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!

     

Sam Howell traded to Seattle


Recommended Posts

I'm personally a big fan of package trades that have the even draft asset distribution.

I.E. We have the first 4th rounder, first 5th, and an extra 5th.  Something like our 4th and later 5th (166 from SF) for a late 3rd and 6th would be an interesting move come draft day if an impact guy falls in that late 3rd range.     

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

So according to the "Fitzgerald-Spielberger Trade Value Chart" they had Sam Howell valued at 199 points. Basically the value of pick 251 (late 7th) in the draft. 

So he dropped in value after playing a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

So according to the "Fitzgerald-Spielberger Trade Value Chart" they had Sam Howell valued at 199 points. Basically the value of pick 251 (late 7th) in the draft. 

Tells you what the NFL thinks of Howell 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

So he dropped in value after playing a year?

I don't know if the math per that chart value is correct but if it is it's safe to just disregard that value chart moving forward. In no universe would you be able to trade 102 + 179 + 199 for 78 and 152.

Using the standard trade chart you'd land at a 70ish point difference, the equivalent of a mid-4th.

*Okay, went and looked at that draft value chart and didn't bother doing the math because the chart is laughably absurd. According to that chart you could trade up from #32 to #22 in the 1st round simply by tossing in the last pick of the draft. It wildly overvalues late round picks. That chart is trash.

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'll be patiently waiting to see what OL additions we snatch off the waiver wire.
    • Look don't get me wrong here. I'm not arguing it's going to just change his arm talent overnight. I'm just saying doing anything on the physical front after the GM who stuck his neck out for him over the concerns around his physical traits got fired is better than doing nothing. That's another layer. It could easily be argued overall he needed to add at least 10 pounds not just for the sake of working in the pocket and not going down so easily but let's be honest eventually no matter how much we invest in the OL he's going to get hit some and those hits will add up. His frame as it stands is only going to absorb so much over a 17 game season. Oh definitely good or bad we will have to run a lot of under center stuff. Bryce will either look good or flounder. But our offense will remain stagnant if we just keep running shotgun plays 90% of the time. You're telegraphing your offense otherwise. That's why I'm not giving Chuba Hubbard too hard of a time over his YPC last year. We weren't fooling anyone. We'll see what Canales has cooked up. It better be pretty damn clever.
    • Why would a team ever not be aggressive in improving the roster? It may look different from year to year but even the best rosters churn at the bottom. That's a no-brainer.
×
×
  • Create New...