Yes, the 25th this year and whatever next year is for this year's 12th. Will make a difference where we end up next year in terms of the value we got.
I know; it's bullshit semantics designed to raise the stakes (IMO). It's not like the Texans spent any resources to obtain the 25th pick. And "cost" in this context clearly implies "extra." I would never term the use of your slotted first round pick a "cost." The "cost" to do it 13 picks earlier, though... yeah, that was a first round pick.
Of course there is a cost there? Are you telling me that if we drafted him at 25 and he flamed out you would say we didn't spend any resources on him? In the context of Alex Smith comparison, the cost for Watson was two first round picks. This year's pick and next year's pick. That's not semantics, it's what was spent to get him.
Thanks AL... that's what i was trying to say with my previous post. When some idiot kept saying he didn't go up against NFL DBs.... Uh...... Yeah he did! Also I agree with @Hey Now! we basically swapped first rounders and gave up our first rounder for next year's draft.
I'd say we wasted a first round pick (generally; I don't know that I'd be *that* cutting about the 25th pick not working out). But I rarely, if ever, hear a first round bust referred to as a "cost." Again, every team is given a first round pick; it "costs" you nothing. If Cleveland had lost its damn mind and dealt 12 for 25 straight up, no one would say it "cost" us a first round pick because.... we'd still have a first round pick. Again, technically, yes, we traded two first round picks; but the net, for Cleveland, was one first round pick. Therefore, the net loss, for the Texans, was one first round pick.
Thanks; but we didn't "basically" swap first round picks: we *literally* swapped first round picks. Therefore, the cost, to us was an additional first round pick. I just won't accept this idea that Watson "cost" us two 1s.... if you were to frame the trade to someone who did not know the details, they'd assume you gave up 2 additional first round picks. I think it's being phrased to raise the stakes and is a little unfair.
So in the context of the Alex Smith discussion, would you say the equivalent cost to get Alex Smith would be 1 first round pick? Would "invested" be a better word for you? We invested two first round picks in Watson? Does that semantic change help?
Right and we still have our first round pick this year. Who are we going to use it on? I can't wait to find out who we are going to get with that first round pick in the 2017 draft that we didn't "spend" this year!
Alex Smith also had a big contract you had to take. Same with Shaub so they aren't comparable in what it took to get them.
Right we're going way off track here. The comparison was made of Watson to Smith. My point was I wouldn't want to use two first round picks on Alex Smith. The retort is that Watson only cost 1. It's odd. Forget the cost of the trade to get the pick for a minute... We have two first round picks "invested" in DeShaun Watson. Would anyone "invest" two first round picks in Alex Smith? I don't really see that as his ceiling personally, but if it were, I'd regret the cost...er...investment to get him.
As silly as it sounds, yeah... I think "cost" is deliberately more caustic. If you spent $105 cash on a meal and the restaurant credited your checking account $100- would you tell your friends the meal cost you $105? No; it "cost" you $5, even though there was a $100 transaction. I'm not trying to be a dick about it... I promise. I just didn't like the implication that swapping first round picks had a "cost" attached to it.
2017 Texans first round pick - Deshaun Watson 2018 Texans first round pick - Deshaun Watson Is it easier to just write it out like this?
Plus the 2nd rounder to get rid of Brock. Best case scenario is we do well next year, so that we essentially trade 2 low first round picks for the mid first round pick. But there's a good chance we suck and give Cleveland a mid first round pick or higher next year.
To @Hey Now! point, I do think investment is more fair, as cost seems to imply additional resources required to move up. In any case, the Alex Smith comparison is super hard. Because yes, the now 2 teams he's been on have looked for the higher upside QB to supplant him with, and yes he is certainly limited, and he was horrible early in his career. But since the Harbaugh days... well, I'd probably be more than fine with the cost of 2 first round picks for Smith, especially late first first rounders. I think the only question that ultimately matters is can the QB be your QB on a superbowl winning team. And I think the answer with Smith is yes. I mean he was what, an OT FG away from a SB one year, and 6-2-1 with a 70% completion %. He's been solid, albeit limited with KC. Wasn't great last year in the playoffs but was really good the prior year. Still not an explosive QB, still would want more, but were a TD away from NE in the semi's. But maybe the point is hey, we're still in Tom Brady's era and sure, he might be a solid QB, but much like the NBA, this is the 2017 NFL and offense and scoring points matter and Smith doesn't help ENOUGH in that regard when you have an incumbent like the Patriots. And that's fair. I certainly won't be going bananas crazy happy about an Alex Smith clone... but it would be light years better than what we've had. The hope is Russell Wilson. This is me being optimistic. I was more than happy as a fan to not care about next year so much and get the QB of the future in next years deeper and better QB draft. And honestly, I really don't understand what KC was doing. Their cost was higher obviously. And while Mahomes does have more upside, if you look and say "What does Mahomes do well?" the only answer is arm strength and the moment. And have no clue what Chicago was thinking.
But this is precisely why I'm being so anal... Smith *would* cost two first round picks because you could not use either pick *on Alex Smith.* I've never heard anyone refer to a team using its first round pick to draft a player as a "cost." Your first round pick, in essence, is free, as is every other pick in each of the subsequent six rounds. They are given to you by the league. Again, no one would say Watson "cost" the Texans a first round pick if they had just selected him at 25. But if they used that same pick to *trade* for Alex Smith, then, yes, that would be termed a "cost" because the Texans would have given something up.
Yeah you have, plenty of people laughed when they heard the Broncos wasted a first round pick on Tim Tebow because they knew he wasn't worth that cost. Same goes for Manziel or any other first round bust.
There's no difference really, the reason you don't have one is because you already spent it on Watson.
Your first round picks aren't very valuable when you can't make it past the 2nd round in the playoffs. You take a risk like this to help rectify arguably the biggest thing that is holding you back of getting to a Super Bowl. I think a good question to ask is how far you think the Texans would have gone if they had Russel Wilson, Matt Ryan, Zak Prescock or Aaron Rogers running the offense. Do you definitely know that Watson will become as good as those guys? No but there is a higher chance of that happening than not drafting a QB at all. In terms of Tom Savage, there is a reason why he has rarely played. You're talking about a guy who has played in 5 games in 3 years and has never beaten out another player. He's always thrown in because of the awful mess ahead of him.
