Jump to content

cle23

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cle23

  1. On 3/18/2023 at 8:22 PM, r henderson said:

    I know everyone's clamoring for a wr, but I still think OBJ is in play. This is my mock draft.

     

    1) O'Cyrus Torrence G Florida: Solidify the interior line for years.

    2) Daiyan Henley LB Washington State: Tough defender with speed and cover skills. Equally good against the run and the pass.

    3) Kendre Miller RB TCU: The strong north/south runner Beane is looking for. Excellent receiver out the backfield and stout in pass protection.

    4) Luke Schoonmaker TE Michigan: Playing behind a very good TE in Erick All. Would be starting for any other team in the country. Untapped potential.

    5) Demarco Hellman S Alabama: A sleeper pick that can turn out to be a good value pick. 

    6) Ricky Stromberg G/C Arkansas: A 4-year starter with versatility to play guard and center.

     

    The top will contribute day one. Schoonmaker should see snaps with the Bills playing more double TE. Best way to neutralize Miami Dolphins two conerbacks.

     

    Schoonmaker was the starter this year at Michigan for a majority of the year. All didn't play much at all.  But yes, Schoonmaker is very good and reliable.  Won't ever be Gronk or Kelce, but he can be a very solid TE who is a good blocker and receiver.

  2. 2 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

    Isn't that the point of the quote you are responding to? The relative lack of control in both cases is part of the equation when speculating trade value.

     

    The original post I responded to said that they were both controllable for 5 years.  And they're not.  Not anymore, and Oliver is only 1 year. So his value isn't much.  At least Jeudy is 2 years. 

  3. 5 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

    Both were first round picks and have 5th year options so, yes, both were controllable for 5 seasons. Oliver is on his 5th year option now. Jeudy has his next season. 

     

    They were controllable for 5 years when they were drafted,  yes,  but not at this point. 

    • Awesome! (+1) 1
  4. 7 hours ago, arcane said:

    And has 17 games of mediocrity in the 14 months since that season ended

     

    Go rewatch him in week 18, a must-win for the packers to make the playoffs, going against one of the worst defenses in the league at home

     

    I know he didn't play well last year, and he may continue down that path, but I think it is much more likely that he packed it in last year and really didn't care.  That's not good either, but he didn't suddenly lose the ability to play, I think he lost the will to play in GB anymore.  

  5. 47 minutes ago, 947 said:

    I watched a few Browns games last year. When Hunt came in the game, I noticed a huge drop-off from Chubb. It wasn't like years past, where they were nearly interchangeable. Hunt looked like a plodding JAG to me, definitely not better than Singletary.

     

    Hunt is different than Chubb.  Chubb, as powerful as he is, is a cut and go.  He avoids the 1st tackle or 2 and then plows through people.  Hunt is straight ahead full speed.  Not nearly as good as Chubb, but he is very good.  Much better than Singletary in my opinion.  And Hunt is a very good receiver as well.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

    You're going to have to explain to me why Tennessee would want to trade Simmons, who's a more productive DT than Oliver, have to eat $21M in dead cap between Henry and Simmons, and then still have to pay Ed his $11M salary this year and have clear downgrades at RB and DT.

     

    That, and why would they want the 1st next year seeing as the draft is in a month.  

  7. 2 hours ago, benderbender said:

    That is the hill they're dying on hopefully. Nothing would please me more than Rodgers trudging back to GB without a deal done after looking so smug in interviews. He's really acting out his Farve trauma by reliving it. 

     

    He'd retire before going back to GB.

  8. 3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

     

    "if" he continues downhill?  Father Time is undefeated bro...have you been smoking some of that peyote Rodgers has been hitting up?

     

    Obviously over the course of the next five years he's going to go downhill at some point. That doesn't mean after one down year he's suddenly gonna continue to be what he was last year. That's why I had said in the previous post that long term obviously it's Allen over him but next year could be a toss up.

    • Like (+1) 1
  9. 1 minute ago, Mark80 said:

    Hits a little different when that year comes when you are 39 years old.

     

    I would agree more if it wasn't for the fact that Rodgers has been pissed at GB for a couple years, and last year it seemed to come to a head.  I may be wrong, but I don't see much of a chance of him dropping off that much 1 year to the next, 39 or not.

  10. Just now, buffblue said:

    Possibly?

     

    Yes.  Rodgers had 1 down year.  He had won 2 straight MVPs before that, and 4 total.  Obviously long term, Allen > Rodgers.  If Rodgers continues downhill, then obviously Allen > Rodgers.  But Rodgers was a top 2-3 QB in the NFL for 12+ years.  1 down disgruntled year doesn't guarantee he is suddenly trash.

     

    I could see Rodgers playing lights out next year just to prove the Packers wrong.

    • Like (+1) 3
    • Agree 4
  11. 12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

     

    In theory, if the player retires before the end of his current contract, the team can request the repayment of the amortized bonus.

     

    However, depending upon the circumstances, teams don't do this, and I'm not sure how it is viewed if the team amortizes the bonus beyond the real length of the contract into "void years", or if the player agrees to help the team's cap by converting salary to bonus - pretty sure that becomes the team's problem.

     

    And of course, there's the Eric Wood move where the player doesn't retire but "can no longer be cleared to play football" due to injury (or is cut by the team because they can no longer play) in which case, again, the team eats it.

     

     

    This is an interesting point, but teams routinely get around this by inserting big roster or "option" bonuses that may get converted to signing bonus and amortized further.  Pretty sure you know this, just putting the info out there for those who don't.

     

    Signing bonus, yes, they can ask for the money back.  But I am pretty sure salary that was converted to a bonus they can't, especially if it was guaranteed salary.  

    • Agree 1
  12. 1 minute ago, balln said:

    My question is - why don’t nfl teams just “extend” a player for like 20 years. Makes the cap hit negligible year to year. Certainly will have dead cap for the last 10 years as player no longer w team or even playing in nfl - but by that time the cap limit will assuredly go up. There has to be some kind of rule

     

    If the player retires, it accelerates any bonus money amount to the immediate year.  So yeah, you could add $5M a year for 20 years to spread it out, but when the player retires after 10, you'd get $50M upfront onto your cap.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
  13. 6 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

    Seriously? How do you re-structure a fully guaranteed contract without adding years to the deal?  The article says they converted salary into a signing bonus, but if it was already fully guaranteed, why would that matter? I want them to choke on that contract, so I hate seeing that there are loopholes available to them.  Anyone get how this works?

     

    https://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-browns-restructure-watson-134639003.html

     

    When you covert salary into a bonus, it spreads the bonus out evenly over the remaining years, plus over any added years.  So if you convert $30M into a bonus, and you have 4 years remaining, it would lower the 1st year by $22.5M, but add $7.5M to the other 3 years.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  14. 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

     

     

    Everyone knew the Bears were looking to get rid of #1 .....but That's a massive haul Carolina gave up to pick from one of the more mediocre QB classes in a while.

     

    lol, Panthers.

     

    People keep saying its a mediocre QB class, and I don't disagree fully, but how many truly "great" QB classes are there?  2020, and then maybe 2017.  Before 2017, I can't find a "great" class in years.  All it takes is for Carolina to now select 1 great QB and it doesn't matter.  This year was supposed to be the "great" QB class with Young, Stroud, Levis, etc. coming into the year.

    • Agree 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Victory Formation said:

    You don’t think Richardson has potential to be a good passer? I’m shocked! There’s only one way to handle this, I challenge you to a saxophone battle!

     

    bill clinton saxophone GIF

     

    JaMarcus Russell had the potential to be a good passer too.  

     

    The mere thought of Richardson going 1st is insanity.  The dude was average at best in college, and well below average when they played power 5 competition.  He has the potential, but who trades that haul for a guy who MAY be good, or equally could be the worst QB taken in the 1st round.  

     

    It has to be Stroud or Young, and Stroud scares me too.  He is the best pure QB in the draft but he just doesn't seem to have any fire to him at all.

    • Agree 1
  16. 6 hours ago, The Red King said:

    PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right.  We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in.  Try to keep it civil, please.

     

    That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$.  Given the Watson deal he's well within his right.

     

    I think we're looking at it wrong.  There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's?  In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way?  I believe so.  If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work?  Of course not.

     

    The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

     

    Just grouping up and agreeing not to have contracts like that are colluding all the same.  That's the point.  You can't have 32 owners get together to discuss contracts between 1 player and 1 team, no matter the players.

×
×
  • Create New...