Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

According to McShay, We Should Move Up for WR


Recommended Posts

Todd McShay was just on ESPN saying we should package a couple later picks and move up in front of the Eagles and Chiefs to select the third or fourth best receiver meaning Odell Beckham or Brandin Cooks. Mentioned that there's a good chance 6-7 WRs are off the board before we pick and that there could be a run on tackles too.

That being said, I am still weary of giving up picks most likely because of the Hurney era and I am not sure that it's Gettleman's style.

Theoretically, if Gettleman and the front office are 100% confident that Beckham Jr or Cooks is "our guy" and fits, would you support moving up and giving up something like a 3rd and 5th rounder to go from the late to early twenties? FWIW, we have met with both Cooks and Beckham Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to trade back, but at this point I'm putting full faith in the staff.  If they feel it's the right move then I'm all for it.  I trust Gettleman knows what he's doing if that's the decision he makes.  I don't anticipate it actually happening though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's an opportunity to move up a couple of spots to grab the right guy that's slipping, then by all means go for it.  The most I think we'd go for is to jump up to #26 to leapfrog the Saints since the Saints also have a definite need at WR.  I'm just not sure if that's feasible though since the Browns have #26 and they very well could be targeting a QB with that pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's an opportunity to move up a couple of spots to grab the right guy that's slipping, then by all means go for it.  The most I think we'd go for is to jump up to #26 to leapfrog the Saints since the Saints also have a definite need at WR.  I'm just not sure if that's feasible though since the Browns have #26 and they very well could be targeting a QB with that pick. 

 

If Cleveland IS targeting a QB, then they may not mind moving back two spots for some compensation since the Saints won't be drafting their targeted QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Cleveland IS targeting a QB, then they may not mind moving back two spots for some compensation since the Saints won't be drafting their targeted QB.

 

True.  Didn't think about that. 

 

I just think if they're targeting a QB and he's there at #26, they'll take him.  I doubt they'd risk trading down and running the risk of a team jumping up and leapfrogging them by swinging a deal with N.O.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's an opportunity to move up a couple of spots to grab the right guy that's slipping, then by all means go for it. The most I think we'd go for is to jump up to #26 to leapfrog the Saints since the Saints also have a definite need at WR. I'm just not sure if that's feasible though since the Browns have #26 and they very well could be targeting a QB with that pick.

Yeah I could see us leapfrogging the Saints too in the event Latimer and/or Lee are on the board because the Saints must be targeting them as well. Browns could still get their QB at 28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we could cut a deal with say Green Bay for spot 21 ahead of Eagles and pick up Cooks(or whomever), if FO feels Cooks is the man and trade 28 and our 3rd rounder would be fine with it. (Note that trade would be tilted slightly in Panthers, but trade value is pretty close)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...