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!

     

NFL Executive: Myles Garrett May Not Be The First Overall Pick


Saca312

Recommended Posts

So, the Panthers have been in the flirt scenes of a possible trade-up to 2. With the mindless, lazy media writers out there, they assumed the Panthers must be targeting Fournette with such. It seems like a lot of the media are assuming we're really high on Fournette and would've likely been the target of a trade up to 2.

The following shatters that theory and brings to light a logical one. Have a look:

If Garrett isn't the number 1 overall pick, the Panthers better get the phones ready and armed. I fully believe it'd be worth giving up whatever is necessary to get the next Julius Peppers of the NFL. I'm a huge supporter of this, and while it's a pipe dream, it's certainly a nice one to have.

UPDATE: 

50/50 in Cleveland's camp. Let the smoke rise.

To put in perspective the value of trading up from 8 to 2, take last year as example:

C6pSzQaV0AA5-62.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I learned from this is that...

1. NFL Execs are uninformed, none of them really knows what is going on, and contradict each other all the time.

2. The draft needs to hurry up and get its titanus tushy over here so we can stop speculating over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, csx said:

No thank you are giving the farm up. Not wise. In 3 years everyone is complaining about lack of offensive line or whatever else.

We honestly don't have that much holes. I would not be opposed to getting a generational physical specimen when we have a lot already patched up.

Imagine this on the same line:

MylesGarrett3.0.gif

MylesGarrett.gif

giphy.gif.42bd1b8a2dc98c706168eae89501743d.gif

These two rushing the passer... oh boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Byrdman4real said:

SF would be stupid not to take him

Disagree-they have multiple needs and far bigger needs than DE.  Their best play is getting what they can for the pick.  Garrett visited the Jaguars recently-who knows whether they think he could fall to 4 or if they're interested in trading up, but Garrett to the Browns at 1 is absolutely no sure thing.

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...