Good News! Bortles Declaring For Nfl Draft

[CGI_Ram]

I'm not sure I see how this is a good thing. Trades at the top of the draft operate similarly to basic economics; Supply vs. Demand. There is some demand for the QB's but if the supply gets over saturated, it'll kill the market. If there are too many QB's that could go at the top, we won't be trading down. Teams will just tell the Rams it's okay if they can't get player X, they'll just get player Y or Z instead and not have to give up as much in draft picks, if any.

It all depends on where all the QB's get rated, though. If Bortles isn't expected to go at the top come draft day, it won't have much effect, if any.

It's been debated hard here already, but I'm of the opinion teams don't settle for Y or Z at the QB position. It's such an important and team specific position... If you want X, you go for X.

Some team will fall in love with Bridgewater. Some team will fall in love with Manziel. Some team will fall in love with Bortles. So... If your in love... do you play poker and hope he falls to you?

I suspect you go get him. See Tavon Austin and the Rams.

 

[jrry32]

I'm not so sure this is good for the Rams. Now there's a good (in some people's minds) option lower in the first. The fewer quality QBs in the draft the better for us I would think.

Opposite. It pushes more talent down the board and imo, teams stand a better chance of trading up for Bortles than Carr.

There's always 1 hot prospect that rockets to the top of draft boards every year and he might be it. And for the Rams this might devalue the 2nd pick a little. If it was just Bridgewater and Carr the Rams might have had more leverage in a trade down. More to the point, with Mariota asking for a evaluation from the draft board after he said he would stay in school the trade market is getting muddied.
But one coach or better yet a owner, fall in love with one of these guys then boom, a treasure chest of picks for the rams . And better yet giving ROD members more stuff to debate.

Mariota is going back, that's a done deal.

Bortles only helps our chances. He allows one more guy to slip out of the top 10. And teams don't trade up because they're desperate for A QB. They trade up because they're desperate for THEIR QB.

 

[Alan]

That's what I've been saying V3 but there's another side to that as long as the quantity remains small enough.

If the teams who are desperate for a QB see that the only top rated one has already been drafted by the Texans then why trade up? If there is a second highly rated QB then there is incentive to trade up. The number must remain very small though.

 

[Alan]

Alan said:
I'm not so sure this is good for the Rams. Now there's a good (in some people's minds) option lower in the first. The fewer quality QBs in the draft the better for us I would think.

jrry32 replied:
Opposite. It pushes more talent down the board and imo, teams stand a better chance of trading up for Bortles than Carr.

I only see half of that jrry. Pushing talent down the board does the exact opposite IMO. It does increase the available players available at every position in the draft thus giving you a better chance to get the one you want. The addition of Bortles does make it easier for the team with the #3 pick to be able to trade down. Unless of course the second part of your statement is true. If teams don't consider Carr to be a step above the other available QBs and they do think that of Bortles then you would be correct.

Those are just my thoughts on this for what they're worth.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not sure I see how this is a good thing. Trades at the top of the draft operate similarly to basic economics; Supply vs. Demand. There is some demand for the QB's but if the supply gets over saturated, it'll kill the market. If there are too many QB's that could go at the top, we won't be trading down. Teams will just tell the Rams it's okay if they can't get player X, they'll just get player Y or Z instead and not have to give up as much in draft picks, if any.

It all depends on where all the QB's get rated, though. If Bortles isn't expected to go at the top come draft day, it won't have much effect, if any.

Yep. Not sure. If it is viewed that Bridgewater and Bortles are 1a 1b in the QB rankings, it could hurt us. However, if Houston values Bortles over Bridgewater (as I've heard) and other teams have Bridgewater as their clear #1, then it could REALLY help us especially if Houston just trades down a couple spots to a team that wants Clowney.

The interesting thing is that the first five teams aside from us need a QB. If Houston DOES take Bridgewater, there may be three teams in the top five bidding for our pick if Bortles stock hits that level. For that matter, 7, 8, & 9 all need QBs as well. The Falcons and us might be the only ones in the top 9 not wanting to get into the QB sweepstakes.

 

[RamFan503]

And teams don't trade up because they're desperate for A QB. They trade up because they're desperate for THEIR QB.

Exactly. Kind of what CGI was saying as well. But when you are talking first round, and trading into the top 2 or 3 spots, you don't go after the other guy. You go after YOUR guy. Of course if there are two consensus top QBs on your board and one of them is gone after the first pick, you go after the other YOUR guy. In that's case, you are bidding against spots 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, & 9 to get into the #2 position even though you know the Rams are very unlikely to go QB with their pick. ATL might become the wild card to make this announcement moot. They may want to trade up to #2 to get Clowney ahead of maybe that lunatic Jerruh Jones. I wouldn't put it past him to trade everything to get into the Clowney sweepstakes and beat out ATL.

Ah... fun stuff to ponder.

 

[max]

Simply put, by draft day the top 2 or 3 players will be clearly defined. If a team not drafting in the top 3 wants one specific one of them, then Snead is in business.

Bortles may be one of them, all we need is for 2 teams to want him; maybe Jax and Oakland will want him. And we have a possible trade with Oak at #5.

 

[RamFan503]

Simply put, by draft day the top 2 or 3 players will be clearly defined. If a team not drafting in the top 3 wants one specific one of them, then Snead is in business.

Bortles may be one of them, all we need is for 2 teams to want him; maybe Jax and Oakland will want him. And we have a possible trade with Oak at #5.

Now why you gotta go so simple on us.:lol:

I agree BTW.

 

[V3]

The bolded is supply and demand. You're merely reducing it to a specific criteria. The "alternatives" in your quote is the supply.

It's the supply of quality QB's rated at the top. If there's a limited supply, you'll get a lot of trade offers. If there's 5 different QB's that are all rated as great prospects, you won't get nearly as a good of a return. The Skins traded with us not only because they wanted a rare QB, but also because they knew other teams wanted him as well and there was no other QB worth taking after Luck and RG3(not counting Wilson because no one saw him coming).

 

[RamFan503]

The bolded is supply and demand. You're merely reducing it to a specific criteria. The "alternatives" in your quote is the supply.

It's the supply of quality QB's rated at the top. If there's a limited supply, you'll get a lot of trade offers. If there's 5 different QB's that are all rated as great prospects, you won't get nearly as a good of a return. The Skins traded with us not only because they wanted a rare QB, but also because they knew other teams wanted him as well and there was no other QB worth taking after Luck and RG3(not counting Wilson because no one saw him coming).

The difference is that it is not truly supply and demand. There could be one really good QB in the draft and if the top ten teams need a DE and there are five of them, the demand is still for the DEs. Also, if there is a QB ranked as second best but the #2 or 3 fits a system better, that #1 QB may be passed up and GMs from the other teams know that. It's not a straight commodity issue. EVERY player possesses different attributes that EVERY GM and coach values differently. A top QB may dilute the QB class but he can drive interest toward the #2 pick (for example) if there was only one top QB before that. In that case, Bortles can make our pick a hugely sought out commodity because one thing is for sure. There is very limited supply of the 2nd overall pick.

 

[jrry32]

The bolded is supply and demand. You're merely reducing it to a specific criteria. The "alternatives" in your quote is the supply.

It's the supply of quality QB's rated at the top. If there's a limited supply, you'll get a lot of trade offers. If there's 5 different QB's that are all rated as great prospects, you won't get nearly as a good of a return. The Skins traded with us not only because they wanted a rare QB, but also because they knew other teams wanted him as well and there was no other QB worth taking after Luck and RG3(not counting Wilson because no one saw him coming).

Disagree. Unlike in the market where apples are the same and you have substitutes, NFL teams don't look at it that way. There being 5 great QB prospects doesn't really matter to the teams if Team A loves QB Prospect A and thinks Team B will draft him.

Economic theory does play a role in the draft but teams have much greater attachments to specific players than you're letting on. Because different players fit different schemes. So yea, if there were 5 elite QB prospects...it COULD hurt our ability to trade down in theory. But in practice, most likely, it would not. Because some team would fall in love with one of the prospects, convince themselves he's their franchise QB that will lead them to the promise land and then become paranoid that another team is going to take them.

NFL teams aren't always logical on draft day. For example, look at the Browns trading up 1 spot for Richardson a couple years ago when the Vikings tricked them into believing they were going to trade down with a team that wanted T-Rich.

 

[Alan]

Jrry32 stated:
And teams don't trade up because they're desperate for A QB. They trade up because they're desperate for THEIR QB.

I think that's only partially true. Although Washington probably had a preference, I believe that we'd have gotten the same deal from them no matter who the Colts took.

 

[jrry32]

I think that's only partially true. Although Washington probably had a preference, I believe that we'd have gotten the same deal from them no matter who the Colts took.

We might have gotten more had it been Luck. But I don't see Washington trading up if RGIII went back to school and Tannehill was the #2 QB.

 

[RamFan503]

I think that's only partially true. Although Washington probably had a preference, I believe that we'd have gotten the same deal from them no matter who the Colts took.

Snyder? Nope. That guy wanted RG or nothing. From what I understand, it wasn't about who was the better QB but about who would bring more star power. If we were talking about rational owners maybe. But him?

 

[RamFan503]

I also read somewhere at the time that he either had assurances that the Dolts were going to take Luck or otherwise knew it somehow. I would agree if we're talking Cleveland. Not WA.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 replied:
We might have gotten more had it been Luck. But I don't see Washington trading up if RGIII went back to school and Tannehill was the #2 QB.

That's why I said partially true. I agree with what you just said.

RamFan503 with his reply:
Snyder? Nope. That guy wanted RG or nothing. From what I understand, it wasn't about who was the better QB but about who would bring more star power. If we were talking about rational owners maybe. But him?

I don't know where you're getting that but I'm not buying it. I do believe that Snyder knew which QB the Colts were taking but that doesn't change in any way his desperation to get a franchise QB. He wasn't going to be outbid by Cleveland.

Another example. The two OTs taken in the first round last year. I believe that the trade down value was the same for both Joeckel and Fisher.

But I believe that you are both correct in the majority of cases. That's how I should have stated it instead of using the word "partially". :slap:

 

[RamFan503]

And I couldn't produce the article(s) now. But that was the skuttlebutt back then. He supposedly wouldn't have made that kind of offer if Indy was going to take RG.

Regardless, that is the kind of thing that happens in the NFL anyway. Fans can't believe some of the picks GMs make and the reason is that GMs place their values differently than fans and draftniks. They'll take a player that "should have" been a second rounder because THEIR guy is available at their pick or they'll move up to grab THEIR guy rather than risk someone else grabbing him ahead of them.

 

[Alan]

That's often the case for sure. But it's conditional.

 

[RamFan503]

That's often the case for sure. But it's conditional.

Certainly. And virtually every GM or owner has his conditions. It's why you see so many "reaches" every year. I'm guessing the person in power doesn't consider it a reach for whatever reason.