How do Players retiring or being traded impact draft?

[Luvnit2]

I see 2 areas in 2021 impacting the draft, 1st if indeed salary cap is reduced 10% versus years past increased 10%, then I see a lot of vet players available at all positions so Bengals may be able to fill needs prior to the draft at some positions.

Second, Rivers just announced he is retiring. I think Brees may retire as well, Both teams have very good back up QB's, but a very good QB starting may not be enough. Ben may hang it up, Brady probably not, but it is possible. You take the teams who need a starter now due to performance + teams who have a retiring or aging QB (Saints, Steelers, Falcons) and QB draft position could be huge in 2021.

Our #5 pick overall in round 1 and/or #6 overall in round 2 (second tier QB's).

Any thoughts on how the great group of aging QB's impacts us in 2021 since we have a franchise QB?

Other positions?

I added trades to this thread. as today team with #7 pick will need a QB as Stafford wants out. So, unless they trade or sign a vet could be trade partner with Bengals to move up to #5

[XenoMorph]

i think the draft will happen as normal around the same time it does every year..

A few more teams might be inclined to grab a QB.. But most these teams with QBs near retirement have already done so in prep. I dont see to many teams hiting the panic button to give up everything to move up.

might provide an oppertunity to slide back and grab some more picks if we are inclined to do so. But then we live with what ifs

[CJD]

Looking at the teams across the NFL, I'd say there are 6 teams that desperately need a new QB if they want to compete in 2021:
CHI
IND
JAX
NE
NO
NYJ

After that, I'd say there are 7 teams that may not need to upgrade their QB position, but should really consider it if they hope to compete in 2021:
CAR
DEN
MIA
PHI (Is Wentz broken? We'll have to wait and see, I guess)
PIT
SF
WFT

Past that, there are 3 teams that don't need a new starting QB for 2021, but will probably need one in the next few years:
ATL
DET
TB

Finally, I think there are 16 teams that are secure at QB for next season and the immediate future, pending unforeseen circumstances:
ARI
BAL
BUF
CIN
CLE
DAL
GB (Even if Rodgers is getting old, he's got at least 2 years left in him and they already drafted his successor, who will be given at least 2 years past that to prove himself)
HOU (I'm going to pretend, for the sake of this post, that Watson and Houston come to some understanding)
KC
LAC
LAR
LV
MIN
NYG (I know that Danny Dimes isn't perfect, but I think he's firmly entrenched for the time being).
SEA
TEN

There's a decent number of okay QBs on the market, like Fitzpatrick, Trubisky, Dalton, Brissett and Newton, but exactly none of them are considered "futures of the franchise" (I'm not counting Dak because worst case scenario for the Cowboys he is franchise tagged. He's not leaving Dallas).

This tells me that half of the league could, legitimately, be looking for a new QB in the next year or two and there are bare bones on the market (this isn't like last year, when there were a few potential starting caliber QBs available in Tom Brady, Philip Rivers and Teddy Bridgewater).

This NFL draft just so happens to have a lot of QBs at the top end of the draft in Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance, Jones and Trask all projected to be taken in the first 40 picks of the draft by many.

If I were the Bengals, I'd be calling every team in the first two lists above and see how much they would give up to move up to #5 (assuming Sewell isn't there) to come snag their future QB.

[Benton]

(01-20-2021, 01:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Looking at the teams across the NFL, I'd say there are 6 teams that desperately need a new QB if they want to compete in 2021:
CHI
IND
JAX
NE
NO
NYJ

After that, I'd say there are 7 teams that may not need to upgrade their QB position, but should really consider it if they hope to compete in 2021:
CAR
DEN
MIA
PHI (Is Wentz broken? We'll have to wait and see, I guess)
PIT
SF
WFT

Past that, there are 3 teams that don't need a new starting QB for 2021, but will probably need one in the next few years:
ATL
DET
TB

Finally, I think there are 16 teams that are secure at QB for next season and the immediate future, pending unforeseen circumstances:
ARI
BAL
BUF
CIN
CLE
DAL
GB (Even if Rodgers is getting old, he's got at least 2 years left in him and they already drafted his successor, who will be given at least 2 years past that to prove himself)
HOU (I'm going to pretend, for the sake of this post, that Watson and Houston come to some understanding)
KC
LAC
LAR
LV
MIN
NYG (I know that Danny Dimes isn't perfect, but I think he's firmly entrenched for the time being).
SEA
TEN

There's a decent number of okay QBs on the market, like Fitzpatrick, Trubisky, Dalton, Brissett and Newton, but exactly none of them are considered "futures of the franchise" (I'm not counting Dak because worst case scenario for the Cowboys he is franchise tagged. He's not leaving Dallas).

This tells me that half of the league could, legitimately, be looking for a new QB in the next year or two and there are bare bones on the market (this isn't like last year, when there were a few potential starting caliber QBs available in Tom Brady, Philip Rivers and Teddy Bridgewater).

This NFL draft just so happens to have a lot of QBs at the top end of the draft in Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance, Jones and Trask all projected to be taken in the first 40 picks of the draft by many.

If I were the Bengals, I'd be calling every team in the first two lists above and see how much they would give up to move up to #5 (assuming Sewell isn't there) to come snag their future QB.

Good post, and a pretty accurate assessment.

And it's partly why I'm not too disappointed about sewell. There's a very real chance he's there at five considering how many teams need qbs versus how many decent ones are likely to be available in fa. Even factoring in some curve ball trade like watson. And if sewell is gone? Our pick could be worth a ton as some of those teams may look at the cap reduction and decide to move on from an older qb to get a little cap relief for the next few seasons

[CJD]

(01-20-2021, 01:32 PM)Benton Wrote: Good post, and a pretty accurate assessment.

And it's partly why I'm not too disappointed about sewell. There's a very real chance he's there at five considering how many teams need qbs versus how many decent ones are likely to be available in fa. Even factoring in some curve ball trade like watson. And if sewell is gone? Our pick could be worth a ton as some of those teams may look at the cap reduction and decide to move on from an older qb to get a little cap relief for the next few seasons

Yea, I am a little sad that there's a chance we lose Sewell because we won a few games at the end of the year, but there is plenty of talent in this draft and if we do decide to trade back, we could land another first rounder next year without moving down all that much, or at the worst, another 2nd this year and one more pick in the 2nd or 3rd this year or next year. We could do a lot with those extra picks.

The only concern I have is that we don't get Sewell, and then we stick at #5 and either reach for a need or take a luxury like Chase. These aren't huge concerns, because we will improve even if we reach for an Olineman or take an elite WR like Chase. It would just feel like a bit of a missed opportunity is all.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-20-2021, 01:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I am a little sad that there's a chance we lose Sewell because we won a few games at the end of the year, but there is plenty of talent in this draft and if we do decide to trade back, we could land another first rounder next year without moving down all that much, or at the worst, another 2nd this year and one more pick in the 2nd or 3rd this year or next year. We could do a lot with those extra picks.

The only concern I have is that we don't get Sewell, and then we stick at #5 and either reach for a need or take a luxury like Chase. These aren't huge concerns, because we will improve even if we reach for an Olineman or take an elite WR like Chase. It would just feel like a bit of a missed opportunity is all.

Think you're overestimating the value of the #5 unless you're talking about trading WAY back.

The first 3 picks are WAY more valuable than the 5th. The value chart for the first 10 picks of the draft goes... 3000, 2600, 2200, 1800, 1700 (CIN), 1600, 1500, 1400, 1350, 1300. So the 1st pick (4 spots up) is worth 1300 more than the 5th pick, and the 9th pick (4 spots down) is worth only 350 less.

I worked this out in a different thread and basically.... the Bengals 1st, 5th, and 7th round picks for Cowboys 1st and 2nd round picks is roughly equal value, with the Bengals getting a tiny value advantage.

Barring some huge unlikely bidding war, there's not going to be the type of return you are listing.

[CJD]

(01-20-2021, 02:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Think you're overestimating the value of the #5 unless you're talking about trading WAY back.

The first 3 picks are WAY more valuable than the 5th. The value chart for the first 10 picks of the draft goes... 3000, 2600, 2200, 1800, 1700 (CIN), 1600, 1500, 1400, 1350, 1300. So the 1st pick (4 spots up) is worth 1300 more than the 5th pick, and the 9th pick (4 spots down) is worth only 350 less.

I worked this out in a different thread and basically.... the Bengals 1st, 5th, and 7th round picks for Cowboys 1st and 2nd round picks is roughly equal value, with the Bengals getting a tiny value advantage.

Barring some huge unlikely bidding war, there's not going to be the type of return you are listing.

I dunno. Trading around in the top 10, especially when a QB is up for grabs, is really expensive and I don't think they really follow the trade value chart in those circumstances.

In 2018, moving from 6th to 3rd cost the Jets 3 second round picks. 
The Bills also traded from 12th to 7th that year and that cost them 2 second round picks (although they got a 7th rounder back, whatever that was worth).
The Cardinals traded the 15th pick and a 3rd and 5th to get to #10.


In 2017, moving up one slot from 3rd to 2nd cost Chicago a two 3rds and a 4th. 

In 2016, Philadelphia traded from #8 to #2 and it cost an additional 3rd, 4th and 1st rounder (they got back a 5th rounder).
Tennessee traded from 15 to 8 and it cost them a 3rd and a 2nd (they got back a 6th rounder).

In 2014, Cleveland traded the #4 pick to Buffalo for the #9 pick and an additional 1st and 4th rounder.

In 2013,  Miami traded the 12th overall pick and a 2nd round pick for the 3rd overall pick. 2013, if you remember, was a TERRIBLE year for QBs, as the highest drafted QB was EJ Manuel at 16, which meant there wasn't a whole lot of demand to trade up, since QBs are the target the vast majority of time someone trades up in the top 5. Since all the QBs in 2013 were trash (and turned out to be role players at best in the NFL), that meant trading up was more reasonable, since the demand to trade up was really low.

This is not the case this year, as some people are talking about 3 or even 4 QBs going in the top 5 this year. So if we're trading down from #5 overall, we're likely fielding several offers from people going after a QB, which will inevitably raise the price of trading up. I'd look at the Bills trade in 2018 and the Bills trade in 2014 as an archetype for what we could get if we choose to move down to the bottom of the top 10 or maybe into the top 15, which is a few 2nds or maybe even a 1st the following year. I'd say the Tennessee trade in 2016 would be our worst case scenario (dropping to 15 and getting an additional 2nd and 3rd).

[Luvnit2]

(01-20-2021, 01:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Looking at the teams across the NFL, I'd say there are 6 teams that desperately need a new QB if they want to compete in 2021:
CHI
IND
JAX
NE
NO
NYJ

After that, I'd say there are 7 teams that may not need to upgrade their QB position, but should really consider it if they hope to compete in 2021:
CAR
DEN
MIA
PHI (Is Wentz broken? We'll have to wait and see, I guess)
PIT
SF
WFT

Past that, there are 3 teams that don't need a new starting QB for 2021, but will probably need one in the next few years:
ATL
DET
TB

Finally, I think there are 16 teams that are secure at QB for next season and the immediate future, pending unforeseen circumstances:
ARI
BAL
BUF
CIN
CLE
DAL
GB (Even if Rodgers is getting old, he's got at least 2 years left in him and they already drafted his successor, who will be given at least 2 years past that to prove himself)
HOU (I'm going to pretend, for the sake of this post, that Watson and Houston come to some understanding)
KC
LAC
LAR
LV
MIN
NYG (I know that Danny Dimes isn't perfect, but I think he's firmly entrenched for the time being).
SEA
TEN

There's a decent number of okay QBs on the market, like Fitzpatrick, Trubisky, Dalton, Brissett and Newton, but exactly none of them are considered "futures of the franchise" (I'm not counting Dak because worst case scenario for the Cowboys he is franchise tagged. He's not leaving Dallas).

This tells me that half of the league could, legitimately, be looking for a new QB in the next year or two and there are bare bones on the market (this isn't like last year, when there were a few potential starting caliber QBs available in Tom Brady, Philip Rivers and Teddy Bridgewater).

This NFL draft just so happens to have a lot of QBs at the top end of the draft in Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance, Jones and Trask all projected to be taken in the first 40 picks of the draft by many.

If I were the Bengals, I'd be calling every team in the first two lists above and see how much they would give up to move up to #5 (assuming Sewell isn't there) to come snag their future QB.

Thanks for the homework. It just seemed to me this may be the biggest QB need year in a very long time. I think your facts bear out my philosophy. Will teams reach? Hard to say, but if history is out guide the QB position is the 1 position teams reach, so our #5 pick may come into play.

[Benton]

(01-20-2021, 01:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I am a little sad that there's a chance we lose Sewell because we won a few games at the end of the year, but there is plenty of talent in this draft and if we do decide to trade back, we could land another first rounder next year without moving down all that much, or at the worst, another 2nd this year and one more pick in the 2nd or 3rd this year or next year. We could do a lot with those extra picks.

The only concern I have is that we don't get Sewell, and then we stick at #5 and either reach for a need or take a luxury like Chase. These aren't huge concerns, because we will improve even if we reach for an Olineman or take an elite WR like Chase. It would just feel like a bit of a missed opportunity is all.

Yeah, I just wish we were a little more flexible and creative when it came to drafting. If there's a trade out there, I'm not sure we take it given the track record 

(01-20-2021, 02:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Think you're overestimating the value of the #5 unless you're talking about trading WAY back.

The first 3 picks are WAY more valuable than the 5th. The value chart for the first 10 picks of the draft goes... 3000, 2600, 2200, 1800, 1700 (CIN), 1600, 1500, 1400, 1350, 1300. So the 1st pick (4 spots up) is worth 1300 more than the 5th pick, and the 9th pick (4 spots down) is worth only 350 less.

I worked this out in a different thread and basically.... the Bengals 1st, 5th, and 7th round picks for Cowboys 1st and 2nd round picks is roughly equal value, with the Bengals getting a tiny value advantage.

Barring some huge unlikely bidding war, there's not going to be the type of return you are listing.

Most years, I'd agree with you. But I think the need for quarterbacks is going to push some teams to trade up this year, or at least draft one earlier than planned. Not because there's a wealth of good ones, but so many holes and too few good free agent options. Maybe I'm just not big on a lot of the names expecting to hit free agency, but it seems like in most years there's more guys like a cam newton who can get you through a season or two while you develop a second day pick. 

There's a few teams in the same boat as the Bears and steelers. They've got a decent roster and no good qb option, but they're picking late because the team isn't bad. And yeah, I realize Ben is debatable as not a good option, but he turns 60 in July, so I don't think the organization is going to just hope for an exemption on him playing with a walker. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see teams like those trading up. Maybe not to five, but that expectation may cause some teams to consider the fifth spot, especially if three qbs go in the first four picks.

[Luvnit2]

(01-20-2021, 04:09 PM)Benton Wrote:
Yeah, I just wish we were a little more flexible and creative when it came to drafting. If there's a trade out there, I'm not sure we take it given the track record 


Most years, I'd agree with you. But I think the need for quarterbacks is going to push some teams to trade up this year, or at least draft one earlier than planned. Not because there's a wealth of good ones, but so many holes and too few good free agent options. Maybe I'm just not big on a lot of the names expecting to hit free agency, but it seems like in most years there's more guys like a cam newton who can get you through a season or two while you develop a second day pick. 

There's a few teams in the same boat as the Bears and steelers. They've got a decent roster and no good qb option, but they're picking late because the team isn't bad. And yeah, I realize Ben is debatable as not a good option, but he turns 60 in July, so I don't think the organization is going to just hope for an exemption on him playing with a walker. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see teams like those trading up. Maybe not to five, but that expectation may cause some teams to consider the fifth spot, especially if three qbs go in the first four picks.

I agree, I think our front office does a good job of managing the cap, but they don't seem to think out of the box. We had a very good roster 4 or 5 years ago, but refused to go all in to win it all, instead played it safe and watched some bad drafts take a good roster to a bad roster in a hurry. Now not only no playoffs, drafting back to back years in top 5.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-20-2021, 11:13 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree, I think our front office does a good job of managing the cap, but they don't seem to think out of the box. We had a very good roster 4 or 5 years ago, but refused to go all in to win it all, instead played it safe and watched some bad drafts take a good roster to a bad roster in a hurry. Now not only no playoffs, drafting back to back years in top 5.

Really seems to be a problem with both the Bengals and the Reds.

When the window is open, they don't go all in on winning now.
When the window is closed, they don't go all in on rebuilding.

Too many half measures lead to what we've had to endure.

[Luvnit2]

(01-20-2021, 11:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Really seems to be a problem with both the Bengals and the Reds.

When the window is open, they don't go all in on winning now.
When the window is closed, they don't go all in on rebuilding.

Too many half measures lead to what we've had to endure.

I think your post sums up fan frustrations.

I believe they try, just don't think they understand they need a real GM, a good one

[*ochocincos*]

What really hurts teams is unplanned retirements, e.g. Boling.
It seemed that they were banking on Boling being the LG for 2019, and then drafted Jordan to groom behind him (or possibly Westerman).
But Boling ended up retiring in July, and it may not have been known prior to the draft.
Then Westerman really didn't step up to take that spot, also ultimately retiring.
It resulted in basically forcing Jordan into a starter role, of which he clearly was not ready for.

With that said, if it was known that Boling was going to retire prior to the draft, they were terrible at coming up with a plan to replace him.

[Luvnit2]

(01-21-2021, 06:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: What really hurts teams is unplanned retirements, e.g. Boling.
It seemed that they were banking on Boling being the LG for 2019, and then drafted Jordan to groom behind him (or possibly Westerman).
But Boling ended up retiring in July, and it may not have been known prior to the draft.
Then Westerman really didn't step up to take that spot, also ultimately retiring.
It resulted in basically forcing Jordan into a starter role, of which he clearly was not ready for.

With that said, if it was known that Boling was going to retire prior to the draft, they were terrible at coming up with a plan to replace him.

It also points at then poor job our coaching staff has done developing the next guy up. Our back ups seem to be lost. You watch other teams and their back ups seem to not miss a beat. We need a developmental coaching staff that realizes they 53 active roster and the PS players are almost as important as every starter.

The coaching staff the past few years has not developed OL or DL, they need to start right there to control the trenches.

[*ochocincos*]

(01-21-2021, 09:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It also points at then poor job our coaching staff has done developing the next guy up. Our back ups seem to be lost. You watch other teams and their back ups seem to not miss a beat. We need a developmental coaching staff that realizes they 53 active roster and the PS players are almost as important as every starter.

The coaching staff the past few years has not developed OL or DL, they need to start right there to control the trenches.

You could say they haven't really developed LB either, as none of the LBs are doing well against both the run and pass.
But I guess they all perform about the same, it's just not good performance.

[Luvnit2]

I added trades to this thread. as today team with #7 pick will need a QB as Stafford wants out. So, unless they trade or sign a vet could be trade partner with Bengals to move up to #5

Watson wants out too, but Texans have no 1st round pick, but maybe Stafford goes to Texans????

[Gdale_Bengal]

For Indy, I know they drafted Eason last year so personally I hope he developed and starts. I don’t dislike colts fans and I like Eason last year.

[Luvnit2]

(01-24-2021, 11:09 AM)Gdale_Bengal Wrote: For Indy, I know they drafted Eason last year so personally I hope he developed and starts. I don’t dislike colts fans and I like Eason last year.

It just seems more so than this year teams may be looking for a franchise QB, some may consider Stafford their guy (maybe Indy if the lose Bissett after Rivers retired) or maybe Eason is their long term plan.

But Detroit could be a team willing to give up a lot to move 2 spots if their QB is available when we pick. IN our case if Sewell is gone, moving back 2 places for a team likely to draft a QB in the #5 slot could reap huge rewards with little risk getting a player the team covets. Some fans will say won't get much moving 2 places, but that depends on how many teams covet that 1 QB available that teams view as a top 10 pick. Hopefully a guy like Fields or Wilson is there and a bidding war ensues.

[*rfaulk34*]

(01-24-2021, 02:26 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It just seems more so than this year teams may be looking for a franchise QB, some may consider Stafford their guy (maybe Indy if the lose Bissett after Rivers retired) or maybe Eason is their long term plan.

But Detroit could be a team willing to give up a lot to move 2 spots if their QB is available when we pick. IN our case if Sewell is gone, moving back 2 places for a team likely to draft a QB in the #5 slot could reap huge rewards with little risk getting a player the team covets. Some fans will say won't get much moving 2 places, but that depends on how many teams covet that 1 QB available that teams view as a top 10 pick. Hopefully a guy like Fields or Wilson is there and a bidding war ensues.

The only thing i would worry about is, if Sewell is the target and he's gone, they move back behind the Eagles. The Eagles don't need a QB so whoever they take, is a guy the Bengals would miss out on as well as whoever they would have taken at #5 without the trade. So now they sit minus Sewell and 2 other guys higher rated. 

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(01-20-2021, 02:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I dunno. Trading around in the top 10, especially when a QB is up for grabs, is really expensive and I don't think they really follow the trade value chart in those circumstances.

In 2018, moving from 6th to 3rd cost the Jets 3 second round picks. 
The Bills also traded from 12th to 7th that year and that cost them 2 second round picks (although they got a 7th rounder back, whatever that was worth).
The Cardinals traded the 15th pick and a 3rd and 5th to get to #10.


In 2017, moving up one slot from 3rd to 2nd cost Chicago a two 3rds and a 4th. 

In 2016, Philadelphia traded from #8 to #2 and it cost an additional 3rd, 4th and 1st rounder (they got back a 5th rounder).
Tennessee traded from 15 to 8 and it cost them a 3rd and a 2nd (they got back a 6th rounder).

In 2014, Cleveland traded the #4 pick to Buffalo for the #9 pick and an additional 1st and 4th rounder.

In 2013,  Miami traded the 12th overall pick and a 2nd round pick for the 3rd overall pick. 2013, if you remember, was a TERRIBLE year for QBs, as the highest drafted QB was EJ Manuel at 16, which meant there wasn't a whole lot of demand to trade up, since QBs are the target the vast majority of time someone trades up in the top 5. Since all the QBs in 2013 were trash (and turned out to be role players at best in the NFL), that meant trading up was more reasonable, since the demand to trade up was really low.

This is not the case this year, as some people are talking about 3 or even 4 QBs going in the top 5 this year. So if we're trading down from #5 overall, we're likely fielding several offers from people going after a QB, which will inevitably raise the price of trading up. I'd look at the Bills trade in 2018 and the Bills trade in 2014 as an archetype for what we could get if we choose to move down to the bottom of the top 10 or maybe into the top 15, which is a few 2nds or maybe even a 1st the following year. I'd say the Tennessee trade in 2016 would be our worst case scenario (dropping to 15 and getting an additional 2nd and 3rd).

The ones in bold are all trading up for a top 3 pick.

The Bengals don't have a top 3 pick. They have the 5th pick.

A top 3 pick is extra valuable as you usually get the chance of either the 2nd best QB in the draft or the best non-QB player in the draft. Picking 5th you might be looking at only the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft. Are you going to break the bank for the 4th QB on your board?