That's reeruned. If you can get Wilson at #4 - and you can - along with the #36 pick and a first next year, then you're reeruned for taking him #1.

There's no way to know that ahead of time. No way.

Yes, in a perfect world you can.


Say you do trade down though to 4, and the Cards call up the Raiders and trade to 3 and take him there. Then you are left with a guy you aren't a high on.


Why risk it.

No. This is the perfect kind of situation where the Chiefs get burned. Happens to us all the time.

I think that is really the problem: there hasn't been a QB who is really head and shoulders above the other QBs in this draft class. I think they are bunched up close enough that the quality of coaching is what will ultimately decide the best QB in this particular draft.

Value.

I meet with CEOs, CIOs, and CTOs in the financial industry all the time.

You know how many of them are more interested in maximizing value vs. minimizing risk?

That's just not true.

In the eyes of the media and fans, there isn't a QB who is head and shoulders above the others.

I guarantee you that by the 1st of April, it will become clear to the media and fans that they were wrong...

It depends on free agency. If the Jags get Alex Smith or Flynn (Bradley would be familiar with both) AND they had Smith, Barkley and Wilson all pretty evenly rated AND they could get Foles in the deal with the Eagles, I think they would have to strongly consider it.

I suppose it depends on how high KC is on Wilson. If they feel like it's literally a toss-up between Geno, Barkley, and Wilson then sure you take the trade.

If they feel like there is one guy and then the rest of them are scrubs, then yes you absolutely take that one guy number 1. IF you feel like he is your guy. Absolutely.

My understanding of this thread was that hypothetically KC wasn't enamored with Geno and looking to trade down.

After Geno, to me it's a toss-up.

It certainly makes drafting Wilson or Barkley less of a gamble when you get the extra picks. Given that the top of the second round is essentially the first round (with guys falling), you're looking at getting potentially 3 first round talents - INCLUDING YOUR QB - simply for not taking a guy you weren't high on anyway.

Couple that with the extra first round pick next year, and I think it's a no-brainer.

You might not be wrong to turn down the trade, but you absolutely have to have a more rational explanation than this.

Looking over the Eagles schedule for next year, it is looking like that first round pick in '14 could be a very high pick as well.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1358464054

It's not about how you've rated the QBs one against the other, unless you're talking about including Glennon, Manuel, Nassib, and Dysert along with the other 3.

It's about how comfortable you are gambling that you get NONE of the 3 you listed.

While it's not likely that Geno, Wilson, and Barkley go 1-2-3, it's absolutely possible. You're taking a risk that all you're left with is Glennon or some equally shitty option.

Chiefs, Jaguars, Raiders, and Eagles will all be looking for new QBs. Those are the first four picks in the draft. Then you have the Cardinals that might trade up. Both the Browns and Chargers have new regimes and may look for new QBs. Both the Jets and the Buccaneers may also look for a new QB. That's within the top 15. It's idiotic to take the risk and miss out on either Geno, Wilson, or Barkley. Extra draft picks mean doodly shit if you do not have a franchise QB.

Based on what?

The previous 15 years?