Trade up to the number 3 to get Anderson ????

[AROS]

I think it’s Carter at 5. Call it a hunch. If it happens how do you feel about that pick?

 

[rjdriver]

I think it’s Carter at 5. Call it a hunch. If it happens how do you feel about that pick?

Interesting question...

What a difference a month or two makes. When Denver beat SD and Houston beat Indy in week 17, there was a lot of chatter about how devasting it was to barely lose out on Carter. Maybe I remember it wrong, but it seems like with every mounting Denver loss throughout the year, the general pulse of .NET was, "OMG, there is an actual chance we get Carter with pick 3".

Now it seems like everyone is acting like he was a bum all along and taking him at 5 would be a mistake. I don't follow CFB like I used to, but I do know the Carter plays the position with which we have the largest deficiency.

I believe the knowledgeable posters here who say that JS/PC are unlikely to draft someone with character issues (to be fair though, for every Malik M. there is a DK or Frank Clark), but I wouldn't be too upset if we walked away with Jalen Carter one bit.

 

[bsuhawk]

I think it’s Carter at 5. Call it a hunch. If it happens how do you feel about that pick?

I'm fine with Carter or Will Anderson.

 

[James in PA]

I'd be thrilled with Carter, Anderson, or Richardson. Please let it be one of those guys.

 

[CactusJack]

I'd be thrilled with Carter, Anderson, or Richardson. Please let it be one of those guys.

Anderson, Carter or Trade.

This is a prime opportunity to grab one of the two best players in this draft. In a major area of need.

If you're not sold on Carter, then trade the pick & continue to stack the roster with Day 1 & 2 prospects.

 

[RiverDog]

No to trading up for a DE and no to Carter at #5 overall.

There's a good chance that Anderson will be available at #5 as it's looking like 3 quarterbacks may fall in the top 4 picks, and even if we wanted Carter, which I doubt that he's even on our board, he could be had for a pick somewhere outside the top 10.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

I think it’s Carter at 5. Call it a hunch. If it happens how do you feel about that pick?

We especially need Bobby back, then. We need an uncle presence, a community Leader that everyone listens to. Hell, we need that anyway As well as an all pro who can also call the plays from his helmet better than Brooks.

 

[hawker84]

Grab Carter at 5. He's the real deal.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Nope for me. I have my fingers crossed for either Carter or Richardson.

You have a very good chance of getting what you want. If Cards take Anderson, then Indy is not going to be able to draft both these guys!
And I hope it is Carter, because we Bears fans sure don't want the Lions getting him.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Hearing more and more talk that Arizona might trade down. That would be very good for the Hawks imo. IF it's a team trading up for one of the QB's.

 

[WarHawks]

So, judging by the majority of responses here, I guess we're pinning our long term qb hopes on Hooker, or some other mid round prospect, or later round pick in '24, instead of getting a high round pick (which have higher hit rates than lower round picks) now when we have a great opportunity to do so, and the draft capital to still address our defense. I don't understand that reasoning, but I certainly don't pretend to have the answers. The logic of it just escapes me.

 

[morgulon1]

I think it’s Carter at 5. Call it a hunch. If it happens how do you feel about that pick?

He better be more like Suh and less like Malik McDowell

 

[morgulon1]

So, judging by the majority of responses here, I guess we're pinning our long term qb hopes on Hooker, or some other mid round prospect, or later round pick in '24, instead of getting a high round pick (which have higher hit rates than lower round picks) now when we have a great opportunity to do so, and the draft capital to still address our defense. I don't understand that reasoning, but I certainly don't pretend to have the answers. The logic of it just escapes me.

I understand your point. I do however think Seattle has a different mindset.

 

[Appyhawk]

IMO a healed and conditioned Hooker has every bit as much chance of being a hit as any other QB in this draft, with the possible exception of Richardson. The thing about Richardson is while he has incredible physical advantages he didn't progress more rapidly in other respects. Why not? A primary reason would be that maybe he doesn't have so much ability in the most important advantage of them all.
Seems like there should be measurables for that at the combine.

I'm fine with gambling on Carter at #5.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not when Carter will be sitting there at 5, and is Wilson a lesser player than Anderson?

That's a debatable topic.

So no, we're not trading up to get Anderson.

 

[Maelstrom787]

So, judging by the majority of responses here, I guess we're pinning our long term qb hopes on Hooker, or some other mid round prospect, or later round pick in '24, instead of getting a high round pick (which have higher hit rates than lower round picks) now when we have a great opportunity to do so, and the draft capital to still address our defense. I don't understand that reasoning, but I certainly don't pretend to have the answers. The logic of it just escapes me.

It's a bit more nuanced than this.

The quarterbacks at the top of this draft are boom or bust prospects, especially those that'll be available at 5. You're looking at perhaps Levis or Richardson, both of which are significantly risky players and probably will not pan out.

You've got to look at the players rather than the raw selection. Yes, average outcomes ARE better for higher picks, but we've got to consider the individual prospects themselves.

Furthermore, the roster sucks, and we're seeing teams succeed by building that instead. The Niners are wrecking balls, Philly got their guy in the second, and there are other guys around the league that aren't high picks.

If you've got a front office and coaching staff that seems to have the ability to accurately scout and develop quarterbacks at a rate well above the average, why wouldn't you want to leverage that advantage by not blowing your biggest asset on a risky quarterback? Wouldn't the smart move be to try to extract as much of that advantage as possible and redirect resources to the ailing roster?

They're not pinning it all on a mid round prospect. They've already got a guy who came out of nowhere last year under contract. There's no rush to spend your crown jewel asset on a guy who'll CERTAINLY be a backup to begin with because you hope he pans out later. It's time to compete now.

 

[AROS]

No to trading up for a DE and no to Carter at #5 overall.

There's a good chance that Anderson will be available at #5 as it's looking like 3 quarterbacks may fall in the top 4 picks, and even if we wanted Carter, which I doubt that he's even on our board, he could be had for a pick somewhere outside the top 10.

Why on earth would you think we don't even have Carter on our board?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Why on earth would you think we don't even have Carter on our board?

View attachment 58132

It's an informed opinion to have. It's a likely reality, considering the front office being fairly strict about off-field red flags from 2018 onward. They've been transparent about how they strictly want to look for mature, reliable players for the organization and how they've enormously shrunk their draft board since the McDowell incident.

Carter has pretty severely failed the "reliable" part. There could still be a chance for him, but the front office has become more predictable than they used to be in a few ways.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

NONE of us know who the Hawks have on their board. NONE of us.

 

[CactusJack]

So, judging by the majority of responses here, I guess we're pinning our long term qb hopes on Hooker, or some other mid round prospect, or later round pick in '24, instead of getting a high round pick (which have higher hit rates than lower round picks) now when we have a great opportunity to do so, and the draft capital to still address our defense. I don't understand that reasoning, but I certainly don't pretend to have the answers. The logic of it just escapes me.

Because the chances of all 4QB's hitting are low.

Two years ago, you had three QB's all go within the first three picks.

Trevor Lawrence
Zach Wilson
Trey Lance

Only the first name on the list has panned out so far.