Jump to content


Veteran Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Rookie
  1. Just to be clear, you're comparing Disney to hitting the pipe!?! LOL I can see it
  2. Oren Burks?

    AJ Hawk and Martinez is another.... but you got a point there. I don't have a clue how they do it, but I know if it was up to me, I'd call them up after they were drafted and tell them all the numbers that were available (IE what numbers weren't currently being used and what numbers the NFL allows at their position) and let them the player decide. Just looking it up and trying to figure it out... looks like Haha, King, Alexander and Burks all got the lowest number that was available to them. Examples, Jumal Rolle has #20, so Haha got #21. #20 then become available so King got it. With #20, 21 and (Rip) #22 taken, Alexander got #23. Kerridge and Pipkins had 40 and 41, so Burks got 42 the lowest LB number he could get. Moore and MVS got the lowest of the available 80s numbers. Jackson and Madison slightly break the rule (from what I can tell), getting the second lowest numbers left available instead of the lowest... and the lowest was one number below theirs. And JK Scott got #6... cause they don't seem to like giving out #1, 3, 4, 5 (or at least that's the way it seems to me). I don't feel like looking up the rest, but the general tread has been getting one of the lowest numbers available... now that's just one draft (and Haha)... and I didn't look up martiez 50. so maybe this year was just lowest number available?
  3. I think my example of WR Adams and TE Graham were close, I think it was average contracts of $24.5 .. and it's more personal to Packers fans because they're actually on the Packers. But the Packers might have let some guys go instead of resigning them (like Adams) or signing them in FA (like Graham). Because if the signed Rodgers and Mack they could have over 120 million (based on average contract) locked up into just 8 players... leaving between $55 and $70 million left for the other 45 players.
  4. Dear Moderator Packerraymond Moderator CWood21 has asked us to "not resort to personal attack", so if you could kinda follow the rules and stop personally attacking yourself, we would all very much appreciate it. I'm sure you're a very nice person and shouldn't be vulgar about yourself at all. P.S. Sorry I'm a smart a$$. I saw his hair had better look days in college than I've seen him in the pros. Both long and short.
  5. After they sign Rodgers and Mack, then these 8 players (average contracts) will take up 120 million in cap space. (Rodgers, Mack, Adams, Bak, Perry, Daniels, Linsley) which leaves about 65 million for 45 players (average between $1.3 and $1.5 million per player... ). You might be able to swap players, like Clark for Daniels, but you're going to be seriously limited with FAs. You might be able to resign one of them, but because lack of cap room, most of these guys will be going Matthews, Clinton-Dix, Wilkerson and either Daniels or Clark
  6. I can agree with that... thought I also think Earl Thomas is another one and his price point (reportedly a 2nd rounder) and could be had for cheaper than $22 million per year. Then they could move Haha, to SS and then S Josh Jones would be free to help the LBers in coverage again and get more time learning the NFL Safety spot as well Which would give them a win season window to win it all before they lose Matthews, Clinton-Dix, Wilkerson and either Daniels or Clark because they couldn't pay them all. And hurt for the next couple of years.
  7. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but reading that just reminded me hearing people talking about they're seriously on the hunt for big foot.
  8. Nope, to me it looked like you were serious and in an agreeing with an earlier comment about Gruden might trade him pettiness and arrogance. Maybe if I didn't see the earlier comment and I actually knew the 5 stages of grief, I might of gotten it. Sorry that I missed the joke. But I'm serious, I want Mack just like everyone else does, and I've agreed that I'd be willing to trade the price of two players for him... but what people are talking about is what I consider the price of four players, and I'm just not sure he's worth the price of four players.
  9. I'm not upset at all... only thing I'm upset about is your false claims that I'm upset... don't freaking tell me how I feel, I know exactly how I freaking feel. I was laughing and happy, not upset until you started stating these complete bull**** of lies about me. I want Mack just like everyone want Macks, I just think there should be a smart limit on the amount we give up. And you're the one telling us that Gruden anger will lead to the trade. Stop lying about other people!
  10. Cowhard (like Bayless) are extreme pot stirrer and if there is nothing to tell, they then make something up to make it more interesting. I don't know what reason he's thinking, but I usually just assume he's wrong when ever I hear him. But since we're taking TV host sides and leaks... I think it was ESPN's NFL Live... one of their people, who I'd agree with. They said they strongly doubt the Raiders are shopping him, because if there were then somebody would leak the compensation that the Raiders were looking for in return. We're completely guessing two 1st round because that's what we got.
  11. I completely agree... it makes no sense. Somehow draft picks are completely worthless to the Packers, but they're suppose to be magical gold to the Raiders? No sense at all. People are just getting excited by flashiness of the potential of a big move... and not thinking about how it has to work on both sides. I still haven't heard a good reason why the Raiders would want to trade Mack, other than one person said to rebuild. But I strongly doubt Gruden or McKenzie plan on rebuilding especially when they already have their QB.
  12. Yes players... not franchise players... huge difference. And what you said makes no sense for the Raiders perceptive... IF they wanted to avoid the big contract with Mack, then why do they want a big contract in trade? They wouldn't... unless you're trading them Rodgers or Bak. Haha, you sound like you're the one in denial... keep saying Gruden's anger will lead to a Gruden trade... but Gruden speaks and he's clearly not angry. Based on Gruden's comment there, there is no way they're trading him. If Gruden gets too upset, Reggie McKenzie will just have to make an exception to their no contract talks with players who aren't here rule. They're gonna resign him once he gets into camp, just like they did last year with OT Donald Penn.
  13. Yeah the notion that teams need to keep restocking with draft picks doesn't seem to getting through... yes some bust, but you also have some successful ones. Which can help a lot. People are down playing late 1st round draft picks... but Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark were all pretty good late round draft picks too. Also I realize Clark is a DT and therefore will never get the respect he deserves, especially since his strength is run defense. But I've been surprised how many have seem to be willing to get rid of him like he's nothing... when he was almost to that elite level of play just last year and he's not even 23 yet.
  14. I agree if healthy and hungry then he's worth 2 "good" players. I'm just not sure he's worth 4 "good" players. 22 million = 2 "good" players and 1st round draft picks should = 2 more "good" players
  15. Preseason Week 2 - GDT vs. Pittsburgh

    Oh you just reminded me about another thing fans used to always complain about... stupid NFL coaches would waste a roster spot with a long snapper spot All 32 teams head coaches didn't know what they were doing, and they should just use a C or TE there instead