Raiders & Titans looking to trade into the #3 spot...

[jetsons]

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/nfl-draft-titans-raiders-trade-up-cardinals-pick

Report: 2 Teams ‘Exploring’ Trades To Acquire Cardinals’ No. 3 Pick

• LAUREN MEROLA
• 3 HOURS AGO

More NFL teams could be in the mix to move up the board come draft day. 

Nearly a month ago, the Carolina Panthers traded two first-rounders, two second-rounders and a wide receiver to the Chicago Bears to secure the No. 1 overall pick in the 2023 NFL Draft. And while the Panthers will likely spend it on a hopeful franchise quarterback, it now appears the Tennessee Titans may follow suit.

The Titans and general manager Ran Carthon are reportedly looking into trading up for the No. 3 overall pick. The selection currently belongs to the Arizona Cardinals, who has quarterback Kyler Murray under contract for the next five years. 

Tennessee's earliest pick is No. 11. It then has one selection in each of the second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh round. If it wants one of the highly sought-after quarterbacks of the draft, Carthon will have to make a big move.

When asked about whether or not he wants Ryan Tannehill to be the Titans starting quarterback in Week 1, head coach Mike Vrabel was fairly definitive, until he wasn't.

“Of course. Of course, we do,” Vrabel said at the league owners meetings in March. “We are in March, and we are continuing to build a football team, the best football team we can. And Ryan is getting healthy. He has been putting the work in. It is good to see him around the building. So yeah, we always expect that.

“But to make predictions — I think I have been through this last year [with receiver A.J. Brown] — I am not going to commit to anybody being on our roster in September. I’ve seen it change too quickly. Of course, we want Ryan as our quarterback, and everybody else that has helped us win. That is what we want.”

The Las Vegas Raiders are also reportedly thinking about trading for the Cardinals' No. 3 pick. They currently hold the seventh overall pick. 

"Can I give you the team that I have been told to keep an eye on that's exploring this and looking into this?" NFL Network's Daniel Jeremiah said on his "Move The Sticks" podcast. "Again, this is just people around the league who said do not sleep on Numero 11. The Tennessee Titans. The two teams to keep an eye on with the trade-ups were the Raiders and the Titans."

If the Titans like a passer enough, leapfrogging over a division rival in the Indianapolis Colts, who are set to select at No. 4, could be a risk very much worth the reward.

   

 

[batman10023]

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.

Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

 

[jtomm]

6 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.
Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

'bout  4 - 5 yrs younger than rodgers. 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.

Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

 

I think the other side effect that is on the Jets' radar is Tenn was the other team commonly projected to take a tackle ahead of the Jets' pick. Consensus seems to be that the Bears are locked in on one, and that'd make sense. Another reason to leave the Becton decision as a "maybe" all pre-draft offseason; you never really know how things are going to shake down in the draft until it happens.

Unless this trade up well before the draft, it seems as likely as not the Jets will have the Rodgers trade done before the 3rd pick is on the clock.

[rex-n-effect]

I would think if the Titans had a plan to take a QB in the draft to replace Tannehill they would have looked for a trade partner earlier to make that happen. Not sure if Douglas/Saleh had interest in Tannehill but the Titans probably could have moved him to Carolina weeks ago if they had wanted. Maybe more likely if they move up for a QB that they intend to sit him behind Tannehill for a year or two. By that time Douglas might be back in the market for a QB along with other teams.

I think we're seeing teams realize that drafting a top five QB pick and anointing him the immediate starter is not always the best strategy. 

[BornJetsFan1983]

34 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.

Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

 

I wouldnt hate having tannehil as a back up to rogers if he do it.

[Integrity28]

Juicy. I like this one.

Bongo…………. Palooza………,,

[bla bla bla]

52 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think the other side effect that is on the Jets' radar is Tenn was the other team commonly projected to take a tackle ahead of the Jets' pick. Consensus seems to be that the Bears are locked in on one, and that'd make sense. Another reason to leave the Becton decision as a "maybe" all pre-draft offseason; you never really know how things are going to shake down in the draft until it happens.

This was my thinking as well. Jets may end up with 2 of the top 3 OTs on the board.

[batman10023]

5 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

This was my thinking as well. Jets may end up with 2 of the top 3 OTs on the board.

i would be surprised if only one OT goes before us.

[The Crusher]

27 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Juicy. I like this one.

Bongo…………. Palooza………,,

Any idea the player they are moving up for at 3? 

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, batman10023 said:

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.

Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

 

not saying I want him, just that it is another plan B if we can't get the trade done.

 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, jtomm said:

'bout  4 - 5 yrs younger than rodgers. 

And nowhere near as good

[Beerfish]

I'll laugh my ever loving ass off if these teams trade up to get Richardson.

[derp]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think the other side effect that is on the Jets' radar is Tenn was the other team commonly projected to take a tackle ahead of the Jets' pick. Consensus seems to be that the Bears are locked in on one, and that'd make sense. Another reason to leave the Becton decision as a "maybe" all pre-draft offseason; you never really know how things are going to shake down in the draft until it happens.

Unless this trade up well before the draft, it seems as likely as not the Jets will have the Rodgers trade done before the 3rd pick is on the clock.

If the Titans are trading up for Richardson I’d imagine they almost certainly want Tannehill playing for at least this year. Think the tackle situation is a more likely impact of the trade - if tackle is the direction the Jets want to go in.

[bla bla bla]

1 hour ago, batman10023 said:

i would be surprised if only one OT goes before us.

What teams do you think are in play? Bears are the only one that jumps out if Titans go to #3. Maybe the Raiders?

[extmenace]

2 hours ago, rex-n-effect said:

I would think if the Titans had a plan to take a QB in the draft to replace Tannehill they would have looked for a trade partner earlier to make that happen. Not sure if Douglas/Saleh had interest in Tannehill but the Titans probably could have moved him to Carolina weeks ago if they had wanted. Maybe more likely if they move up for a QB that they intend to sit him behind Tannehill for a year or two. By that time Douglas might be back in the market for a QB along with other teams.

I think we're seeing teams realize that drafting a top five QB pick and anointing him the immediate starter is not always the best strategy. 

.

[undertow]

Everyone knows QB is the most important position in sports but at the same time they have become overvalued in the draft.......Richardson and Levis are in the Zach Wilson boom bust territory I would never be spending top 10 picks on.

[Integrity28]

2 hours ago, The Crusher said:

Any idea the player they are moving up for at 3? 

Reggie Bush

[Larz]

If I’m not mistaken, Douglas has been having his draft meeting where they put the board together, so this is likely just tire kicking 

[TommyT]

3 hours ago, batman10023 said:

Plan B is shaping up well if Tenn makes this trade.

Tannihill would be a good option if GB is not being reasonable.

 

Finally someone with a sense of humor. Good one!

[T0mShane]

If Vrabel wants a direct replacement for Tannehill, Levis is a carbon copy. You can see Vrabel being into the gritty dudebro aesthetic that Levis brings. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, derp said:

If the Titans are trading up for Richardson I’d imagine they almost certainly want Tannehill playing for at least this year. Think the tackle situation is a more likely impact of the trade - if tackle is the direction the Jets want to go in.

Could be, but who knows what they’re thinking. I’ve no idea what the Jets are thinking either, beyond the acquisition of Rodgers.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

If Vrabel wants a direct replacement for Tannehill, Levis is a carbon copy. You can see Vrabel being into the gritty dudebro aesthetic that Levis brings. 

I don’t know much about him at all other than his stock allegedly dropping, so then does he really need to move up to #3 for that opportunity?

Therefore consider the idea that they want to move up to #3 to not be merely left over with the Tannehill Part II prospect. Seems already making arrangements re: moving on from the real McCoy, lol.

[T0mShane]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don’t know much about him at all other than his stock allegedly dropping, so then does he really need to move up to #3 for that opportunity?

Therefore consider the idea that they want to move up to #3 to not be merely left over with the Tannehill Part II prospect. Seems already making arrangements re: moving on from the real McCoy, lol.

The latest subterfuge is that Indianapolis wants him at 4, but who knows? 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

The latest subterfuge is that Indianapolis wants him at 4, but who knows? 

That will do nicely if it happens. The more QBs that get taken super early, the more non-QBs fall to 13. Ditto corners.

Then again if one falls to 13 the trade down opportunities may be better.

[T0mShane]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That will do nicely if it happens. The more QBs that get taken super early, the more non-QBs fall to 13. Ditto corners.

Then again if one falls to 13 the trade down opportunities may be better.

Not sure if you saw it, but one of the guys on here who seems to have inside knowledge every so often said that it was more likely than not that the Jets trade out of 13, which would be ideal.

[Raideraholic]

5 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

What teams do you think are in play? Bears are the only one that jumps out if Titans go to #3. Maybe the Raiders?

Raiders if they don’t move up ( think smokescreen they are going Qb in first)  they are most likely going defense with their first pick. ( better chance they drop back than move up.    Raiders might pick an offensive tackle but won’t be till the middle rounds .   It’s going to be heavy defense draft for them.    ( 12 picks) The offense is pretty set  .( will draft a Qb somewhere in the draft .   I can see the Patriots trading up with the Raiders for an offensive tackle .  Raiders pick up more picks and still get a defensive player there .  

[Raideraholic]

5 hours ago, undertow said:

Everyone knows QB is the most important position in sports but at the same time they have become overvalued in the draft.......Richardson and Levis are in the Zach Wilson boom bust territory I would never be spending top 10 picks on.

I wouldn’t trade up for Richardson but if he’s there at 7 I wouldn’t have no problem drafting him .( it’s the ultimate boom or bust pick).     You have to have faith that your coach staff can develop him .      Also you can afford him the time to develop without having to rush him into the lineup when he’s clearly not ready.    You still can use his ability in the redzone as  he tough to bring down and has great speed .   It all about scoring touchdowns and  not settling for field goals . ( no matter how effectively you move up and down the field on offense.

[Sperm Edwards]

12 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Not sure if you saw it, but one of the guys on here who seems to have inside knowledge every so often said that it was more likely than not that the Jets trade out of 13, which would be ideal.

It wouldn't surprise me at all:

Despite the OL panic here, I think the team - rightly or not - is far more comfortable than the fanbase with the current 3 tackles they have (plus AVT as a more than adequate emergency 4th tackle, seeing how it's easier to find a not-tragic street FA guard than tackle if needed).

The only OT swap they seemed interested in making was Brown-for-Brown a couple weeks back. Other than that, Duane Brown without an IR-worthy shoulder is badly underrated here because of his age & fluke injury. So many fawning over Fant the prior year for surrendering just 1 sack in 2021, ignoring that Brown did the same feat on one shoulder in 2022 (though in fairness he was spared that first trio of 60-dropback games with a lead-footed Flacco). He just couldn't push/pull with his usual strength in the run game, but will be healed up. He'll be 37, not 47, and anyway he doesn't play WR/RB/CB.

On the other side, their worst-case is Mitchell after a full offseason of strength training & presuming adding a little mass with it. A couple of the sacks he did surrender early were doubly-hampered by being thrown out there to start with little notice plus the aforementioned Flacco games, the sheer volume of which is a lot of pass protection to ask of anyone. He did look pretty awful in that 4th outing before he was lost for the next 8 games. Plus while he apparently came from a lot of zone run blocking in college there's always some cohesion factor that takes some time with the same group working together before they start looking really good & that line - with or without Mitchell - rarely had even one month straight with the same 5 starters. Anyhow imo he's getting written off by far too many here as merely a depth player forever. 

The elephant in the room (pun intended) has been Becton, who's slimmed down to baby elephant size. The thing is the last two seasons' injuries probably had nothing to do with being in better shape, though the '21 injury's duration probably did (the shoulda-been ~4-8 week injury lasting the entirety of the remaining 16+ games), followed by him putting on some 40-50 lbs above his already massive 365ish. I do believe that they're not sold on a 5th year option with him, if just to keep their options open at 13 if they have to make a pick there (and if the best pick for them is a tackle they actually want for 5-10 years rather than just the next-best rated tackle available at that one point of that one draft, knowing all 3 tackles are probably inferior prospects than Becton was anyway).

So yeah while there's a very real chance they take a tackle, I mentioned days ago my sleeper move for them was trading way down and taking a center in round 1. It's the only play where a huge trade-down doesn't yield an inferior prospect, just because even the best C prospects will typically slide at least that far, and ideally they can pick up another high pick (or high pick value) in the process.

Despite calls for the contrary, they can't possibly want two rookies starting this year & they do already seem lined up to go with a rookie center already. The problem is #13 is way, way too high for such a pick; plus while a DL pick might be good value on paper, they rotate those guys so much that it hardly makes that an efficient pick (ask @Beerfish, he'll rightly tell you all about it lol) and anyway non-offense picks in round 1 have been a sore point with Rodgers, so just symbolically they may want to go offense in round 1. Plus yeah, it'd help get back some of what they're giving up for Rodgers in the first place, and next year don't figure a trade down to be as sexy, given a lower starting slot. 

With 3 starting tackles on the roster, is a 4th one really the best bang for the buck this year if they're already zeroed in on starting a rookie center? Yeah maybe, if two of them are terrible/injured and in hindsight the draft's 3rd tackle balled out as a rookie for someone else. If not they effectively made a depth pick at #13 overall in an all-in season; better off turning that pick into two high picks and get their first choice at center in the mid/late 20s if they can move down that far (or instead of more this year for the move down, possibly picking up an extra 1st next year if that offer's in the cards). Is this draft's 3rd best OT prospect better than Evan Neal last year? Because he was terrible as a rookie and Rodgers won't have Jones's wheels to help hide such a rookie performance.

Scarcely few tackles have Wirfs-like rookie seasons. Meanwhile as they're all-in on 2023, note that plenty of 1st rounder tackles who went on to good/great careers were very often liabilities as rookies:

• Trent Williams gave up 11 sacks as a rookie; so did Duane Brown; Lane Johnson gave up 10; Fisher 7 (plus got knocked out early in 4 of his 13 starts). 
• As rookies, day 2 tackle picks like Orlando Brown, Brian O'Neill gave up zero; Dion Dawkins & Terron Armstead gave up 3.
• (plenty more examples of each, I'm sure, without counting outright busts).

Then guys who weren't thrown in right away, but became at least solid (or solid-enough) starters for years, which I think is what they're looking for:

• Mailata was 4th string his first 2 seasons and never saw the field; Villanueva never saw the field as a rookie either; Terron Armstead was a backup as a rookie; Charles Leno sat as a rookie; (plenty more, but all these are just among those I clicked around when looking at the past several years' probowlers, aside from Mailata who was just off the top of my head).

I think that last bullet-point illustrates more what they want (what most teams want to be in the position to do) which is the beloved pipeline concept, while using a lone round 1 pick only on true hole-filling starters, unless it's a QB. For this year's Jets that includes C (and thus far, DT) but not OT. Except no one's dumb enough to take a center with the 13th pick, which is still questionable value even if it yielded a HOFer in hindsight, since hindsight will always provide a more valuable position who also panned out.

Anyway as popular as it is with online fantasy GMs, the idea of going OL at #13 and #42(43) seems really unlikely to be their goal where they sit today. Sure it could happen, but they're not going all-in on Aaron Rodgers with an ideal stage two of the plan being to start two rookies on the OL. It's why they chased Orlando Brown. A day 1 tackle must start right away if he's not injured. Taking a mere depth pick tackle there is even worse than taking a center, so if they go tackle at #13 he's starting.

I dare you to read all that. But the short version, if I must:

An easier go of loading up on the OL on days 1-2 would be to trade down into the mid/late 20s (if not 30-32), take a day-1 starter at center there & profit the return of a 2nd round pick they're likely giving up for Rodgers. Then come back to take a tackle with a newly-added 2nd round pick, which doubly adds a long-term probable starter plus current depth, and with no pressure from the GM to start over any of 3 others until he's truly ready: if that's week 1 this year & he's great as a rookie, ok sure that's awesome, but there's no mud on the GM's face if he doesn't. 

[TuscanyTile2]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It wouldn't surprise me at all:

Despite the OL panic here, I think the team - rightly or not - is far more comfortable than the fanbase with the current 3 tackles they have (plus AVT as a more than adequate emergency 4th tackle, seeing how it's easier to find a not-tragic street FA guard than tackle if needed).

The only OT swap they seemed interested in making was Brown-for-Brown a couple weeks back. Other than that, Duane Brown without an IR-worthy shoulder is badly underrated here because of his age & fluke injury. So many fawning over Fant the prior year for surrendering just 1 sack in 2021, ignoring that Brown did the same feat on one shoulder in 2022 (though in fairness he was spared that first trio of 60-dropback games with a lead-footed Flacco). He just couldn't push/pull with his usual strength in the run game, but will be healed up. He'll be 37, not 47, and anyway he doesn't play WR/RB/CB.

On the other side, their worst-case is Mitchell after a full offseason of strength training & presuming adding a little mass with it. A couple of the sacks he did surrender early were doubly-hampered by being thrown out there to start with little notice plus the aforementioned Flacco games, the sheer volume of which is a lot of pass protection to ask of anyone. He did look pretty awful in that 4th outing before he was lost for the next 8 games. Plus while he apparently came from a lot of zone run blocking in college there's always some cohesion factor that takes some time with the same group working together before they start looking really good & that line - with or without Mitchell - rarely had even one month straight with the same 5 starters. Anyhow imo he's getting written off by far too many here as merely a depth player forever. 

The elephant in the room (pun intended) has been Becton, who's slimmed down to baby elephant size. The thing is the last two seasons' injuries probably had nothing to do with being in better shape, though the '21 injury's duration probably did (the shoulda-been ~4-8 week injury lasting the entirety of the remaining 16+ games), followed by him putting on some 40-50 lbs above his already massive 365ish. I do believe that they're not sold on a 5th year option with him, if just to keep their options open at 13 if they have to make a pick there (and if the best pick for them is a tackle they actually want for 5-10 years rather than just the next-best rated tackle available at that one point of that one draft, knowing all 3 tackles are probably inferior prospects than Becton was anyway).

So yeah while there's a very real chance they take a tackle, I mentioned days ago my sleeper move for them was trading way down and taking a center in round 1. It's the only play where a huge trade-down doesn't yield an inferior prospect, just because even the best C prospects will typically slide at least that far, and ideally they can pick up another high pick (or high pick value) in the process.

Despite calls for the contrary, they can't possibly want two rookies starting this year & they do already seem lined up to go with a rookie center already. The problem is #13 is way, way too high for such a pick; plus while a DL pick might be good value on paper, they rotate those guys so much that it hardly makes that an efficient pick (ask @Beerfish, he'll rightly tell you all about it lol) and anyway non-offense picks in round 1 have been a sore point with Rodgers, so just symbolically they may want to go offense in round 1. Plus yeah, it'd help get back some of what they're giving up for Rodgers in the first place, and next year don't figure a trade down to be as sexy, given a lower starting slot. 

With 3 starting tackles on the roster, is a 4th one really the best bang for the buck this year if they're already zeroed in on starting a rookie center? Yeah maybe, if two of them are terrible/injured and in hindsight the draft's 3rd tackle balled out as a rookie for someone else. If not they effectively made a depth pick at #13 overall in an all-in season; better off turning that pick into two high picks and get their first choice at center in the mid/late 20s if they can move down that far (or instead of more this year for the move down, possibly picking up an extra 1st next year if that offer's in the cards). Is this draft's 3rd best OT prospect better than Evan Neal last year? Because he was terrible as a rookie and Rodgers won't have Jones's wheels to help hide such a rookie performance.

Scarcely few tackles have Wirfs-like rookie seasons. Meanwhile as they're all-in on 2023, note that plenty of 1st rounder tackles who went on to good/great careers were very often liabilities as rookies:

• Trent Williams gave up 11 sacks as a rookie; so did Duane Brown; Lane Johnson gave up 10; Fisher 7 (plus got knocked out early in 4 of his 13 starts). 
• As rookies, day 2 tackle picks like Orlando Brown, Brian O'Neill gave up zero; Dion Dawkins & Terron Armstead gave up 3.
• (plenty more examples of each, I'm sure, without counting outright busts).

Then guys who weren't thrown in right away, but became at least solid (or solid-enough) starters for years, which I think is what they're looking for:

• Mailata was 4th string his first 2 seasons and never saw the field; Villanueva never saw the field as a rookie either; Terron Armstead was a backup as a rookie; Charles Leno sat as a rookie; (plenty more, but all these are just among those I clicked around when looking at the past several years' probowlers, aside from Mailata who was just off the top of my head).

I think that last bullet-point illustrates more what they want (what most teams want to be in the position to do) which is the beloved pipeline concept, while using a lone round 1 pick only on true hole-filling starters, unless it's a QB. For this year's Jets that includes C (and thus far, DT) but not OT. Except no one's dumb enough to take a center with the 13th pick, which is still questionable value even if it yielded a HOFer in hindsight, since hindsight will always provide a more valuable position who also panned out.

Anyway as popular as it is with online fantasy GMs, the idea of going OL at #13 and #42(43) seems really unlikely to be their goal where they sit today. Sure it could happen, but they're not going all-in on Aaron Rodgers with an ideal stage two of the plan being to start two rookies on the OL. It's why they chased Orlando Brown. A day 1 tackle must start right away if he's not injured. Taking a mere depth pick tackle there is even worse than taking a center, so if they go tackle at #13 he's starting.

I dare you to read all this. But the short version, if I must:

An easier go of loading up on the OL on days 1-2 would be to trade down into the mid/late 20s, take a day-1 starter at center there & profit the return of a 2nd round pick they're likely giving up for Rodgers. Then come back to take a tackle with a newly-added 2nd round pick, which doubly adds a long-term probable starter plus current depth, and with no pressure from the GM to start over any of 3 others until he's truly ready: if that's week 1 this year & he's great as a rookie, ok sure that's awesome, but there's no mud on the GM's face if he doesn't. 

Does Maxman pay you by the word?      Kidding.  I read the whole post and agree with you.  

[Sperm Edwards]

28 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Does Maxman pay you by the word?      Kidding.  I read the whole post and agree with you.  

By the syllable. I'm cleaning up. 

[jtomm]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It wouldn't surprise me at all:  ***

...if  YOU  write/wrote  for -