AU-panther

Thank you for compiling that. I was too lazy to count but I was thinking I had seen very few impressive throws. The vast majority of his completions are of a very basic variety, could have kept Bridgewater or Darnold. Maybe the coaches have him playing scared, maybe it’s just a small sample size, or maybe he just doesn’t have the physical or mental makeup to do it.

or he is scared to throw to his first read. or his first read is covered. Loves job is easy based on the fact that he has a high number of drop backs that are unpressured, but he also throws it to his first read a lot. Maybe this graph is telling us the key to not being pressured is throwing to your first read which makes it more of a WR/QB stat than an OL stat.

and in the meantime, you waste a lot of cap that can actually be used once you do find the QB. The QB is the hard part of the equation, the rest of the roster you can fill out with a lot more certainty through free agency. You see this all the time; teams try to protect young QBs and try try win early by building good defenses and running the ball. If you don't have a QB that should be your main goal. Winning a few extra games is pointless, there are no trophies for going 7-10 instead of 5-12. Build a quality O-line and a good receiving core. That way you properly evaluate your QB, also he is in the best position to develop. Its better to go 5-12 losing games 24-31, then to win a few more games losing 14-21. Outside of that don't waste your cap space or future picks just making yourself a little less bad. Even if you draft a really good QB they usually struggle their first year. Once you are sure he is going to be good and has developed some then start spending those resources to improve the defense. I'm not normally a fan of spending resources on a RB, but I would have understood keeping him to help Bryce develop. A player like DJ would have been nice. Instead, we keep Burns, don't get me wrong, I think Burns can be a really good player, but i just don't know if we made the most logical choices this offseason for our long term wellbeing.

Probably so. The fact that the Bears were willing to trade out of #1 tells you everything you need to know.

But it does stop teams from getting who they want. Hence the the reason all rosters are primarily made up of cheap guys. Will the prevent us from signing Burns if we want? No, but it will prevent us from signing a lot of players to contracts like that. here again, it’s not as prohibitive as some make it out to be but to make statements that it doesn’t matter as all is just wrong.

But there is a limit and you are making it sound like their isn’t. It’s true that often times teams can restructure a few players and fit people in but the cap is unlimited. Here again why does a team like KC let Hill go or why does any team let a star player. Why hasn’t an owner like Jerry Jones just paid to have an all pro at every position? The cap is real, those that say otherwise just don’t understand it. Speaking of restructuring we actually had a year during DH gentleman’s tenure where pretty much every player with a significant salary had been restructured. Basically every credit card was maxed.

but then the following year more cap hits your books and then you have less to spend in that year. Saints had several years where they had huge amounts of dead money counting towards their cap. I agree most teams, most years, have some slack in their overall cap. We can free up enough money for Burns, that isn't the question, but there are limits. This idea that the cap is some myth is just wrong. Teams just can't pay everyone, you have to decided the best use of your money.

Not exactly true. Certain teams can spend more than others in certain years but overtime the spending is pretty similar among teams. There are league minimums put in place for such. Also, those signing g bonuses and restructures do get prorated at some point, that money just doesn't disappear. You said it yourself, KC could have kept Hill but they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

The idea that the cap is a myth is actually a myth. People think the Saints have cheated the cap for the last 10 years but it just isn't true. Fans notice the big contracts that they add but they forget about the players they cut to free money or the large amount of dead money they carry some years. Pretty much all of their moves the past few years were predictable by people who understand the cap. For those that don't believe in the cap why did the Chiefs let Hill go? Just think about that for a minute. That alone does show you that the cap is real, and you don't have to decide where to spend your money.

I agree that waht you are saying is correct, a lot of front offices view future picks that way but why? It's almost like it been accepted as fact although it doesn't really seem to be based in any kind of logic. Maybe if you are contending team but for a team like us that is still rebuilding, I think you have to look at the factors. If the team that is trying to trade with you has a good chance of being horrible than you should almost look at is an investment. Maybe you get a pick this year in the 20-30 range from a different team but if you wait that pick from the Rams is top-10 or maybe even top-5. Personally, I think alot of coach's and GMs think short term, mainly for job security reasons.

When people make this argument they forget about the cap space. You don’t have to replace Burns production with the draft picks. Maybe you use the $25m you save to replace his production and then you use the draft picks to hopefully improve two other positions. Maybe you get a player for $10m that gives you 80% of Burns and then use the extra $15m to drastically improve a different position. Personnel moves don’t happen in a vacuum.

Can’t be, it would be all of their faults then. Don’t you know it can only be Rhules fault.

You make some valid points but the fact they turned down what they did from the Rams tells you that they view him as more than a $17m a year player.

Some of those 6 OLB will be playing DL at times depending on down and distances and formations. On a passing down you might get Brown at NT and YGM at DE or maybe a four man front.

It wasn’t pointless when you acted like people were crazy to expect more than 15-20m.

Your logic is incomplete. You don't just replace Burns production with just the draft picks, you replace his production with the $25m you save. The eagles had similar production out of Reddick for $15m. The draft picks are just bonus. but... What if you make the argument that Reddick or any other replacement isn't quite as good as Burns. Maybe you spend $15m to get 80-90% of Burns production then spend the other $10m to improve another position? Is the goal to have the most talent at one position or overall? How much can you improve another position for $10m? A good bit I would guess. I'm not saying don't pay Burns, once you reach a certain overall talent level on your team you should spend the extra on true difference makers, and Burns might be that but to say the trade was bad because the chance of draft picks being better is terrible logic because you are totally ignoring the cap savings. Fans tend to think about trades and personnel moves in a vacuum, that isn't how it works. Every trade, every deal has a ripple effect.

Exactly how much do you think he is going to sign for? Personally I think the idea of $15m is laughable.

So where exactly is PFF calling him mediocre? They actually have a very good ranking on him.

People need to stop box score scouting. His pass rush is better than people realize. Just look at his pass rush grade also. Sacks don't tell the whole story, often the guy that gets the sack isn't the guy that caused the sack. Pressures are important. Either way, If he has another year like last year he will get paid as being elite, so people might shocked at contract time.

I think he is a good prospect but two things make me nervous. When you play for Alabama or an Ohio state the game is relatively easy. Your line is better. Your skill positions are better. How do you react when you are on the bad team, Constant pressure, or receivers who aren’t open. Also his arm strength seems A bit less that other prospects, that doesn’t necessarily prevent you from having success but it can decrease your margin of error.

But if we hadn’t traded up, we probably don’t get the guy we want so the fact they get who they want without trading up is irrelevant. There is also a very good chance that the guy they wanted the most was the guy we took. So I’m reality they didn’t get they guy they wanted by staying put, they got their second or third choice by staying put.

Teams miss on QBs all the time. Some seem safer than others, for example Luck vs Mayfield, but not are 100%. I like Young but I don’t consider him as safe as a pick as a Lawrence or Luck.

That’s not how sports books work in regard to setting lines. They aren’t lowering odds to entice bets, most likely they are because money had been coming in on Levis for whatever reason. They lower the odds to reduce their risk.

Maybe, maybe not. Drafting a QB is a gamble, are you odds better with 2 rolls of the dice?

I’ll happily take Levis at 2 if we get Houston’s first next year. If we doesn’t play like we hope we can draft another next year.