Eagles trading up for Goff

Originally posted by Draftology:

Is anyone else at all worried that the Eagles' plan this whole time is to land one of the two QB's? In swapping picks with the Dolphins instead of receiving a 2nd or future pick, they have positioned themselves very well to make a deal with one of the four teams in front of us to knab a QB. The move seems very calculated, as if they are targeting a specific player. They reportedly took both Wenz and Goff out to dinner individually, and while they did resign Bradford, they don't seem overly committed to him based on the years. Letting one of these guys sit behind him for a year would probably be a great scenario for both of them.

Below is how I see the first seven picks panning out. Personally, I think this is the absolute nightmare scenario for the 49ers, and I'd hope we trade out of the pick if this happens:

1. Tennessee - Laremy Tunsil OT Ole Miss
2. Cleveland - Carson Wentz QB N. Dakota St
3. San Diego - Jalen Ramsey S Florida St
4. Dallas - Joey Bosa DE Ohio St.
5. Jacksonville - Myles Jack OLB UCLA
6. **TRADE** Philadelphia - Jared Goff QB Cal
7. San Francisco - DeForest Buckner DE Oregon

Why would you want to trade out of a guy that is ranked as a top 5 player in this draft by most? Buckner would be a hell of an addition to the defense. If they got him without trading up they should consider themselves fortunate.

Originally posted by Draftology:
For every team that doesn't have a franchise QB, getting one is a top priority. If they love one of the two QB's that could be available at 6, you're telling me that they are going to let Sam Bradford, Chase Daniel, or 3rd rd pick stop them from getting their guy?

I guess if your a horrible GM sure. Like I said Peters is most likely in his last season with Philly (judging from his contract) plus they are weak on the OL to begin with. They have no secondary and their starting RB is a 29 year old injury prone RB and a 32 yr old scat back.

It's gonna cost them at least their 3rd round pick a probably much much more. Your telling me you think it's smart to lose multiple picks when you currently have a QB that started playing well as the season went on and got a QB that your new HC loves? They wouldn't draft again until at least the 100th pick lol

It's not smart and makes no sense I have no idea why people keep bringing this up...the rams make more sense in a move up.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Ive always said that if 2 QBs get taken before the 49ers pick, that means some other quality prospect has dropped and I am fine with that. I would like to see a QB but would not complain about Jack or Buckner.

If the 49ers really do like a QB then I dont see why they couldnt move up just as well. The jump from 7 to 5 would cost them their 3rs round pick, not a hefty price to pay if you think you are taking a franchise QB.


The 49ers arent in a great place in the draft(The Rams and Bears wins took care of that) but they are in a good place and they can afford to sit back and let the draft come to them if there isnt any one particular player that they want.

I'd love Jack. I think Buckner would be a little redundant. Back-to-back years spending our 1st rd pick on 3-4 DE's. It's arguably the least important defensive position (I know if you get a superstar he can be a game changer), but there are starters all over the league taken in rounds 3-5. It's kind of like RB on the defensive side.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Draftology:
Is anyone else at all worried that the Eagles' plan this whole time is to land one of the two QB's? In swapping picks with the Dolphins instead of receiving a 2nd or future pick, they have positioned themselves very well to make a deal with one of the four teams in front of us to knab a QB. The move seems very calculated, as if they are targeting a specific player. They reportedly took both Wenz and Goff out to dinner individually, and while they did resign Bradford, they don't seem overly committed to him based on the years. Letting one of these guys sit behind him for a year would probably be a great scenario for both of them.

Below is how I see the first seven picks panning out. Personally, I think this is the absolute nightmare scenario for the 49ers, and I'd hope we trade out of the pick if this happens:

1. Tennessee - Laremy Tunsil OT Ole Miss
2. Cleveland - Carson Wentz QB N. Dakota St
3. San Diego - Jalen Ramsey S Florida St
4. Dallas - Joey Bosa DE Ohio St.
5. Jacksonville - Myles Jack OLB UCLA
6. **TRADE** Philadelphia - Jared Goff QB Cal
7. San Francisco - DeForest Buckner DE Oregon

Why would you want to trade out of a guy that is ranked as a top 5 player in this draft by most? Buckner would be a hell of an addition to the defense. If they got him without trading up they should consider themselves fortunate.

Agreed. This team isn't going anywhere anytime soon...they're better off grabbing top prospects as they fall and accumulating BPA-type talent.

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Ive always said that if 2 QBs get taken before the 49ers pick, that means some other quality prospect has dropped and I am fine with that. I would like to see a QB but would not complain about Jack or Buckner.

If the 49ers really do like a QB then I dont see why they couldnt move up just as well. The jump from 7 to 5 would cost them their 3rs round pick, not a hefty price to pay if you think you are taking a franchise QB.


The 49ers arent in a great place in the draft(The Rams and Bears wins took care of that) but they are in a good place and they can afford to sit back and let the draft come to them if there isnt any one particular player that they want.

I'd love Jack. I think Buckner would be a little redundant. Back-to-back years spending our 1st rd pick on 3-4 DE's. It's arguably the least important defensive position (I know if you get a superstar he can be a game changer), but there are starters all over the league taken in rounds 3-5. It's kind of like RB on the defensive side.

Knowing that this defense will spend an awful lot of time on the field, and that Kelly is huge on rotating his d-line for said reason, having a guy like Buckner would be a huge addition. Not to mention, though there are many guys the play the role, their aren't many guys that really and truly fit that pure 5-technique position....Armstead and Buckner do perfectly and nobody knows that better than Kelly.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I guess if your a horrible GM sure. Like I said Peters is most likely in his last season with Philly (judging from his contract) plus they are weak on the OL to begin with. They have no secondary and their starting RB is a 29 year old injury prone RB and a 32 yr old scat back.

It's gonna cost them at least their 3rd round pick a probably much much more. Your telling me you think it's smart to lose multiple picks when you currently have a QB that started playing well as the season went on and got a QB that your new HC loves? They wouldn't draft again until at least the 100th pick lol

It's not smart and makes no sense I have no idea why people keep bringing this up...the rams make more sense in a move up.

If the 49ers really did want a QB and they worried about Philly they can just move up with Jacksonville. Jaguars only drop 2 spots with one of them guaranteed to be used up by a QB and they get a high 3rd round pick to boot.


The Eagles don't have a 2nd, they'd have to pony up both their 3rd round picks to counter the 49ers offer, meaning that their next pick in the draft wouldn't happen until the mid 4th round. I don't see them dropping all those picks for a guy who would likely sit on the bench for them for a couple of years.



If the 49ers really wanted to go all in on a QB, their 1st and 2nd rounder would get them to #4, potentially even #3.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Draftology:
For every team that doesn't have a franchise QB, getting one is a top priority. If they love one of the two QB's that could be available at 6, you're telling me that they are going to let Sam Bradford, Chase Daniel, or 3rd rd pick stop them from getting their guy?

I guess if your a horrible GM sure. Like I said Peters is most likely in his last season with Philly (judging from his contract) plus they are weak on the OL to begin with. They have no secondary and their starting RB is a 29 year old injury prone RB and a 32 yr old scat back.

It's gonna cost them at least their 3rd round pick a probably much much more. Your telling me you think it's smart to lose multiple picks when you currently have a QB that started playing well as the season went on and got a QB that your new HC loves? They wouldn't draft again until at least the 100th pick lol

It's not smart and makes no sense I have no idea why people keep bringing this up...the rams make more sense in a move up.

I am absolutely telling you that it is smart to lose multiple picks (not highly valuable picks) to land a potential franchise QB if your team doesn't already have one, and I think almost every NFL GM would agree. Who is saying their new HC loves Bradford? Is he supposed to say anything else? If he loved him, wouldn't they have given him more than a 2 year contract? If I'm a new coach I'd probably "love" Bradford too if the only other QB on my roster at the time is McLeod Bethel-Thompson. When they signed Bradford, they didn't know they'd be picking 8th with a shot at a top QB prospect.

Moving from 8 to 6 would cost a third, maybe another late pick this year or next year. You have to realize only one player the Ravens would consider picking would be off the board with this trade.

Moving from 15 to 6 would cost at least a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Maybe even a 1st next year. That's a massive jump and 7 players the Ravens would consider picking would be off the board.

Originally posted by Draftology:
I'd love Jack. I think Buckner would be a little redundant. Back-to-back years spending our 1st rd pick on 3-4 DE's. It's arguably the least important defensive position (I know if you get a superstar he can be a game changer), but there are starters all over the league taken in rounds 3-5. It's kind of like RB on the defensive side.

Tell that to the Jets and the Texans.


If you get a 3-4 DE whose a typical plodder that only stuffs the run, sure, but a dynamic 3-4 DE like Buckner that can rush the passer, stuff the run and demands double-teams, that is a whole other ballgame altogether. His upside is phenomenal, you're talking about a guy with All Pro potential that teams will struggle to block 1 on 1. Put Armstead on one side, Buckner on the other and suddenly you open up a lot of space for your OLB's to operate in.


As a bonus, the guy knows the coaches, he knows the scheme, he already knows Armstead. That familiarity shouldn't be taken lightly.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
As mentioned in my post, it's only $4M in dead money if he's off the roster before March. I never said anything about getting rid of Chase Daniels....he's very affordable as a veteran backup.

Given that it's only $4M in dead money, they'd be net positive $9M give Bradford's projected base.

unless I'm reading it wrong if they cut him it would be $9.5 million in dead money, it's only if they trade him that he's deal goes to $5.5 million in dead money

http://www.phillyvoice.com/closer-look-sam-bradfords-contract/

Of course, there's a reason his number in 2016 is so low. In 2017, Bradford's cap number jumps way up to $23,500,000. That is absolutely not a palatable figure. So what does that mean for the 2017 offseason:

• "If Bradford has a good season in 2016, because that $23.5 million figure is so high, he will hold leverage in talks for a longer-term deal, which will not come cheap.
• If Bradford is bad and the Eagles wish to release him, they will incur a cap hit of $9.5 million in "dead money." That is an awful lot of money going completely to waste if Bradford does not progress in his second year with the team. The Eagles would be forced to part ways while getting nothing in return, after having paid him $22 million for a bad season.
• If the Eagles draft a quarterback and believe he'll be ready to be "the guy" for the 2017 season and Bradford has another average season, his contract wouldn't be a definitive impediment for a trade. In that scenario, the Eagles would incur a less devastating "dead money" hit of $5.5 million, with Bradford's new team taking on his $14 million salary and $4 million roster bonus in 2017."

also Chase's deal is not backup cash IMO.

Regardless of the contracts they have much more needs than a QB IMO and if a team like SF really does want someone like Goff/Wentz they have much more ammo than a team like Philly....I just don't see Philly basically making this draft into one pick.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I guess if your a horrible GM sure. Like I said Peters is most likely in his last season with Philly (judging from his contract) plus they are weak on the OL to begin with. They have no secondary and their starting RB is a 29 year old injury prone RB and a 32 yr old scat back.

It's gonna cost them at least their 3rd round pick a probably much much more. Your telling me you think it's smart to lose multiple picks when you currently have a QB that started playing well as the season went on and got a QB that your new HC loves? They wouldn't draft again until at least the 100th pick lol

It's not smart and makes no sense I have no idea why people keep bringing this up...the rams make more sense in a move up.

If the 49ers really did want a QB and they worried about Philly they can just move up with Jacksonville. Jaguars only drop 2 spots with one of them guaranteed to be used up by a QB and they get a high 3rd round pick to boot.


The Eagles don't have a 2nd, they'd have to pony up both their 3rd round picks to counter the 49ers offer, meaning that their next pick in the draft wouldn't happen until the mid 4th round. I don't see them dropping all those picks for a guy who would likely sit on the bench for them for a couple of years.



If the 49ers really wanted to go all in on a QB, their 1st and 2nd rounder would get them to #4, potentially even #3.

That's a steep price for us to pay when we have so many holes on our roster, especially if we don't know for sure that the Eagles are trying to trade up. I think the Eagles would only need to give up one 3rd this year to go from 8 to 6. The Ravens would only lose one player from their board.

I do not see any negatives with both qbs being taken before the 49ers make their pick at 7. Going BPA would be fantastic.

Originally posted by Draftology:
I am absolutely telling you that it is smart to lose multiple picks (not highly valuable picks) to land a potential franchise QB if your team doesn't already have one, and I think almost every NFL GM would agree. Who is saying their new HC loves Bradford? Is he supposed to say anything else? If he loved him, wouldn't they have given him more than a 2 year contract? If I'm a new coach I'd probably "love" Bradford too if the only other QB on my roster at the time is McLeod Bethel-Thompson. When they signed Bradford, they didn't know they'd be picking 8th with a shot at a top QB prospect.

Moving from 8 to 6 would cost a third, maybe another late pick this year or next year. You have to realize only one player the Ravens would consider picking would be off the board with this trade.

Moving from 15 to 6 would cost at least a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Maybe even a 1st next year. That's a massive jump and 7 players the Ravens would consider picking would be off the board.

the issue is it't not gonna just cost them lower end picks to move up...and like i've said if a team like SF wants Goff/Wentz they have much more to offer a team like Dallas, Jax, or Baltimore than Philly and their lonely 3rd round pick.

AND no I don't agree pushing a whole draft for one player to sit for at least a year isn't worth it and it's not smart.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I'd love Jack. I think Buckner would be a little redundant. Back-to-back years spending our 1st rd pick on 3-4 DE's. It's arguably the least important defensive position (I know if you get a superstar he can be a game changer), but there are starters all over the league taken in rounds 3-5. It's kind of like RB on the defensive side.

Tell that to the Jets and the Texans.


If you get a 3-4 DE whose a typical plodder that only stuffs the run, sure, but a dynamic 3-4 DE like Buckner that can rush the passer, stuff the run and demands double-teams, that is a whole other ballgame altogether. His upside is phenomenal, you're talking about a guy with All Pro potential that teams will struggle to block 1 on 1. Put Armstead on one side, Buckner on the other and suddenly you open up a lot of space for your OLB's to operate in.

See: Aldon with a prime of his career and healthy Justin Smith vs afterward

Originally posted by Draftology:
That's a steep price for us to pay when we have so many holes on our roster, especially if we don't know for sure that the Eagles are trying to trade up. I think the Eagles would only need to give up one 3rd this year to go from 8 to 6. The Ravens would only lose one player from their board.

OR SF could trade their 3rd that's higher than Philly's and Baltimore only moves down one spot instead of two. Baltimore isn't just gonna listen to just what Philly has to offer.

that's my main argument

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I'd love Jack. I think Buckner would be a little redundant. Back-to-back years spending our 1st rd pick on 3-4 DE's. It's arguably the least important defensive position (I know if you get a superstar he can be a game changer), but there are starters all over the league taken in rounds 3-5. It's kind of like RB on the defensive side.

Tell that to the Jets and the Texans.


If you get a 3-4 DE whose a typical plodder that only stuffs the run, sure, but a dynamic 3-4 DE like Buckner that can rush the passer, stuff the run and demands double-teams, that is a whole other ballgame altogether. His upside is phenomenal, you're talking about a guy with All Pro potential that teams will struggle to block 1 on 1. Put Armstead on one side, Buckner on the other and suddenly you open up a lot of space for your OLB's to operate in.

I'm not saying that a superstar like Wilkerson or Richardson can't have a huge impact on defense. They definitely can and if we are very, very confident Buckner would turn into that, we should take him. However, I see the position a lot like running back where you can get a game-changer in round one every once in a while (Adrian Peterson, Todd Gurley, potentially Elliot), you can also find starters way farther in the draft pretty consistantly.

I would be more open to it if we hadn't taken Armstead last year. Considering we have holes at OLB, ILB, CB, WR, and QB I'd prefer to fill one of those rather than going with DL again.