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!

     

One thing that makes me feel good about the KB pick


R0CKnR0LLA

Recommended Posts

I see some people saying we should have taken Allen Robinson or Marqise Lee instead.

 

Watching Gettleman's interview he seemed very very happy to have landed KB. Based on some things he said it seems like they had him far and away ahead of the next WRs on their board, to the point where they probably didn't even have a 1st round grade on the other WRs.

 

And if that's the case it looks like some other teams agree with him.

 

There were a couple of teams right after us that had big needs at WR, San Fran and Seattle specifically. They're also generally viewed as some of the best drafting teams. Seattle clearly has been the best drafting team in the last 3 years and SF has drafted very well in recent years also.

 

Yet neither of them were falling over themselves and running to the podium to take either of these WRs we supposedly should have taken. SF took a safety that most had going mid to late 2nd and Seattle traded down netting only an extra 4th from the deal.

 

NE also had a big need at WR and went DT instead. I have to think if these other WRs were really such great values and better picks then one of these other teams would have snapped them up with a quickness, but that didn't happen.

 

Plus he's 6 foot f-cking 5.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point. The cry babies that say we should have taken Lee need to look at Seattle and San Fran,and the other 29 teams. They all passed on Lee. Marquis is 5'11 and he doesn't even run under a 4.5. There is nothing exceptional about that.

Technically Washington hasn't had their 1st pick yet but they aren't picking Lee after signing Desean Jackson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...