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!

     

Pure Speculation Thread


Recommended Posts

 

This is just something I like to call -- speculation -- on my part but I believe we were trying to trade up in the 1st and 2nd rounds to get players we were really targeting - but we were unable to because DG runs his Draft Room the same way he negotiates contracts = He's a cheap a$$ tight wad and I love him for it.. In his 1st round or 2nd day Post Draft Presser he mentioned that we didn't trade up in the 1st because it just costs too much, However, he Didn't mention that we never Tried to do so..

I came to this conclusion after I looked over the trade we made with Cleveland and actually think we made out like fuggin bandits - even if you don't agree with the players we selected. In essence, We moved up 17 spots in the 3RD Round and 23 spots in the 5TH Round for only our 4th round pick. That's amazing! A trade def worth making..

I believe Dave always had the intention of drafting 2-3 CBs but I think he definitely wanted Hunter Henry or Sua Cravens or one of the other players we were linked to in the 2nd but just couldn't get up there to get him.. mainly because He refused to get fleeced. Instead, we did the fleecing in the 3rd and 5th rounds.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we got fleeced,  or did the fleecing.  That fourth round pick was nothing to sneeze at. The trade was arguably fair on both parts. You probably have some Clevelanders saying how they got over,  but I believe it was an imaginative and fair trade. 

The move of our draft,  which was not technically a draft move,  was immediately after the draft when we acquired Garrett and Cash. In my mind,  they were both fourth round material,  so it's like we got two additional forth rounders which made the sting of losing that fourth round pick kinda disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, we basically secured our secondary for the next 4 or so years, easily. Therefore, we indeed made out like bandits.

Barring some sort of insane thing happening, Bradberry, Worley, and Sanchez could very well be our starters as early as next year, and letting them develop in our system and our schemes will allow the learning curve to be extended.

I mean honestly, we made Kurt Coleman look like one of the best safeties in the game (no disrespect at all there,) and got to the effing superb owl with guys we signed off the street to fill in in the secondary. With the guys we have now invested in, we are looking amazing on paper.

I don't think GMan was necessarily trying to move up very hard at any point, other than the one trade we did make. I honestly think we are looking for a type of player, not a specific player, when we draft under GMan.

 

Did we succeed in getting those types of players this year? So far, it looks good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the comments DG made  about waiting and hoping Vernon Butler would fall and his past performance I dont think it is his style to trade up in the first because it just costs too much in the next rds where we can get additional first rd value from our scouting value assignments with a trade that costs less pick value in a trade such as the last two years of tradea. 

Agree with the other posters on here that our trade was fair in terms of the exchange of picks. No way to know if what we got from it is of value until the guys we picked have a couple of years under their belts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...