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!

     

Gimme your opinions...


I AM

Recommended Posts

In prepping my mock draft, I am kind of feeling like we're currently picking in bad spots...

With past history, an uncapped yea, some Front Office jobs on the line, and a big question mark about 2011, I can almost guarantee we'll be moving around in the draft this year...

I'm thinking we'll trade next year's first again, but I doubt it holds as much value in a normal year... Still, it is a first rounder, and should at least get us another 2nd + something like a 5th (This year's first got us a 2nd (E. Brown) a 4th last year)...

I'm looking at the Chiefs pretty hard right now as far as trading partner goes, as they hold the 4th pick in the 2nd, as well as another 2nd rounder they got from Atlanta (so they wouldn't be missing out on the 2nd round by trading with us)... They also have three picks in the 5th round, where we currently have none...

So, hypothetically, we trade our 2011 1st rounder to KC for their first 2nd (pick 36) and one of their 5ths...

Now then, why would we want to move earlier in the 2nd?

I firmly believe the WR pool, while pretty deep this year, drops off a good bit after the top three on my list. I won't go into detail on those, as it will be discussed in my mock draft, but there is a good chance that that none of those guys will slip out of the first round, but if they do, they could be there at the Chief's pick... Cool if they are, and I hope we take them...

If they aren't, I feel like we will take our two 2nd's (or whatever we trade up for) and use to select two other positions, and address WR in the 3rd round...

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be displeased at all if we drafted another WR not in my top three in the 2nd, but I just don't think it will happen...

So, here is where I need your opinions...

1. Do you think the trade scenario I have offered is plausible?

2. Do you think we would trade up higher than #4 in round 2 (IE New England's first round pick) to get one of the top 3 WRs?

3. Do you think teams that are rumored to be looking for WR help (Baltimore) will be more likely to pass on drafting one in favor of signing a free agent?

Thanks in advance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully a team will give us a 2nd for Marshall then we can trade next years 1st, get 3 picks in the 2nd round and rape the draft.

In a way, I think that is what we are hoping for in Marshall's case...

Not a knock on him, because I think he's good for us right now, but he is replaceable, and with less than a 2nd rounder....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way its looking, we have a legitimate chance at nabbing Golden Tate. the broncos put a 1st & 3rd rd tender on Marshall, so unless they trade him( which I think they won't), they wont be taking a WR. Miami...Bill Parcells will surprise everyone if he takes a WR in the 1st...but he won't. bengals in talks of acquiring TO so they wont draft a WR. now, the Ravens. here is how we get their 1st rd pick. trade next years 1st, this years 2nd and this years 6th to Baltimore for their 2010 1st rd pick. Golden Tate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'll pretty much stand pat on our draft spots, other than maybe a minor move up or down. You lose alot of value trading future picks for current ones and it's starting to catch up with us.

If you combine the two trades where we gave up future 1's, we traded away two 1st rounders, a 2nd and a 4th. We got in return a 1st, 2nd and 4th. So we lost a full first rounder in value.

I think they'll be some good options at WR, DT and DE when we pick too. If anything I can see us trading our 2nd and maybe 3rd/4th to move up to a high 2nd or late 1st. Especially if we get a few decent compensatory picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way its looking, we have a legitimate chance at nabbing Golden Tate. the broncos put a 1st & 3rd rd tender on Marshall, so unless they trade him( which I think they won't), they wont be taking a WR. Miami...Bill Parcells will surprise everyone if he takes a WR in the 1st...but he won't. bengals in talks of acquiring TO so they wont draft a WR. now, the Ravens. here is how we get their 1st rd pick. trade next years 1st, this years 2nd and this years 6th to Baltimore for their 2010 1st rd pick. Golden Tate.

I thought it was just a 1st for Marshall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way its looking, we have a legitimate chance at nabbing Golden Tate. the broncos put a 1st & 3rd rd tender on Marshall, so unless they trade him( which I think they won't), they wont be taking a WR. Miami...Bill Parcells will surprise everyone if he takes a WR in the 1st...but he won't. bengals in talks of acquiring TO so they wont draft a WR. now, the Ravens. here is how we get their 1st rd pick. trade next years 1st, this years 2nd and this years 6th to Baltimore for their 2010 1st rd pick. Golden Tate.

That's a novel concept, but I don't think they want him that bad... That is giving up a lot in a draft that we're already lacking in... Just my opinion though, so who knows...

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...