I'll gladly trade a 2017 2nd for a 2018 1st, like what the Broncos and Lions did a few years ago so the Broncos could draft that bust CB they got with the pick.

A 2017 1st for a 2018 1st can go **** itself straight up your own ass. That is idiocy of the highest magnitude.

There is going to have to be one hell of a player available at 27 to get a team to gamble next years 1st to move up. If that player is a QB this year, I'm guessing 24 or 26 is the target of that trade, to get in front of Houston or us.

I couldn't disagree more.

The QB position isn't what you'd prefer but this is a super talented draft...

That's kind of what I meant. They say from around 13 to 60 in this draft are all excellent players. To get someone to move up to 27, when there are other good players left, that coveted player is going to be something extra.

QB is the only position I can see some team giving up a 2018 1st rd pick for. In a "weak class", I doubt it happens.

ASS cut Reek in Madden...just sayin

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but your post made it sound like there'd have to be a very rare and special player there to make a team want to move up.

I think a TON of talent will fall due to teams reaching for QB's and this is a talent rich draft...

I'm trying to think, but has there been a successful example of trading the farm to move up for a QB?

Certainly not RG3. Not Jared Goff. One could argue the Giants won the day by trading for Eli Manning instead of Rivers, although I'd be shocked if Rivers couldn't have had the same success Eli did in NY.

I don't know why that is. It's kind of surprising, actually. In all of those situations, one guy was great and the other did jack shit. I guess it comes back to getting it right.

On the flip side, it is valid to point out that Brees, Warner, and Peyton are all retread QBs to lead their new team to a super bowl, and they went 2-4 collectively in those games.

It can be done, but it's rare. Mostly because teams don't let go of super bowl caliber QBs.

Not sure any of this means jack ****ing shit in terms of this debate, but there's been a lot of good arguments in here, and it got me thinking. We have extra picks this year in a QB-depleted, yet other-position-rich draft. Do you package them, pull the trigger, and trade up, praying you got Luck and not RG3? Do you say **** it, we'll see who falls and fill out this roster with good players at 9 other positions?

Sadly, this is an argument that I don't think can be won until draft night and you see what happens. If Trubisky, Mahomes, and Watson are all gone by pick 10, then it changes everything. Trading up into the top 10 for a guy you are FOR SURE not playing until at least next year just seems to be really bad roster management. I get the reasons to go for it, but I think it might cause more harm than good in the long run.

Maybe.

Who knows.

Is 9:30am too early to start drinking?

Well by that metric, it's certainly not drafting a QB as high as possible every chance you get.

Guess the eternal mystery will remain, particularly with Rodgers and Brady, is a franchise QB a function of draft capital or quality training staff?