As a compromise to the "Jason Smith vs Matthew Stafford" debate, could we do what the Browns did in 2007? They needed a future LT and a future QB. Speculation was that they would take Brady Quinn with their #3 overall pick. Instead, they took the athletic elite-talent Joe Thomas at #3, let Quinn fall a little bit, and traded back up for him.
Presto! the best LT in the draft and the QB of the future now rather than later.
Obviously, Derek Anderson came out of nowhere, but if he hadn't, Quinn would certainly be the guy in Cleveland right away.
It gets even better when you take into account how expensive QB's are. Letting a QB fall just a few spots can give you back millions of dollars to spend on other high-quality talent.
Looking down the draft, which team would we need to trade with to get Stafford?
St. Louis at #2 will almost certainly look for an elite LT to replace Orlando Pace. They already have their QB--they just need to get protection for him.
Kansas City at #3 will almsot certainly take Aaron Curry. He's the ideal mix of value and need for their team and draft spot. They already drafted Branden Albert to play LT last year and they're set at QB with Cassel and Thigpen.
Seattle at #4 may take a look at Stafford, but they probably don't want to. Hasselbeck can still probably play well for a few more years if they can protect him. The Seahawks, being in a big rebuilding phase, would probably rather trade down for more picks than spend #4 overall money on a franchise QB when they already have one. Their position is even worse when you consider that they need a LT to replace Walter Jones (who is getting old), but Detroit and St Louis already took the top 2 LT's (Smith and Monroe), and they just signed TJ Housh, so they don't need Crabtree. There just isn't an elite talent worth #4 who would fit in Seattle's current situation.
That's why they may be open to trade offers.
So, here's the trade I propose. And no, I am not consulting that out-of-date, out-of-touch "draft value chart". I'm looking at the real value of what you are likely to get for a pick at any given round.
Detroit takes Jason Smith at #1, and trades up to #4 with Seattle.
- Detroit's #20 pick
- Detroit's #65 pick (first pick of the third round)
- Detroit's 2010 second-round pick
- Seattle's #4 pick
- Seattle's 2010 third-round pick
Benefits for Seattle:
-There will be a solid first-round talent at #20 who fills a need (one of the USC OLB's to replace Peterson, Oher or Britton to replace Jones, Beanie Wells or Knowshon Moreno, etc)
- At the top pick in the third-round usually there is a second-round talent who slipped down a little. Seattle could fill an additional need here and get a solid player.
- A 2010 second-rounder instead of third-rounder makes Seattle's 2010 class even stronger.
Benefits for Detroit:
- We don't have to settle for a second-tier tackle. We get the single best O-Lineman in this draft who will anchor our line for a decade.
- We still get the best QB in the draft right away instead of settling for somebody with less talent or waiting until 2010.
- We still have #33 overall and another third-round pick from Dallas to fill holes on our defense right away.
- We just gave Matthew Stafford the best possible situation to succeed--an elite young Left Tackle to protect him and an elite young WR target (CJ). Enough time to throw and somebody to throw to.
Drawbacks for Detroit:
- no more #65 pick, and our 2nd rounder next year becomes a third-rounder. If SchLewHewtz is a better drafter than Millen though, we should still get somebody good with that third-rounder.
So, what do you think about this trade?
Detroit's #20, #65, and 2010 second-round pick for: Seattle's #4-overall and 2010 third-round pick, so that Detroit can draft Jason Smith AND Matthew Stafford. How would you feel about this trade?
Unfair to Detroit--Lions are just giving up too much! (19 votes)
Unfair to Seattle--that #4 is worth more than that! (17 votes)
Fair value, but bad for both teams because of what they'd be losing (6 votes)
Fair value, good for Detroit, but bad for Seattle's situation and needs (4 votes)
Fair value, good for Seattle, but bad for Detroit's situation and needs (11 votes)
Fair value, beneficial for BOTH teams. Go for it! (12 votes)
69 total votes