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!

     

Blue Chips


Verge

Recommended Posts

I was having a conversation with some friends, and we were debating the "blue chip players" on each team, and were attempting to use that to predict how well they would do next season. We went through each teams and counted up how many players on that team could be legitimately argued for top 10 at their respective positions. The numbers might surprise you.
 
Nine blue chip players:
Seahawks
Panthers
 
Eight blue chip players:
Broncos
 
Seven blue chip players:
Patriots
49ers
Browns (!)
 
Six blue chip players:
Texans
Bears
Chiefs  
Saints
 
Five blue chip players:
Cowboys
Lions
Packers
Cardinals
 
Four blue chip players:
Bengals
Ravens 
Colts
Redskins
Buccaneers 
Rams
 
Three blue chip players:
Bills
Jets
Steelers
Titans
Chargers 
Eagles 
Giants 
Vikings 
 
Every other team ended up with two or less.
 
Of course, as you all know, stars can rise any day and become a blue chip player. Also, qb play can make a huge difference on if your blue chips count, but it is an interesting topic none the less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What criteria were you using and if we have so many do you mind naming them and their respective position?

 

 

Essentially, we all named players on the roster, and if the majority of us agreed that that player could legitimately be argued as top 10 at their position, we put them on the list. It was two Broncos fans, a Falcons fan, Steelers fan, Raiders fan, and myself. So it made it interesting.

 

As far as our blue chips go;

Cam Newton

Deangelo WIlliams (This one was the hardest to argue honestly, but we eventually agreed)

Ryan Kalil

Greg Olsen

Greg Hardy

Charles Johnson

Star Lotuleilei

Thomas Davis

Luke Kuechly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD could very well be the best coverage linebacker in the game.

 

In terms of 4-3 OLBs, he's very high up there.  The pass rush specialist OLBs (Hali, Houston, Ware,etc) are all very good at what they do, but their primary function is to be a pass rusher rather than playing linebacker.

 

The only guy who gets nation recognition as a typical OLB is Lavonte David.

 

Heck many of us can and will debate Davis is currently better than Luke (and yes, there is some legitimacy to that argument, IMO).

 

I'd definitely throw Star in at top 10 at his position.  In terms of run-stuffing space eaters, there aren't many better than him.

 

You need to factor in the roles these guys play rather than just looking at what the depth chart labels them as.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd disagree with dlo, but add Tolbert in at fb and that's still nine

 

We decided not to add in FB, P, or K. Even as a rb he would not make it. Dlo is a legitimately great RB, I don't see why people fail to see it.

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...