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!

     

Would you consider this trade?...


tarheelpride

Peppers for a pick and Ashomagi - would you do it?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Peppers for a pick and Ashomagi - would you do it?



Recommended Posts

Oakland offers us Ashomagi and a pick for Julius Peppers (who we franchise), would you bite?

Case for trade: shores up bad secondary and gives us flexibility to release Lucas. frees up cap room for Ashomagi to get extension, as well as sign Gross to deal. Extra pick for a possible trade up (provided it's high enough). Teams won't throw easily on us.

Case Against trade: what will happen to the pass rush? who will take over for Pep? impossible nearly to compensate for his skills. great secondary + no pass rush = all day to throw. Who said Ashomagi can fit in the system? and will the system change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it'll take a trade like that for us to part. reality is pep will probably stay and we will break the bank for him. i agree that whoever is playing CB might not do well in our system, but i have no doubt something will change in the offseason. fox won't go for the same stuff over multiple years that keeps getting us killed coaching wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would any team trade when he becomes a FA this offseason? How were you thinking that would work? Annnnd where's the source comming from, madden? ;)

Going along with the thread though...

-Keep Peepers if he wants to play for us

-Trade Peppers if he would like to venture elsewhere. Who the hell whats to be an Oakland Raider though. Hearing all the crap that goes on around there plus the detailed gameday experience posted by our own Huddle members, place is a dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asomugha is the most dominant CB in the league.

Peppers is an above average DE.

Both would cost a ton of money (Peppers maybe a little more I'm not sure of CB vs DE in terms of monetary value in the NFL). I feel like we already have enough money locked up in Chris Gamble and dumping more money in another CB wouldn't be plausible considering our weakest point is D-Line. Fox's defense needs pressure from the front four and unless we see a coaching change, we need help on the D-Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would any team trade when he becomes a FA this offseason? How were you thinking that would work? Annnnd where's the source comming from, madden? ;)

Going along with the thread though...

-Keep Peepers if he wants to play for us

-Trade Peppers if he would like to venture elsewhere. Who the hell whats to be an Oakland Raider though. Hearing all the crap that goes on around there plus the detailed gameday experience posted by our own Huddle members, place is a dump.

As he said... Franchise and then trade (probably contingent in a long term deal being worked out with the trade partner).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont know i still think we should get us a decent pass rushing DT to throw in beside him so he can get rid of some of the dbl teams. If he doesnt want to stay then i say franchise and trade, however i highly doubt he wouldnt want to stay after what we did this year. remember guys 12-4 and division title. this is just the start

oh yeah and traheel pride i love your sig haha, UNC starting 0-2 in ACC play took my mind of this loss. so yes atleast there is tyler hansbrough to laugh at.:patriot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...