-
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!
-
-
-
-
Topics
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
Good thought and I agree. Nothing about this process compromises that premise. In fact, the process involves meeting more needs so you can do that. If I can get an Edge on a rookie contract when my biggest need is LB, then I have enough $$ saved on the overall cap to get an elite rookie edge in the draft and sign a veteran LB in free agency. If I draft the LB first, my biggest need, then my savings against the cap (when looking at the 53-man roster) is minimal. I have not saved enough $$ to sign the edge in free agency, so I have to try to draft the edge later, getting a lesser player. Even if you draft an edge and the roster is full of them, you have trade capital because a lot of teams need a good edge. This lends credence to the BPA theory if it is aligned with positions that are expensive on second contracts. In the cap era, you have to think it through-it is like a puzzle. That is why I did not like it when Marty was drafting RBs (Willliams and Stewart) in the first round. If you recall, that necessitated moving up for Otah, trading away next year's first rounder to do so. That is the draft we really needed an edge, but since we did not have a first rounder, we took Everette Brown to fill that need. Then it got worse. We had 2 RBs on second contracts, Brown busted, that led to drafting Clausen, etc. If you can get 2 starters for the price of one, that is what I would call smart--not overthinking, if I understand you. I do agree, but that does not mean draft your trench players first. It could mean draft an edge and use the cap savings to sign a trench player. -
The DLine needs to do its job too - currently I only trust Brown to do that. -
-
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.