MHS831

They are already making the Pickett signs. It s a matter of time!!

I would like to see a study on RB career length by running style. Those upright runners that need size to succeed often take a beating. Short careers, I would assume.

I think he will be 28. I am not opposed to this. 240 lb back (think blocking too). 34 inch quads. who does that?

Nothing about that picture says, "Super Bowl Bound" and I could say the same obout Bryce and Pickett. I hope that we draft a guy who can develop and compete. Someone like Allar, for example. Has the tools, was hurt, just never put it all together. I think you keep shopping for QBs until you get that franchise QB. Bryce is entering year four and he has never been challenged. Sure, Dalton came in for a bit, but his career was dropping off--Pickett? Are we worried about insulting Bryce? Bring in some competition and when we find our franchise QB, THEN we bring in complimentary backups. I honestly believe they dont want the crowd screaming for the backup all game.

People take a young guy whose team was surrounded by more talent that the opposition 95% of the time in college, put him on a bad NFL team in his early 20s, and suddenly, he sucks. People develop at different rates. My experience is that success is usually determined by the system of support as much as anything else. When the coaches are desperate, the team is underqualified, and the fan base is brutally impatient and critical, I can see a player failing to reach expectations.

Mr. T Seriously, I did not realize there was a window open and I had teed it.

I think three or four of these names were considered first-rounders this year.

I know he is listed as a nose (0-1) but I see the athleticism.

worth the cap relief alone. I think we will draft (day 3 another qb)

I think--based on value more than need, perhaps, that we will go with a Tackle --either defensive or offensive---early. I think we could trade back--watch the Ty Simpson action--if he gets by 15, a team like the Cardinals or Jets could move up. (Save this post and use it against me after the draft.)

Glad you said this because this is where I am--question--would you call McDonald a 1 or 3? I think he could play the DE and we could use Wharton as a change of pace and passing down guy--but I don't know enough about it in relation to Evero's scheme--what say you?

CB seems to growing as a need--maybe I am just realizing it. I would be happy with an Edge or OT --but that is just me, I assume.

Bingo!! I miss mom's Spam casserole.

I could debate this, but first I must know: Are we talking Black Forest?

Defense and it is not even close--not even based on last year, how we have recently drafted, etc. On D, we could use a starting FS, LB, and DT. Depth at CB. On O, we need our future LT and possibly RT, but neither is likely to start right away. Center? depth and maybe next year's starter. Starting TE.

Good thought and I agree. Nothing about this process compromises that premise. In fact, the process involves meeting more needs so you can do that. If I can get an Edge on a rookie contract when my biggest need is LB, then I have enough $$ saved on the overall cap to get an elite rookie edge in the draft and sign a veteran LB in free agency. If I draft the LB first, my biggest need, then my savings against the cap (when looking at the 53-man roster) is minimal. I have not saved enough $$ to sign the edge in free agency, so I have to try to draft the edge later, getting a lesser player. Even if you draft an edge and the roster is full of them, you have trade capital because a lot of teams need a good edge. This lends credence to the BPA theory if it is aligned with positions that are expensive on second contracts. In the cap era, you have to think it through-it is like a puzzle. That is why I did not like it when Marty was drafting RBs (Willliams and Stewart) in the first round. If you recall, that necessitated moving up for Otah, trading away next year's first rounder to do so. That is the draft we really needed an edge, but since we did not have a first rounder, we took Everette Brown to fill that need. Then it got worse. We had 2 RBs on second contracts, Brown busted, that led to drafting Clausen, etc. If you can get 2 starters for the price of one, that is what I would call smart--not overthinking, if I understand you. I do agree, but that does not mean draft your trench players first. It could mean draft an edge and use the cap savings to sign a trench player.

I am not sure about the TE or CB in round 1, but the rest is spot on. Wonder why he did not mention S? Does he think we are set there with Scott? Wonder why he did not mention DE? Does he think Wharton and D Brown got it? Personally, I do not think Walker prevents us from drafting an OT no more that M. Jackson and Horn suggest that we draft a CB. I would understand it, but with Walker on a 1-year deal and Ickey a question mark (average when healthy), and Moton starting to get SS checks... I think we HAVE to go DT and OT in rounds 1 and 2. That is right. I said it.

I like this. Really like the Stanford TE, McDonald, and Iheanachor --

this made me re-thing a lot of stuff. the S issue is one of them.

then this is likely his last job. (Kidding--long story about ASU and me--still not over it) He was very good last year.

Pricey for a punter. 1 year deal?

BPA!!! Wouldn't life be great if it were that simple? Need??? To some degree. I realize that we like life simple: Instant oatmeal. self-stick envelopes. I get it. BPA people: Go back and look at teams' needs in prior drafts--even when they scream BPA!, they end up drafting for need. I guess you should say, "BPA4U" (Best Player Available for Us). There are many variables. You should know the skill sets for your system. You should understand your locker room and gauge character. In my view, another consideration should play into your decision of how you rate a player to be the "best" and the cost of meeting your overall needs. All needs are not equal. The talent pool drops off and dries up at different points for different positions. Each draft is unique. We have inflation for some positions in free agency, yet the rookie pay scale is based on a formula that is not determined by position or player evaluations: The 1st overall pick receives the highest salary, with each subsequent pick earning less, regardless of position. Therefore, if you have seven needs, and three are at positions that pay veterans a ton of money--you should draft those players over those who play positions that would not save you much money. You have to consider the savings and what that means to the cap as a whole--not just focus on BPA or need. These numbers are based on the average salary of all players and then only the starters by position: Now take a look at what the players make based on the position they are drafted: Sorry they did this in pink. So let's say the Jets think Sadiq is the BPA on their board with the second pick. He meets their biggest need, aside from QB, but there are no QBs close to checking the BPA box. Are you going to pay a rookie TE $13m per year for 4 years ($52m guaranteed)? According to the chart above, a STARTING TE costs half that. So Need and BPA are not the only factors (this was an example only). It makes more sense to draft, especially in the first round, a QB, edge, WR, OT, or DT if they are one of your needs and one of the BPAs. At worst you are getting close to market value if they start. Looking at the Panthers needs, expected BPAs at #19, and cost vs. what a starting-level free agent makes, we are spending about $5m per year. Many of us want to draft a S there--if the rookie starts, we'd save about $1.7m per year. The difference would add a bottom-of-the-roster depth player. If we drafted a LB, for example, the difference is $1.4m. I see our needs (right now) as follows: S, ILB Will, OT, C, TE, and DT. Of those needs, a veteran starter at OT or DT would save us the most. For example, an OT veteran who starts averages $13m. We'd get the player for 4 years (not including the 5th year option for this) and we'd save $8m per year. To be honest, Walker is an average OT and we got him for a bargain at $10m. So if we draft an OT, we not only have a starter for next year (regardless of Ickey), we have 2 starting-level LTs on the roster NOW for $15m. If the OT we draft works out and we do not re-sign Walker, we save $8m x 3 years--$24m. So the BPA model might be the code you live or die by, but I ask it this way: Would you rather have a Safety and $1.4m in cap room savings or an OT and $8m per year cap savings? Both are needs. Both would be rated in the middle of the draft's first round. The OT and the $8m in savings would get you a starting OT AND the $8m would get you a starting free agency safety, if you think about it. If you step back and see the big picture, use the rookie scale to your advantage, you can improve your roster beyond merely taking the BPA, whatever that means. Looking at the Panther's draft, if they draft OT in round 1, DT in round 2, and both start, they could save about $16m of cap space per year when compared to what average veteran free agents would cost. LB, C, TE, and S can come later, if you follow this blueprint. I am not saying that I would draft based solely on this concept, but I am saying that it would be a variable--a big one.

I literally do not remember anything about him