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!

     

Is 3 first rounders too much?


ericr0319
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't the Texans have to eat all the guaranteed money? Watson's guaranteed money is a little less than $111 million with almost $74 million of that guaranteed at signing. He got a $27 million signing bonus. So if we're getting Watson at a deeply discounted rate I think it's 100% worth 3 1st round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ncfan said:

Will the Texans even take our 3 1s if the Jets offer 3 1s and Darnold or 4 1s  and Darnold?

 

Also it may take 3 1s to get Fields or Lance this draft.  We have to Jump the Lions, and theyll have a Stafford 1 and 2022 1 to make sure they get their QB

You can't offer four first round picks. It's not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, top dawg said:

You can't offer four first round picks. It's not allowed.

Why not

The Jets have this years and next year 1's from Seattle for Jamal Adams.

 

If they want Watson. They can easily trade both of Seattle's 1sts and their own 1sts for 2021 and 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ncfan said:

Why not

The Jets have this years and next year 1's from Seattle for Jamal Adams.

 

If they want Watson. They can easily trade both of Seattle's 1sts and their own 1sts for 2021 and 2022

Let me correct and clarify:

NFL teams who already have dealt for first round picks like the Jets & Dolphins could trade more than three, but we can't because NFL teams are restricted to trading more than 3 years in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watson is absolutely worth 3 first rounders.  Consider this...the Browns have been looking for a top QB literally forever.  You may think Mayfield is them finding one but the jury is out if he is that guy.

Watson is that and building a team when you have your QB is much simpler IMO.

Watson should be our top target, period.

How many players the caliber of Watson have ever been available at his age?  Cant think of many.  Maybe Marshall Faulk?  If he ends up leaving Houston someone has committed robbery.

Edited by Shocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ericr0319 said:

Is 3 first rounders too much for Watson? Building through the draft is key because you keep high salaries off the books. 

No top picks forces you to overpay in FA - see LA Rams. Yes, they went to a Super Bowl but they lost. The Eagles went and won. Both paid high prices to get their QB, but they paid the price and are in cap hell. 

cant believe you are asking this...of course it is too much....wayyyyy too much

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an easy YES!  Look at it this way.

To move up to the 3rd pick this year.  Picks 8, 40, and 2022 1st. That is (2) 1st and a 2nd for an unproven QB

To get Watson, you are giving up (3) 1st for a proven top 5 QB

This is not a hrad decision at all. If your GM can't continue to build the roster in rounds 2-7  then you have the wrong GM

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...