2011 NFL Draft

Well, people can change their opinions of a player of the course of several months so the rumors wouldn't be untrue or overblown, just maybe a bit outdated.

Definitely but assuming the opinion had not changed and they were still very high on him I do not believe they would or should attempt to trade down.

Possible but i tend to think 5 QB's will be gone by #41. And I think this lockout hurt the skins more then most teams becasue it's very possible that after all those QB's you mentioned changed teams we may have been able to get locker at #41 but now that's a pipe dream.

FA is having a huge impact on this draft. If we had it, Vikings could have McNabb, Niners could have Palmer, Dolphins could have Kolb, Bengals could have Hasselbeck, we could have Young, etc. Without it, all these teams are most likely to look at QB in one of the first two rounds

Definitely but assuming the opinion had not changed and they were still very high on him I do not believe they would or should attempt to trade down.

I clearly see your point. However, it depends on how far the trade down is. Trading with the Rams at 14 could net an extra draft pick without endangering a chance at Locker. Trading down to #27 or something like that is a different story.

I clearly see your point. However, it depends on how far the trade down is. Trading with the Rams at 14 could net an extra draft pick without endangering a chance at Locker. Trading down to #27 or something like that is a different story.

Not with the QB needy Vikings who had Locker in for a visit sitting at #12. If you love Locker how can you justify trading below the Vikings and rolling the dice? You only make that trade if you don't like Locker at all or you sort of like Locker. And if either of those are true then I hope they don't end up with him.

Not with the QB needy Vikings who had Locker in for a visit sitting at #12. If you love Locker how can you justify trading below the Vikings and rolling the dice? You only make that trade if you don't like Locker at all or you sort of like Locker. And if either of those are true then I hope they don't end up with him.

Unless you have a deal, in principle, with the Vikings for trading McNabb when the lockout is over. Either way the labor dispute pans out, McNabb is under contract.

Not with the QB needy Vikings who had Locker in for a visit sitting at #12. If you love Locker how can you justify trading below the Vikings and rolling the dice? You only make that trade if you don't like Locker at all or you sort of like Locker. And if either of those are true then I hope they don't end up with him.

What if they love Locker..but love (for example) Andy Dalton AND Phil Taylor more?

Unless you have a deal, in principle, with the Vikings for trading McNabb when the lockout is over. Either way the labor dispute pans out, McNabb is under contract.

Haha...okay you got me there. So I agree that if the skins have an under the table deal in place with the Vikes for McNabb then they could conceivably trade down to #14 for Locker and extra picks.

Not with the QB needy Vikings who had Locker in for a visit sitting at #12. If you love Locker how can you justify trading below the Vikings and rolling the dice? You only make that trade if you don't like Locker at all or you sort of like Locker. And if either of those are true then I hope they don't end up with him.

I understand the Vikings argument. But there are other arguments above. And my original point was based on a belief that the Vikes won't love Locker enough for a #12 pick.

Anyhow, I'm not busting your chops. I think that your theory of, "If you love a QB, just go get him" is essentially sound.

Possible but i tend to think 5 QB's will be gone by #41. And I think this lockout hurt the skins more then most teams becasue it's very possible that after all those QB's you mentioned changed teams we may have been able to get locker at #41 but now that's a pipe dream.

FA is having a huge impact on this draft. If we had it, Vikings could have McNabb, Niners could have Palmer, Dolphins could have Kolb, Bengals could have Hasselbeck, we could have Young, etc. Without it, all these teams are most likely to look at QB in one of the first two rounds

I agree with both of you. This lockout hurts us the most in the fact we aren't going to be able to get diddly squat for McNabb at this point and the teams that need a QB are going to fill that need via the draft. Once that happens, we are screwed in terms of leverage with trading McNabb. I really think QB needy teams will be reaching big time in this years draft for QBs due to the lack of options available to them prior to the draft.

I think the only thing that shakes this up is if a injunction is granted. At that point, FA moves could be made if I understand correctly.


Unless you have a deal, in principle, with the Vikings for trading McNabb when the lockout is over. Either way the labor dispute pans out, McNabb is under contract.

You'll probably be hardpressed to find a team that is going to rely on a "hand shake" deal until the new CBA is created. Teams are going to fill their need in the draft. As a GM/Coach, you can't rely on the "future" events or scenarios to fill a void on your team. Well, you can, but you won't be around long.

Example:

Minnesota relies on a deal, in principle, with us to trade them McNabb after the CBA is announced. During that time, another team comes along and offers more than what Minnesota is willing to give and we trade him to the other team. Minnesota is now screwed because they didn't fill their need in the draft and relied on a "hand shake" deal to fill that void. Chances are they are ****ed royally.

The NFL has notified teams that if they discover any "handshake deals" are taking place right now, there will be hell to pay. Serious, serious ramifications.

Like when the Minnesota Timberwolves had to give up something like 5 consecutive 1st round picks for knowingly violating the salary cap