believe to be the best available tackle.

Tripp (or anyone), would you give up our 2011 first rounder to acquire a second 2010 first round pick so we can pick up both a first-round QB and a first-round tackle? Like for instance if Bradford were to fall to us to #4 (I know very unlikely for him to fall).For a bunch of reasons, just trading the 2011 first rounder would be insufficient to get back into the first round, it would have to be paired with the second rounder.

Given the quality of this draft and the uncertainty of future drafts, I would be willing to trade the 2011 first rounder to get a player that we are targeting in the second round who we feel can be an immediate impact player (someone who, obviously, we have a first round grade on). This pick would almost certainly come after our 37th overall second rounder, and thus, would seemingly not be necessary unless we use one of the first two picks on a QB.

GTripp, I don't follow your logic of taking Colt McCoy over Jimmy Clausen. At least the part about saving picks. It makes no difference unless you flat out believe that McCoy is plainly a better quarterback than Clausen. And if you do, then you're certainly in the minority on this one, which is fine too. But saving picks for the sake of "saving picks", yet drafting an inferior quarterback accomplishes nothing. You draft a quarterback with the intention that he'll someday lead your franchise and lead it well.

Either Colt McCoy is better than Clausen and deserves to be drafted higher or he isn't. Adding picks to the equation does nothing for me when you're drafting a quarterback. It's a make or break position.

If were trading I would prefer a trade up from #4 to #1 to get Bradford but I guess since were talking Clausen:

-I would be willing to trade up about 10 picks into the back end of the first round (ahead of, say, Arizona), at the cost of the 2011 2nd rounder.

However, if Shanny feels strongly enough about Clausen to trade up for him I think he should just take him at #4 and asure he gets him.

I would much rather trade up for Bradford

idiots...Mccoy is going to be awful...why are people thinking we would take him? You have to look at the only 3 QB's that we are interested in seeing work out...bradford, clausen, and tebow. It's going to be one of those 3..and with bradford going first, we are taking clausen...best case scenario is trading our 2nd next year to get another first to get an OL...perhaps Iupiati, or B. Campbell, or A. Davis. BUT, we can't miss on Clausen, he is the best prospect at QB in a while, we will be set if we get him.

You think a team would trade a first this year for our second next year?

http://threadbombing.com/data/media/31/f53sle.gif

Obviously, I would take McCoy over Clausen, especially if I have the ability to save draft picks. But in a vacuum, this is still a question of getting value on a draft choice at quarterback, which is what makes the question so interesting to me.
I've seen a mock or 2 that have McCoy going to the Redskins in the second round.

All mocks I have seen have Clausen picked in round 1, not much lower that #9 (Buffalo).

McCoy would not be a bad fit at all under Shanahan, his style of passing would do well there.

You think a team would trade a first this year for our second next year?



I think that he meant along with our 2nd this year

I've seen a mock or 2 that have McCoy going to the Redskins in the second round.

All mocks I have seen have Clausen picked in round 1, not much lower that #9 (Buffalo).

McCoy would not be a bad fit at all under Shanahan, his style of passing would do well there.My idea was that, in 2007, no one had Quinn falling past Miami. But once the Raiders opted not to take him at no. 1, the quality of the draft at other positions kept making him everyone's second option. And before you knew it, he was in the 20s.

The other comparison I have would be 2005, with Rodgers falling and Campbell rising, and they end up going with back to back picks (after, remember, the Raiders traded up to get Aaron Rodgers and then didn't take him).