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!

     

Could we really pick something other than QB or o-line at 6?


Verge
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

If he's the best player on your board and you can't trade down for picks, you take him there. Don't worry though, we're taking Pickett. A rookie QB gets Rhule a mulligan for year 3. 

Positional value matters. A lot. There's a reason very, very few IOL are taken in the top 10. I can't ever recall a center drafted in the top 10.

In the top 10 you're looking for impact players at high value positions. IOL doesn't qualify IMO. The two relatively recent top 10 IOL picks were also ironically both busts.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Positional value matters. A lot. There's a reason very, very few IOL are taken in the top 10. I can't ever recall a center drafted in the top 10.

In the top 10 you're looking for impact players at high value positions. IOL doesn't qualify IMO. The two relatively recent top 10 IOL picks were also ironically both busts.

I don't disagree with you there, it's just who do you take and who do you trust Rhule and company to take? None of the QBs are worth pick 6. Linderbaum feels like the safest pick unfortunately and I don't want to hamstring the next coach if we somehow manage to get rid of Rhule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I don't disagree with you there, it's just who do you take and who do you trust Rhule and company to take? None of the QBs are worth pick 6. Linderbaum feels like the safest pick unfortunately and I don't want to hamstring the next coach if we somehow manage to get rid of Rhule. 

Oh, we're gonna hamstring the fug out of him. I fully expect future draft assets to get traded away and our salary cap getting shot all to hell. Rhule has already proven to be in over his head at the NFL level and now he's desperate. That's scary.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Oh, we're gonna hamstring the fug out of him. I fully expect future draft assets to get traded away and our salary cap getting shot all to hell. Rhule has already proven to be in over his head at the NFL level and now he's desperate. That's scary.

That's what I'm really afraid of. If/when we ever do get rid of Rhule, how in the world are we ever going to entice a promising HC candidate with no draft picks, cap, or assets. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

That's what I'm really afraid of. If/when we ever do get rid of Rhule, how in the world are we ever going to entice a promising HC candidate with no draft picks, cap, or assets. 

Bingo. Hence why I've been saying that as bad as it looks currently, with Rhule still here and still weilding full control it's bound to get uglier.

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

    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...