Nnivolcm Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 6 hours ago, detfan782004 said: 3 top 59'picks vs 3 top 73 and not giving up anything. ill take it Plus not paying a 1st rounder contract allows to extend homegrown talent easier win win win I think you're missing the value of the 5th year option for first round picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 1 hour ago, Nnivolcm said: I think you're missing the value of the 5th year option for first round picks. Nah. Banking on success rate of 1st round picks. This regime has done good but due for a bust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnivolcm Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 56 minutes ago, detfan782004 said: Nah. Banking on success rate of 1st round picks. This regime has done good but due for a bust Only a fool bets against Brad Holmes. I would have thought you learned that last draft. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 1 hour ago, Nnivolcm said: Only a fool bets against Brad Holmes. I would have thought you learned that last draft. It's purely NFL draft statistics across all GMs. Greater GMs than Holmes factored in despite his recent success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC421/ Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 11 hours ago, detfan782004 said: It's purely NFL draft statistics across all GMs. Greater GMs than Holmes factored in despite his recent success Every Gm has misses now matter how great. Making major decisions based on a random hunch that a gm with a great track record is “due” for a miss and it will be this exact pick when it happens mite be some of the most foolish logic I’ve herd yet, and you’ve set a high bar lol ( I’m razzing you ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 1 hour ago, BigC421/ said: Every Gm has misses now matter how great. Making major decisions based on a random hunch that a gm with a great track record is “due” for a miss and it will be this exact pick when it happens mite be some of the most foolish logic I’ve herd yet, and you’ve set a high bar lol ( I’m razzing you ) It's not just about that but about contract being less for later picks. I wouldn't be shocked if they traded out of first round because it's sound business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnivolcm Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 30 minutes ago, detfan782004 said: It's not just about that but about contract being less for later picks. I wouldn't be shocked if they traded out of first round because it's sound business If they trade out of the first it's because they don't believe anyone available is worth the pick and it's a trade that picks up value due to another team being willing to give up more for the 5th year option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 Someone QB hungry and QB drops would be making that call for 29. Getting that QB locked in with 5th year option. Detroit is in prime spot at 29 to move back and get picks and good talent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karnage84 Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 46 minutes ago, detfan782004 said: Someone QB hungry and QB drops would be making that call for 29. Getting that QB locked in with 5th year option. Detroit is in prime spot at 29 to move back and get picks and good talent This seems to happen less frequently than I think we'd expect. I think Lamar was the last one where this happened (in 2018). Denver traded up in 2016 (from 31) to #26 in 2016; Vikings traded up for Bridgewater in 2014. We're really looking at about it happening twice in 10 years. I could see someone making a trade up to grab a WR - if someone like AD Mitchell is there, that could be a play. WR's are costly so having that 5th year option would be valuable. It would get them ahead of teams like the Ravens, 49ers and Chiefs (or Panthers at 33). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 18 minutes ago, Karnage84 said: This seems to happen less frequently than I think we'd expect. I think Lamar was the last one where this happened (in 2018). Denver traded up in 2016 (from 31) to #26 in 2016; Vikings traded up for Bridgewater in 2014. We're really looking at about it happening twice in 10 years. I could see someone making a trade up to grab a WR - if someone like AD Mitchell is there, that could be a play. WR's are costly so having that 5th year option would be valuable. It would get them ahead of teams like the Ravens, 49ers and Chiefs (or Panthers at 33). Different times with different rules for rookie contracts too. So can't really compare to a decade ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnivolcm Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 20 minutes ago, detfan782004 said: Different times with different rules for rookie contracts too. So can't really compare to a decade ago The 5th year option for 1st rounders started in 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detfan782004 Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 5 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said: The 5th year option for 1st rounders started in 2011. Never said anything about 5th year option. in the ratified CBA in 2020 the rookie minimums raised byt biggest change is about performance. If they make pro bowl twice in first 3 years their fifth year automatically becomes equal to franchise tag the pro bowl is a joke. You could end up paying a popular player a franchise tag in his fifth year which is nuts. Typically the higher they are drafted the more popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 The 5th year option is overplayed imo. The only relevant position this is for is QB I think. It's really about having team control for an extra year while you negotiate. The Athletic had a mock where the Lions trade out of the first because the Raiders want Penix. I could see that happening. That being said, you are overestimating the difference between #29 and $40 in terms of cap hit. #29 has a 2.3M cap hit, #40 has 1.6M. 700k is a practice squad player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Want A Title Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 2 hours ago, Karnage84 said: This seems to happen less frequently than I think we'd expect. I think Lamar was the last one where this happened (in 2018). Denver traded up in 2016 (from 31) to #26 in 2016; Vikings traded up for Bridgewater in 2014. We're really looking at about it happening twice in 10 years. I could see someone making a trade up to grab a WR - if someone like AD Mitchell is there, that could be a play. WR's are costly so having that 5th year option would be valuable. It would get them ahead of teams like the Ravens, 49ers and Chiefs (or Panthers at 33). If you look at the Ravens, 49rs and Chiefs, they all have one glaring need: O-Line. The Ravens let both of their starting OGs go and still have the increasingly injury-prone Ronnie Stanley as their LT. The 49rs interior O-Line isn't great at all. The Chiefs have some terrible OTs bookending a very good interior O-Line. The Ravens and 49rs have significant needs at CB and the Chiefs just traded L'Jarius Sneed. The problem for the Lions is that they need developmental players at multiple positions on the O-Line and could definitely use another starting caliber CB. They run the risk of those teams and any others who end up ahead of them taking the players they want. If they trade back it will probably be with someone looking to grab a player who they consider to be a blue-chip O-Line or CB prospect that the Lions feel comfortable passing on to get additional draft capital. For me, it seems more likely that they would move off of 61 or 73 rather than 29 because other than the Washington Commanders, those teams don't have the draft capital to swing a trade back into the first round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnivolcm Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 1 hour ago, detfan782004 said: Never said anything about 5th year option. in the ratified CBA in 2020 the rookie minimums raised byt biggest change is about performance. If they make pro bowl twice in first 3 years their fifth year automatically becomes equal to franchise tag the pro bowl is a joke. You could end up paying a popular player a franchise tag in his fifth year which is nuts. Typically the higher they are drafted the more popular. What specific rule has changed regarding rookie contracts in the last 10 years which is so impactful you can't compare them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.