Why not trade up for a quarterback?

February, 20, 2012
2/20/12
8:18
PM ET
RyRob33 wonders what would stop the Seattle Seahawks from trading up in the first round to draft a quarterback this year.

"Could be possible if the 11th pick is theirs," he writes.

Possible, yes. Probable, not so much.

A few considerations for the Seahawks, who will pick 11th or 12th pending a coin flip with Kansas City:
  • The teams picking fourth (Cleveland), sixth (Washington) and eighth or ninth (Miami) could need quarterbacks. All are in better position than Seattle to draft one.
  • Moving into the No. 2 overall spot would be problematic for the Seahawks. Division-rival St. Louis holds that pick. The Rams will have options. Arming a division rival with a potential franchise quarterback would not make sense.
  • Moving all the way up to No. 2 would be expensive, anyway. Oakland traded the 10th, 39th and 107th overall draft choices, plus receiver Daryl Hobbs, to New Orleans for the second choice in 1997. A year later, San Diego acquired the second choice from Arizona for the third and 23rd selections, plus a first-round choice the following year. The Chargers also parted with Eric Metcalf and Patrick Sapp as part of the deal.
  • Washington moved up from 12th to third overall in 2000. The Redskins sent the 12th, 24th, 119th and 154th choices to San Francisco. Again, that's a high price.
  • Paying a high price for a franchise quarterback is no deterrent, of course. But with so many other teams in better position to land one, executing such a move becomes trickier. It's also fair to ask whether the Seahawks feel good enough about any of the prospects after Andrew Luck to make such a move for one.

Thanks for the question, RyRob33. Can anyone make a strong case to the contrary?

SPONSORED HEADLINES

Comments

You must be signed in to post a comment

Already have an account?

Insider

NFC WEST SCOREBOARD