Eagles trading up for Goff

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.

So why worry What's going to happen will happen.


If the 49ers want a QB, they have a good opportunity to move up for one. If they don't, then someone else moving up only drops another top prospect to their spot. Saul Goodman.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

We could definitely do that, and I'd be happy if we did. This thread isn't about how this WILL happen. It's about how this is a threat to happen and I'd love to see the Niners react. If the Niners share your opinion and think the Eagles did this to get to Elliot or another non-QB prospect and don't think it's necessary to move up, there is some risk of the Eagles stealing one of these QB's from us. If Goff turns into a franchise QB that would be extremely damaging to this franchise.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

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.

So why worry What's going to happen will happen.


If the 49ers want a QB, they have a good opportunity to move up for one. If they don't, then someone else moving up only drops another top prospect to their spot. Saul Goodman.

I'm in the camp who thinks we need to take a QB. I'm going to be disappointed if we don't. I'd love for us to trade up one or two spots to ensure we get our guy, but I just don't think we're going to do it unfortunately, leaving the door open for the Eagles (or maybe the Rams).

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

You are right..the signing bonus was spread out over 2 years so his dead money for 2017 would be $9.5. But again, with his base being high, that still puts the Eagles up nearly $4M in cap savings if they released Bradford before March. If they traded him before March, another team would be accountable for his $4M 2017 guarantee which would increase their cap savings.

That said, I'm not advocating that the Eagles do move up and draft a QB....I'm just saying that it's entirely feasible (fiscally and football-wise) for them to do so.

Daniel's salary would be on the high side for a veteran backup, but could always be renegotiated given its structure (e.g., only $5M of his $7M 2017 salary is guaranteed. I'm sure he'd be amenable to working out something to that lowers base for more long-term guaranteed $$).

Originally posted by Draftology:
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.

DL is a hole as well. Dial is a rotational player, nothing more. Outside of QB, nothing matters more than being strong in the trenches. Building up your DL with a potential franchise player in Buckner isn't a bad way to go. Not sure why you think last year's pick of Armstead is even relevant here. At #7, Buckner would definitely be BPA, you don't pass that up to trade down for a lesser prospect. If this team can't get a QB, they need a stud franchise type player, quality over quantity.

They need to get a QB. If they can't get a QB, address the trenches because that is where you need to be strong, on both sides of the ball. Taking a guy like Buckner lessens the need for a stud OLB and can help your secondary out due to his ability to pressure the quarterback or lead to pressure on the quarterback by occupying blockers.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

So you think it would cost more than a 3rd this year and a third next to move two spots and take one player off of Baltimore's board? I really don't think it would...if I'm right, that is definitely worth ensuring you get a franchise QB and that doesn't qualify as "pushing a whole draft".

Yes, we have more ammo but giving up a 2nd rd pick when we are a more depleted team is more risky than what the Eagles could do.

Originally posted by Draftology:
I'm in the camp who thinks we need to take a QB. I'm going to be disappointed if we don't. I'd love for us to trade up one or two spots to ensure we get our guy, but I just don't think we're going to do it unfortunately, leaving the door open for the Eagles (or maybe the Rams).

The reality is you have no clue as to what will happen, so why worry about it Both the 49ers and the Eagles could conceivably pass on a QB, both QB's could be off the board early before either has a chance to trade up. I'd love to get a QB like Goff or Wentz, but if they don't.......its not the end of the world. A guy like Buckner would come in and start from Day 1 and suddenly the DL is a lot stronger, even without Ian Williams.


They can always take a guy like Prescott or even Adams who fit into Kelly's scheme well and could develop into something down the road.

I see the Rams jumping us they have 2 2nd rounders and get to screw a division rival.

Originally posted by Draftology:
So you think it would cost more than a 3rd this year and a third next to move two spots and take one player off of Baltimore's board? I really don't think it would...if I'm right, that is definitely worth ensuring you get a franchise QB and that doesn't qualify as "pushing a whole draft".

Yes, we have more ammo but giving up a 2nd rd pick when we are a more depleted team is more risky than what the Eagles could do.

Why is it more risky? The 49ers aren't competing for anything next season, the rebuild is going to take some time and the 49ers are better situated as far as draft picks go compared to the Eagles and that doesn't even include whatever they may get in an eventual trade for Kaepernick.


Trading a 2nd for a QB that you believe can start for your team for the next 10+ years is nothing in the long term. If the 49ers want to secure a QB, they can easily beat out both the Rams and Eagles in what they have to offer a team.


If they don't, then it is a moot point. If they have no intention of drafting a QB early, then who cares what Philly or the Rams might do?

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

You are right..the signing bonus was spread out over 2 years so his dead money for 2017 would be $9.5. But again, with his base being high, that still puts the Eagles up nearly $4M in cap savings if they released Bradford before March. If they traded him before March, another team would be accountable for his $4M 2017 guarantee which would increase their cap savings.

That said, I'm not advocating that the Eagles do move up and draft a QB....I'm just saying that it's entirely feasible (fiscally and football-wise) for them to do so.

Daniel's salary would be on the high side for a veteran backup, but could always be renegotiated given its structure (e.g., only $5M of his $7M 2017 salary is guaranteed. I'm sure he'd be amenable to working out something to that lowers base for more long-term guaranteed $$).

word okay...just don't see it happening or in the best interest for the Eagles football wise

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Draftology:
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.

DL is a hole as well. Dial is a rotational player, nothing more. Outside of QB, nothing matters more than being strong in the trenches. Building up your DL with a potential franchise player in Buckner isn't a bad way to go. Not sure why you think last year's pick of Armstead is even relevant here. At #7, Buckner would definitely be BPA, you don't pass that up to trade down for a lesser prospect. If this team can't get a QB, they need a stud franchise type player, quality over quantity.

They need to get a QB. If they can't get a QB, address the trenches because that is where you need to be strong, on both sides of the ball. Taking a guy like Buckner lessens the need for a stud OLB and can help your secondary out due to his ability to pressure the quarterback or lead to pressure on the quarterback by occupying blockers.

The trenches are important. That's not what I'm saying. Positional value in the draft is all relative to what you could get later. There are positions in the draft that are tough to find starters in the later rounds and positions that are easier (and btw d-line is stacked in this draft - our second rd pick could be 1st rd quality if we go DL). I'm agreeing with you in that if we think Buckner is a superstar, take him. But if his grade isn't in that mold trade out of it and get a player with higher positional value that fits a larger need. Armstead is relevant because we cannot continue to dedicate valuable resources to one position group (like we've been doing with safety) while leaving the rest of our team depleted.

Bottom line: if we project Buckner as a superstar, take him. If he has similar grades to other prospects but he's the BPA, trade back and grab a player that fits what we need and accumulate more resources later in the draft.

Originally posted by SFBuckeye:
I see the Rams jumping us they have 2 2nd rounders and get to screw a division rival.

But would a team want to drop back that far in the draft and miss a lot of top guys off of their board? Would the Rams who now have a bunch of holes on their roster, want to give up their top 3 picks at minimum for a QB?



Once again, if the 49ers really want a QB, they are in a better position to move up for one than are the Rams or Eagles.


If the 49ers don't want a QB, then it doesn't matter one bit what either of those teams does other than it would drop another high quality talent to the 49ers spot.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Draftology:
So you think it would cost more than a 3rd this year and a third next to move two spots and take one player off of Baltimore's board? I really don't think it would...if I'm right, that is definitely worth ensuring you get a franchise QB and that doesn't qualify as "pushing a whole draft".

Yes, we have more ammo but giving up a 2nd rd pick when we are a more depleted team is more risky than what the Eagles could do.

Why is it more risky? The 49ers aren't competing for anything next season, the rebuild is going to take some time and the 49ers are better situated as far as draft picks go compared to the Eagles and that doesn't even include whatever they may get in an eventual trade for Kaepernick.


Trading a 2nd for a QB that you believe can start for your team for the next 10+ years is nothing in the long term. If the 49ers want to secure a QB, they can easily beat out both the Rams and Eagles in what they have to offer a team.


If they don't, then it is a moot point. If they have no intention of drafting a QB early, then who cares what Philly or the Rams might do?

Again, I think we are agreeing in that if we think that Goff or Wentz is a franchise QB, trade up and grab him. I personally don't think we would though, because a. Baalke may not consider the Eagles a threat to grab a QB for the reasons NYniner85 is citing and b. I've never seen Baalke give up more than a 3rd to move up. Now, just because there's no precedent doesn't mean that he won't. It just makes it harder to project that he will.

Originally posted by Draftology:
So you think it would cost more than a 3rd this year and a third next to move two spots and take one player off of Baltimore's board? I really don't think it would...if I'm right, that is definitely worth ensuring you get a franchise QB and that doesn't qualify as "pushing a whole draft".

Yes, we have more ammo but giving up a 2nd rd pick when we are a more depleted team is more risky than what the Eagles could do.

Not saying it wouldn't but IF SF is interested you don't think they could offer the same? Which would be a higher 1st and 3rd this year an most likely next year as well.

Where did I say SF would be giving up a 2nd? Why can't we talk with Baltimore as well? Facts are we have higher picks/and more picks than the Eagles...if we want Goff the Eagles are the least of our worries.

Originally posted by SFBuckeye:
I see the Rams jumping us they have 2 2nd rounders and get to screw a division rival.

That makes much more sense IMO.