woahfraze

Moton is a free agent. He isn't our's to trade.

This isn't about the stats, which were pretty close between the two. Yes, both got to play on loaded offenses, but Burrow flashed a lot more tools than Jones over the course of the year. More of Jones' throws weren't high difficulty throws and he didn't demonstrate the same level of mobility, pocket escapability, improvisation, and ability to throw on the run. Burrow was super aggressive pushing the ball down the field, even when on the run, and any of his deep throws were into tight coverage. He demonstrated insane ball placement on his throws. His high completion percentage is much more impressive than Mac Jones because of those types of throws.

I definitely like the idea of pick conditionality, but I'm not sure Detroit would agree to it. And then there's the issue of Teddy. I'm of the belief that including him in a trade means we will have to include more draft capital, not less. Yes, that's right, I think Teddy has negative value. His contract is not super onerous in a vacuum, but including him in a trade is basically asking a team to give up a player of value and accept a salary dump, because Teddy doesn't have very much positive value/isn't worth his contract.

This is my reserve price on him. I think he's a very good QB. And even though the positional value for QBs is sky high, especially given the sort of turnover we're going to see among that group this offseason, I'm not giving up a 1st for Stafford. EDIT: I could maybe be persuaded that Stafford is worth a late first round pick. But definitely not 8. And I doubt Detroit would accept a future 1st. And there's no guarantee that if we traded a future first, that it would end up being that much later in the round.

The money works out, so the trade works under NBA cap rules. Indiana gets cap relief in the form of Zeller's expiring and a young guard that can be a microwave scorer off the bench. Hornets get a competent big man who can provide some rim protection and stretch the floor a bit (albeit on an inconsistent basis). I think it's a win-win. Only question I'd have is whether the 1st round is too much for Charlotte to give up. I'd try to do it with a 2nd rounder. If the Pacers insist, make sure you've got good protection on the pick--lottery protected next year, top 10 the year after, etc.

I re-read my post. It did come off like I'm an a-hole. No need to treat Jon Snow that way, even if he knows nothing.

I wasn't speaking to what we would need to trade to get Watson. Simply pointing out that cap space arguments like that shouldn't be used to prevent us from making/exploring the trade. Roster management must occur regardless of whether our QB is DeShaun Watson or in a couple years, a QB like a Zach Wilson that could also require a large contract.

Less concerned about the turnovers--it's the NBA, and with a fast paced style like Lamelo plays, you can live with some TOs that come from being aggressive and pushing the ball. Where I think Borrego and the staff are concerned is the defense. They feel it's bad enough that the trade off between a better offense with Lamelo on the floor isn't worth the porous defense. I don't have the on/off +/- and other advanced stats to back it up, but that's what they eye test says. It's what I was concerned about before the draft. I was saying Lamelo couldn't be a star if he didn't improve his defense because it would cancel out his offense. For what it's worth, I've been willing to eat crow on my Lamelo stance, because his offense has been better than I expected even with inconsistency with his shooting. And he's doing much better at such a young age than I expected. He's got a lot of time to improve on all aspects of his game.

This is silly. We'd be in the same situation with any franchise QB, not just Watson. To win in the NFL, you have to have a franchise QB. To have a franchise QB (unless they are on a rookie deal, in which case you're probably only getting a year or two of high level play before you have to pay them), you have to pony up the cap space to keep them on the roster. And allocating that cap space to a franchise QB means having to make tough decisions about other players that also need to get payed. You can either pay all the top guys and skimp on depth, only keep the QB and try to spread around the remaining cap around a larger of mid-level guys, try to stagger and structure deals so that the cap hits vary year to year to fit it all in under the cap, or hope to draft well enough that you're constantly getting outsized contributions for your dollars from players on rookie deals. Usually it's a combination of these strategies. TL/DR, your logic is dumb.

I don't understand how people aren't willing to give up a young talent to get Watson. The importance of a good QB cannot be overstated. The QB position is just so much more valuable than a WR, DE, or RB (yes, even when you have a do-it-all talent who does heavy lifting in the passing game too). Thought exercise: if you swap any one of DJ Moore, Brian Burns, or CMC for Watson and then compare the two rosters (pre-swap vs. post-swap) side by side, which roster would you rather have. You rather have the one with Watson 10 times out of 10. And yes, 1st round picks are important. And we've been pretty good at picking impact players with ours. But there's no guarantee that we find a star player or even a competent one with our first round picks moving forward. I'd rather invest that draft capital in a proven commodity at the most important position in football. No, I wouldn't trade two of our young talented core players for Watson. And yes, there is a limit on how much draft capital I am willing to unload for him. But some of you are really overvaluing our players and picks.

0 for 8.

I'm not a scout, but when I look at Wilson's highlights, I see a lot of impressive physical tools. He's got a strong arm and can make NFL throws that some college QBs can't--outside the numbers from the far hash with velocity, for example. He's got athleticism to escape the pocket and throw the ball accurately on the run. There's a lot to like. What's harder to tell from the highlights for us non-scouts/those who can't watch every play from an All-22 angle, is his understanding of offensive concepts and progressions. The highlights make it seem like he's fine in this regard, but they're highlights. We don't see the plays where he may struggle. If the coaches and front office feel like he's got the mental ability and he interviews well, I see no reason why someone with his physical tools can't be a franchise QB.

And? Jameis threw 30 picks to go along with those TDs. Watson only threw 12. He was far better by pretty much every conceivable metric.

People get paid to write three paragraphs of opinion that 1) is pure speculation and 2) doesn't provide any detailed supporting evidence for the assertion? I'm in the wrong line of work. He may be right or he may be wrong, but how about a breakdown of our available assets and analysis of why they wouldn't be enough? We have plenty in the coffer should we decide to use them. Just because Miami or some other team has more doesn't mean they are willing to use them all.

Oh, it's largely extreme right-wing nonsense. I just grabbed it from google because it succinctly showed that Neil Ferguson did not walk back his "doomsday" prediction. His original model covered a handful of different scenarios ranging from zero governmental and/or societal response to a China-style martial law-esque forced quarantine. The media obviously ran with the doomsday scenario for clicks. In his testimony, he discussed the model he felt most similarly described the UK's current response. Of course, rather than actually searching out the full details of the situation, some of those among us prefer to run with the first inciting or misleading tweet or blogpost that passes in front of their eyes because it confirms a certain worldview.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-neil-ferguson-did-not-walk-back-covid-19-predictions/ Or you could rely on more than a second hand blog post for what Neil Ferguson actually said.