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!

     

Trade down for Newton/QB?


Tutto

Recommended Posts

I don't mean to beat a deadhorse, but I have a question. I hear some people say they like Newton, and others say they don't like him at all. Also, there are some people that may like Newton or not, but don't like the idea of taking him at #1.

How would you guys feel if we traded down, grabbed some extra picks, and took Newton say around #10?

Personally, I like Newton, I think he could be a franchise QB in 2 years or so, but #1 overall is a reach. So how would you feel if we traded down, and took Newton? And got a vet in for the 1-2 year period to start and mentor Newton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that is still high for him, but I have no doubt someone will reach for him in that area.

hell he could be gone by then if the Tenn. rumors are true.

Yeah, He didnt have a very good NC game. That hurt him, but if you look at the body of work, he had an amazing year.

I think it wont be a "reach" around #10 after the combine happens. Thats where he will shine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was one of those things that the FO is dead-set on getting a QB while also trading down, I would rather trade down, grab BPA, then if someone like Locker fell to the bottom of the first or into the second trade up to get him.

Newton in the first is still too high at this point. Locker in the first is also kind of high, as of right now. Actually if any team drafts a QB in the first rnd, at this point, it is reaching. Things could change with the combine and pro-days but I don't think they will that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only QB that really should go in the first (late mid-late) is Mallett. The recent Gabbert love is insane, Newton is a sky-high-ceiling, long-term project, and Locker had a bad year and is a little lacking on some measurables (namely, height). Mallett at least has the amateur production, arm strength, height, to go in the bottom end of the first round. His biggest deficiencies I've heard of is lack of pocket awareness (got tired of that poo from Clausen, this year) and love of the alcohol. Well, on the second one, he was at college. It's what you do at college....college isn't about book learning, it's about doing as much crazy poo as you can so you can get it out of your system and settle down afterward and start being a real grown up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's what you do at college....college isn't about book learning, it's about doing as much crazy poo as you can so you can get it out of your system and settle down afterward and start being a real grown up.

It shouldn't be for a FBS player on a top 10 team in the country. What's he going to do when he has money?

But I agree about his talent. Mallet is the only QB, in my opinion, worthy of being taken in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were throws in the NC game where he had great protection, would step up in the pocket and throw it in front, or behind, or just over shoot his receiver...besides, he made plays with his feet that helped open the passing game and would hit little bubble screens and roll out little dump offs

not to say the guy doesnt have talent, i just dont think its worth the risk of trading the first overall pick for a project.

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...