"Had they not set themselves up well with the salary cap" are we talking about the Minnesota Vikings? That club has very much *not* set itself up well with the salary cap. In addition to the dead money and copious use of void years, the longer it takes to extend JJ, the higher that price is going to be. The roster has been retooled with younger players, but the cap management has been poor.
This year there is a consensus top 3 and then a gap--that was also the case in '99, and the best QB in that class was taken at 11 (though as ever, the coach/roster matter too). It wouldn't make sense to saddle KOC with someone he doesn't like, but it's also a leap to assume that KOC (or anyone) can correctly rank the prospects, and thus get ROI for using 4 or 5 top 60 picks to get that player.
“1. Trade up to the top three no matter the cost…” This sends a shiver through my bones and not because of our current weather in Princeton! We old timers still remember a trade abomination which brought us Hershel Walker and sent the Cowgirls to multiple Super Bowls… I’d shy away from that option.
I think it's very unlikely they hold onto both first round picks in any scenario. They made that trade for a future move. If they can't trade up with those picks for a QB, I think it's much more likely they trade back with at least one of them and recoup some of the value they lost in the original trade. To put it another way, it's very unlikely they would have made that trade just to take a non-QB, knowing the overall value they were sacrificing to do so. Especially not knowing who will be there at each slot.
"Had they not set themselves up well with the salary cap" are we talking about the Minnesota Vikings? That club has very much *not* set itself up well with the salary cap. In addition to the dead money and copious use of void years, the longer it takes to extend JJ, the higher that price is going to be. The roster has been retooled with younger players, but the cap management has been poor.
This year there is a consensus top 3 and then a gap--that was also the case in '99, and the best QB in that class was taken at 11 (though as ever, the coach/roster matter too). It wouldn't make sense to saddle KOC with someone he doesn't like, but it's also a leap to assume that KOC (or anyone) can correctly rank the prospects, and thus get ROI for using 4 or 5 top 60 picks to get that player.
“1. Trade up to the top three no matter the cost…” This sends a shiver through my bones and not because of our current weather in Princeton! We old timers still remember a trade abomination which brought us Hershel Walker and sent the Cowgirls to multiple Super Bowls… I’d shy away from that option.
I think it's very unlikely they hold onto both first round picks in any scenario. They made that trade for a future move. If they can't trade up with those picks for a QB, I think it's much more likely they trade back with at least one of them and recoup some of the value they lost in the original trade. To put it another way, it's very unlikely they would have made that trade just to take a non-QB, knowing the overall value they were sacrificing to do so. Especially not knowing who will be there at each slot.