AU-panther

But there is a limit and you are making it sound like their isn’t. It’s true that often times teams can restructure a few players and fit people in but the cap is unlimited. Here again why does a team like KC let Hill go or why does any team let a star player. Why hasn’t an owner like Jerry Jones just paid to have an all pro at every position? The cap is real, those that say otherwise just don’t understand it. Speaking of restructuring we actually had a year during DH gentleman’s tenure where pretty much every player with a significant salary had been restructured. Basically every credit card was maxed.

but then the following year more cap hits your books and then you have less to spend in that year. Saints had several years where they had huge amounts of dead money counting towards their cap. I agree most teams, most years, have some slack in their overall cap. We can free up enough money for Burns, that isn't the question, but there are limits. This idea that the cap is some myth is just wrong. Teams just can't pay everyone, you have to decided the best use of your money.

Not exactly true. Certain teams can spend more than others in certain years but overtime the spending is pretty similar among teams. There are league minimums put in place for such. Also, those signing g bonuses and restructures do get prorated at some point, that money just doesn't disappear. You said it yourself, KC could have kept Hill but they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

The idea that the cap is a myth is actually a myth. People think the Saints have cheated the cap for the last 10 years but it just isn't true. Fans notice the big contracts that they add but they forget about the players they cut to free money or the large amount of dead money they carry some years. Pretty much all of their moves the past few years were predictable by people who understand the cap. For those that don't believe in the cap why did the Chiefs let Hill go? Just think about that for a minute. That alone does show you that the cap is real, and you don't have to decide where to spend your money.

I agree that waht you are saying is correct, a lot of front offices view future picks that way but why? It's almost like it been accepted as fact although it doesn't really seem to be based in any kind of logic. Maybe if you are contending team but for a team like us that is still rebuilding, I think you have to look at the factors. If the team that is trying to trade with you has a good chance of being horrible than you should almost look at is an investment. Maybe you get a pick this year in the 20-30 range from a different team but if you wait that pick from the Rams is top-10 or maybe even top-5. Personally, I think alot of coach's and GMs think short term, mainly for job security reasons.

When people make this argument they forget about the cap space. You don’t have to replace Burns production with the draft picks. Maybe you use the $25m you save to replace his production and then you use the draft picks to hopefully improve two other positions. Maybe you get a player for $10m that gives you 80% of Burns and then use the extra $15m to drastically improve a different position. Personnel moves don’t happen in a vacuum.

Can’t be, it would be all of their faults then. Don’t you know it can only be Rhules fault.

You make some valid points but the fact they turned down what they did from the Rams tells you that they view him as more than a $17m a year player.

Some of those 6 OLB will be playing DL at times depending on down and distances and formations. On a passing down you might get Brown at NT and YGM at DE or maybe a four man front.

It wasn’t pointless when you acted like people were crazy to expect more than 15-20m.

Your logic is incomplete. You don't just replace Burns production with just the draft picks, you replace his production with the $25m you save. The eagles had similar production out of Reddick for $15m. The draft picks are just bonus. but... What if you make the argument that Reddick or any other replacement isn't quite as good as Burns. Maybe you spend $15m to get 80-90% of Burns production then spend the other $10m to improve another position? Is the goal to have the most talent at one position or overall? How much can you improve another position for $10m? A good bit I would guess. I'm not saying don't pay Burns, once you reach a certain overall talent level on your team you should spend the extra on true difference makers, and Burns might be that but to say the trade was bad because the chance of draft picks being better is terrible logic because you are totally ignoring the cap savings. Fans tend to think about trades and personnel moves in a vacuum, that isn't how it works. Every trade, every deal has a ripple effect.

Exactly how much do you think he is going to sign for? Personally I think the idea of $15m is laughable.

So where exactly is PFF calling him mediocre? They actually have a very good ranking on him.

People need to stop box score scouting. His pass rush is better than people realize. Just look at his pass rush grade also. Sacks don't tell the whole story, often the guy that gets the sack isn't the guy that caused the sack. Pressures are important. Either way, If he has another year like last year he will get paid as being elite, so people might shocked at contract time.

I think he is a good prospect but two things make me nervous. When you play for Alabama or an Ohio state the game is relatively easy. Your line is better. Your skill positions are better. How do you react when you are on the bad team, Constant pressure, or receivers who aren’t open. Also his arm strength seems A bit less that other prospects, that doesn’t necessarily prevent you from having success but it can decrease your margin of error.

But if we hadn’t traded up, we probably don’t get the guy we want so the fact they get who they want without trading up is irrelevant. There is also a very good chance that the guy they wanted the most was the guy we took. So I’m reality they didn’t get they guy they wanted by staying put, they got their second or third choice by staying put.

Teams miss on QBs all the time. Some seem safer than others, for example Luck vs Mayfield, but not are 100%. I like Young but I don’t consider him as safe as a pick as a Lawrence or Luck.

That’s not how sports books work in regard to setting lines. They aren’t lowering odds to entice bets, most likely they are because money had been coming in on Levis for whatever reason. They lower the odds to reduce their risk.

Maybe, maybe not. Drafting a QB is a gamble, are you odds better with 2 rolls of the dice?

I’ll happily take Levis at 2 if we get Houston’s first next year. If we doesn’t play like we hope we can draft another next year.

that's my point exactly, if they only have a 50% chance of being successful wouldn't your chances be better by having 2 of them.

What are your opinions about Maye? I'm guessing you have watched him a little. The points of my post was hypothetical at best, do people really feel like QB 1 this year has that much better of a chance of being good than some combination of two QBS over the next two years? Would you take Young or AR and Maye? or even Levis and Maye? or Stroud and Williams? Is Young really that much better of a prospect? As fans and front offices tend to think in very binary terms about these QB prospects, we convince ourselves that whatever QB we like has a 100% chance of making it and whatever one we don't has a 0% chance of making it but history tells us we are usually wrong.

I agree the sure thing is the safest, but Levis was never considered a prospect on the level of Williams. Williams is looking like a Lawrence or Luck type of prospect.

I don't expect us to trade down, if you trade down and then the QB that goes 1st turns out to be great you get second guessed, and those are the type of moves that get you fired. If you stay put and take the person a lot of people think is great and if they don't turn out it just gets chalked up to bad luck. A lot of people on here when talking about trading down, say with Houston, really want their extra 1st round pick this year (#12), but I'm thinking the really aggressive play is next year's 1st. Both Indy and Houston were terrible this year, not just record but their point differential, I don't expect them to be much better, so there is a very good chance their 1st next year could be a top 2 pick. Also, next year's QB class, especially at the top, looks to be really good, namely Williams and Maye. Lets say Indy is open to trading up and giving us next year's 1st, would you prefer Young at 1 this year, or whatever QB falls to 4, maybe Stroud, Levis, or AR plus a really good chance at Williams or Maye next year? You are almost giving yourself 2 chances to find a QB, and let's be honest, any QB you draft is a gamble. The thought of AR this year and maybe Willimas or Maye next is pretty tempting, if AR looks like the real deal those picks are worth a fortune, if you are sure about AR you take a QB. Talk about swinging for the fences. Of course, this whole plan goes out the window if Indy wins 7 games and picks 6th. Also I don't if any GM has the nerve to try something like this, I don't know if I would, could be a quick way to lose your job.

If his size is limiting his ability to play QB at a high level but he played QB at a higher level than the other 3 guys in college what is their excuse? Im not 100% sold on him either but my concerns with his size relate to durability not his ability to play QB, those are two different things.