rampantjet Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 I like most of FA other than Jeremy Hill. I know it is a small deal so it isn't going to change the world, but man I think he is garbage and would be taking carries from a different player that we could draft. I hate keeping Skrine. He is not worth nearly his contract, The draft...... I like Darnold, but I am not really a fan of trading up as I don't really like him more than Rosen, Mayfield, or Lamar at least one of which would be available at 6. The 2nd seems really high for Thompson, and while I do think we could use more beef up front, we have bigger needs. I am ok with Armstrong. So are we trading Carpenter and not finding his replacement till the 4th round? That sounds risky. All in all I would be pretty bummed if this happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 Quote On the Rotoworld Football Podcast, Josh Norris believes it is a "ludicrous" idea for the Browns to wait until pick No. 4 to select a QB. This possible outcome is being suggested more often with Saquon Barkley as the presumed No. 1 pick. In this instance, the Browns would select from whatever "two, three or four" quarterbacks remain on the board. Norris absolutely disagrees for a variety of reasons. Teams who plan on picking a quarterback at the top of the draft do not go into the event loving two, three or four passers. They identify one, visualize the offense built around him, and attempt to acquire that passer. Look at Jared Goff and the Rams, Carson Wentz and the Eagles, Deshaun Watson and the Texans and Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs. We will believe the Browns will wait until No. 4 for a quarterback when we see it. And he's absolutely right. I get the fan perspective to say "well chances are we'll land one of the 4 if we sit at 6 so it's pointless to trade up." Nonsense. It's very likely Maccagnan only has 2 QBs in his top 6 - MAYBE 3 - and if his top one is within range, he better make it happen whether you think its Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Mayfield, Jackson, or someone else. That said, free agency, trades, the owners meetings, and agent negotiations will start to clear up the probability of who each team prefers, in which case maybe Maccagnan can play his hand close to the vest and hope that his preferred QB falls to 6, but that's a very risky proposition. Best to make your move and secure the pick if the price is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaZeN37 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Always enjoy and appreciate your efforts JK007, fun read. Two issues... 1) I love Breeland and hope we sign him, but who plays on the other side? Didn’t draft a corner nor did you re-sign Claiborne. I’d be furious if we go into next season with a giant hole at starting CB. 2) Jeremy Hill and Bo Scarborough? Yuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 7 hours ago, BlaZeN37 said: Always enjoy and appreciate your efforts JK007, fun read. Two issues... 1) I love Breeland and hope we sign him, but who plays on the other side? Didn’t draft a corner nor did you re-sign Claiborne. I’d be furious if we go into next season with a giant hole at starting CB. 2) Jeremy Hill and Bo Scarborough? Yuck. They will expect development out of their young corners to contribute, and if they don’t look so good in TC don’t discount trading for one before the season... chances are we’ll deal it one of our receivers, possibly for one straight up. I just get the sense that Macc will want to give Burris/Robinson/Clark/Jones a chance. All are 24 years old or younger... wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen cornerbacks make significant strides in their 3rd year. If the BPA is a corner he’s the pick, but I feel the best corners will fly off the board in late 1, early 2. As far as Hill/Scarborough: again, I think Macc’s BPA approach gets the best of him here. Hill is no different then Stevan Ridley in my eyes, but Scarborough is someone who I think they’ll feel will fit into their plans as a big, athletic complementary back. I’d rather target a guy like John Kelly or Walton this late, but Macc and his predecessors seem to value big backs. Scarborough is no different than Alfred Blue in my mind, and next year they will need to find a more permanent fix. Ultimately, the theme here is that Rome wasn’t built in one day. We still will likely need another pass rusher, a RB, a CB, and an OT in 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GangGreen420 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 I like it. Would absolutely trade up to 3 if Darnold is there. I absolutely agree, Macs QBs are Darnold and Allen. Have to hope Cleveland loves him I wish more people understood how it works. This idea that we can just sit at 6 and take the leftover QB is such non sense and defies logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 59 minutes ago, GangGreen420 said: I like it. Would absolutely trade up to 3 if Darnold is there. I absolutely agree, Macs QBs are Darnold and Allen. Have to hope Cleveland loves him I wish more people understood how it works. This idea that we can just sit at 6 and take the leftover QB is such non sense and defies logic. 2017 each team moved up for "their guy" (CHI, KC, HOU) 2016 each team moved up for "their guy" (LAR, PHI, DEN) It's becoming a popular trend, and actually started far before these two drafts. I think QB movement will be most comparable to 2012 where the team will draft at #1, two teams will trade up for QBs, and one will stay put for one. I think given the pressure put on Maccagnan to get a QB and the added draft capital, he will move up. I also see BUF or MIA moving up for a QB and DEN selecting one at 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 It’s very hard to like this RB situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnaby8787 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Sorry bud, not a huge fan. I also think you're underpaying FA's. I don't see ASJ coming down from wanting 6-7 mil to 4.5. Also the same with Demario. I think realistically, someone pays ASJ between 5-6 and Demario gets 7+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 Here's how I would run the first two days of the draft... 1(6) Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA --- if off the board, trade down if able or BPA (Quenton Nelson) 2(37) Kemoko Turay, EDGE, Rutgers --- if no QB in R1, then one in R2 (Lauletta/Rudolph) 2(49) Pass rusher or playmaker 3(72) Pass rusher or playmaker My objective as a GM would be to draft as many young pass rushers as possible and select a QB in round 1 or 2. I believe in this age of the NFL, QBs are molded by fit, coaching, and scheme more than just being a "natural"... if we drafted a QB in round 2, it would be an open competition, and I'd expect Lauletta would win. He's very underrated and in the right scheme, could be a very good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 1 minute ago, barnaby8787 said: Sorry bud, not a huge fan. I also think you're underpaying FA's. I don't see ASJ coming down from wanting 6-7 mil to 4.5. Also the same with Demario. I think realistically, someone pays ASJ between 5-6 and Demario gets 7+. You're reading it wrong. Those are cap hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnaby8787 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 26 minutes ago, jetskid007 said: You're reading it wrong. Those are cap hits. So you're backloading them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 21 minutes ago, barnaby8787 said: So you're backloading them? Sigh. Backloading a contract is what we used to do: sign guy to a 3 year, $40 million contract with a huge signing bonus and a $5M first year cap hit, only to see it rise to $17M and $18M in the years after. This isn't backloading - its standard operating procedure in the current NFL landscape. In order to comply with CBA rules, the overall contracts need to see an APY increase year to year, which is why you must pay less in year 1 of 2 year deals. For 3-4 year deals, you're able to pay a player more in year 1, then drop the salary in year 2, and establish a certain % raise increase (usually around 15-25%) in order to meet the threshold. It's still incredibly hard to do. The new way of the NFL is to "guarantee" 1st and 2nd year base salaries while establishing the APY increases, essentially making the final year a "dummy" year. The player is happy because they're getting paid up front, the team is happy because they can get the player off the books much more easily than if they did in years past. A reasonable, incremental salary cap raise over the life of the contract coincides with the incremental salary cap raises from year to year. Basically, the contract mirrors the salary cap increases. Kirk would be different in that you frontload the deal as a way to entice him to sign (time value of money)... you're paying him $60M up front and from there you can maneuver the cap however you please. For a contract like that, it makes sense to make a massive 1st year cap figure to allow you to get out of the deal without penalty by year 3 and to also allow you to continue building a roster around him in future years. These players don't make enough to truly consider that as an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnaby8787 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, jetskid007 said: Sigh. Backloading a contract is what we used to do: sign guy to a 3 year, $40 million contract with a huge signing bonus and a $5M first year cap hit, only to see it rise to $17M and $18M in the years after. This isn't backloading - its standard operating procedure in the current NFL landscape. In order to comply with CBA rules, the overall contracts need to see an APY increase year to year, which is why you must pay less in year 1 of 2 year deals. For 3-4 year deals, you're able to pay a player more in year 1, then drop the salary in year 2, and establish a certain % raise increase (usually around 15-25%) in order to meet the threshold. It's still incredibly hard to do. The new way of the NFL is to "guarantee" 1st and 2nd year base salaries while establishing the APY increases, essentially making the final year a "dummy" year. The player is happy because they're getting paid up front, the team is happy because they can get the player off the books much more easily than if they did in years past. A reasonable, incremental salary cap raise over the life of the contract coincides with the incremental salary cap raises from year to year. Basically, the contract mirrors the salary cap increases. Kirk would be different in that you frontload the deal as a way to entice him to sign (time value of money)... you're paying him $60M up front and from there you can maneuver the cap however you please. For a contract like that, it makes sense to make a massive 1st year cap figure to allow you to get out of the deal without penalty by year 3 and to also allow you to continue building a roster around him in future years. These players don't make enough to truly consider that as an option. You don't have to explain contracts to me my man, I know how it works I'm basically saying, what are targeting in terms of APY? Because I'm saying they're low and you're saying they're cap hits, not APY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskid007 Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, barnaby8787 said: You don't have to explain contracts to me my man, I know how it works I'm basically saying, what are targeting in terms of APY? Because I'm saying they're low and you're saying they're cap hits, not APY. The left column states years and total value. Divide total value by years and that’s your APY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnaby8787 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, jetskid007 said: The left column states years and total value. Divide total value by years and that’s your APY Ah, sorry, i'm an idiot. Didn't see the left column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.