How the Seahakws stole the QBOTF

by Twisted_Logic on Jan 17, 2012 2:49 PM PST

Im a fan, so i can dream right - so here goes.

There is no reason to think the Seahawks cannot get the QB they want, be it Luck or RG3. How you say? Im glad you asked. Here is how that might work.

Here is the list of teams drafting before the Seahawks and who need a QB.

1. Colts (draft pick 1)

2. Browns (draft pick 4)

3. Redskins (draft pick 6)

4. Dolphins (draft pick 8/9)

And here are the available quaterbacks

1. Peyton Manning (yes, i think he will play next season)

2. Matt Flynn

3. Andrew Luck

4. RG3

So you see, all we need to do is beat 1 team to get the QBOTF - via free agency or draft. Duh, as if you did not know that!! But here is the fun part - there are a lot of scenarios that can play out, and here are 2 of my favorites.

For both these scenarios, the key is Peyton Manning. Where he plays next year is a big key to this mystery. Also, I have the Browns getting M Flynn from the Packers. Its not the first time the Walrus has taken a backup from GB and made it a success story. The Browns have too many holes to address and they are better off using their draft picks on things not called QB.

Scenario 1: P.Manning is no longer a Colt.

There will be a lot of suitors for P.Manning services, but i cannot see how the Redskins will not jump on this and maybe draft Tannehill in Round 2 to be Manning's understudy. So in this world, lets see how our QB needy teams pan out

1. Colts - Andrew Luck

2. Browns - M.Flynn

3. Redskins - P.Manning

So then all we need to do is beat the Dolphins to get RG3. This can go 1 of 2 ways. The Matt Moore situation is not as bad. The guy actually looked like a QB towards the end of the season. Which means they keep Moore and draft a QB in rounds 2 or 3. "DrumRolls" With the 11th Pick, the seahawks select RG3 from Baylor University "DrumRoll ends". Or the Seahawks decide to get aggressive and trade up to pick RG3. We have multiple trading spots, starting with the Vikings at #3. I just dont see the Dolphins being as aggressive to trade up. And remember the deal does not have to be just draft picks, it could be picks + players (from our WR, TE, CB groups).

Scenario 2: P.Manning is a Colt.

This to me is the more likely scenario. As the 2011 season just showed, the Colts are more than a QB away from SB contention. They have a lot of holes and a bunch of key players hitting free agency. Drafting Luck locks up too much mullah into one position and makes it harder to address other needs. So the Colts decide to trade out of the #1 spot, keep Manning and build the rest of the team. They pick a QB in the later rounds to pacify the fan base and Manning promises 1 more SB to the Colts before he retires (which happens in 2015 against the Seahawks and we win - but i digress).

So in this world, lets see how our QB needy teams pan out

1. Colts - P.Manning and trades #1 spot

2. Browns - Matt Flynn is already a Brown by draft day

3. Redskins/Dolphins/Seahawks eye for Luck or RG3.

Personally, i hope the Seahawks trade-up to #1 and pick Luck. I am not expecting the Seahawks to be picking in this range in the next couple of years. So it would be easier to move from #11 to get Luck than to move from #20 to get Barkley. The Colts will want to get back into contention right away and might be willing to accept pro-ready players more than other teams drafting that low. So bundle picks+players and move to get Luck. And so the Seahawks enter into NFL Draft's eternal history books by pulling off a bumper deal, sign Luck and beat the Colts for our first ever SB title (as mentioned above). In case the Seahawks decide not to get "Luck"y with #1 pick, they let Dolphins and Redskins duke it out for Luck. We then trade up to beat the other team and get RG3 (see Scenario 1 above). And btw, in this world RG3 beats the Colts for our SB title too:)

Im sure you can guys can find more scenarios on how the draft unfolds and im hoping that you could share these with the rest of us.

Like maybe we could do an Inception on Luck. He then decides to play only for the Seahawks and no other team. We draft a DE in R1 and then draft Luck, who is still available with our 43rd pick. Hmm, wonder what happens when he retires, cos the inception is still there in his head - maybe he coaches for us:)

Watchya guys think?

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Drafting Luck wouldn't lock up much money

There’s a rookie salary cap, now, and the contracts are pretty constrained. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but I think we can expect something like $26 M / 5 years for the #1 overall pick. That’s dirt cheap for a starting QB, and much less than they’d have to pay Manning.

by Jason_D on Jan 18, 2012 12:34 PM PST reply actions

More like 24 or so over 4 years

The 5th year option can’t be predicted, it depends on the top salaries at that position in the 5th year that player is playing. Remember, all base contracts for drafted players are 4 years, the option is exactly that, an option, not a contract year.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 1:12 PM PST up reply actions

Noted, thanks!

by Jason_D on Jan 19, 2012 9:43 AM PST up reply actions

Yes, it would in fact lock up a lot of dough.

According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.
Manning’s option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning’s option.

That said, if you’re going to invest heavily at one position and factoring in age+injury, I couldn’t blame my team for doing just that. I still think Manning stays w/ the Colts for two more seasons (at least).

...

by Misfit74 on Jan 22, 2012 12:01 PM PST up reply actions

Nice writeup, man

And you’re right. Our draft position is a little low, but not so low that we should consider ourself out for a top option this year. Trading up for Robert Griffin, even though it might be expensive, is the most attractive option, to me.

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 1:14 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks man...

..been a great fan of urs too. First time poster and thought id start with QB.

by Twisted_Logic on Jan 18, 2012 7:05 PM PST up reply actions

Rob Lowe says this won't work.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 18, 2012 1:30 PM PST reply actions

There's still the possibility that the Colts wind up with two of those four.

I’ve heard plenty of permutations of logical reasons why the Colts will go with one or the other, but they’re usually asserted with too much certainty for my taste. We’ll all find out eventually, but for me, Colts keeping both is still the most likely of all scenarios.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jan 18, 2012 4:07 PM PST reply actions

Free agency happens first

So that means the cost of aquiring the 2 top QBs is going to go up.
Also the colts very well could keep manning and draft luck. After this year, they have more options. If manning plays he can be traded as most of his obscene contract would have already been paid. If he doesnt play, they cut ties and are in no worse of a situation than this year.

They need to get young quick. Luck certainly will help with that. trading manning next year helps as well. cutting hom this year doesnt really help them get younger, just helps the cap.

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 4:22 PM PST reply actions

Well, if they want to do anything in free agency, they can't really keep Manning around

Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 4:29 PM PST up reply actions

Good point

This is pretty much a complete rebuild, really interesting to see what Grigson does

by Oliudyen on Jan 18, 2012 5:01 PM PST up reply actions

I wonder what the Seahawks' 2013 first-rounder is worth in a trade.

That is, if we use the pick to trade up, the other team is going to be making a bet on the Seahawks’ 2012 season — they’d rather it be a high pick, of course. If they’re as bullish on the team as we are — that is, if they agree with the implication that the team is destined for something like #20 next year — then it might not be worth as much in a trade up. Or maybe even if they think the Seahawks are talented, they’ll expect the team to go through one more year of growing pains with RG3.

This is what I love about draft forecasts, by the way. It’s all about expectations, and people’s expectations of your expectations, and your expectations of their expectations, ad infinitum. Game theory!

by Suburban Shocker on Jan 18, 2012 4:44 PM PST reply actions

From what i have read..

… it usually valued as highest pick of the next round. So your 2013 first round pick is given a value of about the 33rd pick (circa) in the draft . Make sense?

by Twisted_Logic on Jan 18, 2012 7:09 PM PST up reply actions

But it has to matter what team it is.

Whose 2013 first-round pick would you rather have, Cleveland or Green Bay? Washington or New England?

by Suburban Shocker on Jan 18, 2012 8:24 PM PST up reply actions

It actually doesn't...

the number of teams who radically change draft position from one year to the next nullifies your argument (at least in terms of the team accepting the future draft pick), at least in trades using picks from the current and future years. if only trading a future pick though, the accepting team might prefer a deal with the perceived “worse” of two teams offering a same round future pick.

In response to Twisted logic, I have heard future draft picks are valued at 75% of the draft points of the 16th pick for the current year according to the widely published draft pick value chart…. Those may in fact be the same value, don’t have time to look it up.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 19, 2012 7:13 AM PST up reply actions

Citation needed.

If you can find me an actual general manager who says he’d just as soon get a future first-rounder from New England as from Washington, or examples of trades that show there is no premium or discount for future-year picks depending on how a team is expected to perform, then I’ll believe that. Otherwise I’m going to continue to go on the side of common sense.

In fact, even if you do find the GM quote, I’ll strongly suspect he’s being diplomatic and trying not to give bulletin-board material to Washington or whatever other poor team he mentions.

by Suburban Shocker on Jan 19, 2012 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

the GM being diplomatic is exactly the point I was making. In the negotiation,

the team accepting the future picks will demand that they are valued as the average pick for that round, because that is to their advantage. when the decision to accept or reject the trade is made in the back room, the perceived future record of the team certainly plays some role.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 20, 2012 12:03 AM PST up reply actions

Seriously wishful thinking

it is definitely fun to day dream in the fantasy land in whcih we land Luck, but Barkley not coming out this year significantly hurt our odds of getting any of the 3 big names.

fortunately, the 49ers and Ravens are proving that you don’t need superior QB play to go far (though you could make the case that Smith’s final two drives were as well executed as any of Brees’ or Brady’s drives). The Giants make the case that if you can get consistent pressure with your front 4 D-line, you will always be in a playoff game. Having a QB who is absolutely clutch in the psot season doesn’t hurt either.

In other news, “Seahawks” is misspelled in my browser tab.

SEA!
HAKWS!

by Crominator56 on Jan 19, 2012 4:41 PM PST reply actions

I have to agree with this

Daydreaming about Luck is just that…daydreaming. Also known as: not going to happen. Sure, PC said he would do what they had to do for the “right guy”, but he has also made his vision very clear as for what they see in QB play, and that does not necessarily mean what the typical fan will think it means.

by JonMirro on Jan 20, 2012 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

If Manning retires, any scenario gets really tough

All of these assume that the FO really likes RGIII, since Luck scenarios are pretty far fetched. RGIII is an amazing athlete, but he is still a project as far as the NFL is concerned. The FO might not like how he will project into the pro’s. I can imagine a scenario where they either don’t trade down, or trade out of a pick where they could have gotten RGIII and then get the QB they want later in the first.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Jan 21, 2012 4:39 AM PST reply actions

I enjoyed this post.

Interesting scenarios. I like us trading up for Luck or settling for a 2nd-tier QB in late 1st/early 2nd range if we do in fact go the draft-route for a new QB.

I still think Flynn is a possibility for us, as well.

...

by Misfit74 on Jan 22, 2012 12:02 PM PST reply actions

Manning is not playing for a loser

He will play only for a contender, in need of a QB. He would rather retire than waste his time getting beat up with a bad team.

by blazerbill on Jan 25, 2012 9:31 PM PST reply actions

Actually I think he loves football so much he would play for anyone.

That said, it’s moot. Even with a balsa wood neck he can almost pick his team.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 25, 2012 9:50 PM PST up reply actions

Are you talking about the Redskins?

Hawks finished with a 7 and 9 record, beat the Giants in New York, beat the Ravens, and have an incredibly young defense loaded with playmakers, and we did it with possibly the worst quarterback play in the NFL. It doesn’t get any closer to contending without a quarterback than us.
We would contend with Manning.

by gunballs on Jan 29, 2012 5:58 PM PST up reply actions