Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Grading how the draft was run


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was honestly kind of frustrated with trading down so late in the draft. Obviously they are the ones that know best, I just saw so many prospects that I liked.

I just don’t understand gambling and trading down when there is someone you like on the board. I guess they won’t admit how many times the gamble didn’t pay off. 

I think it’s great to look at it as a numbers game, but it’s so likely that most of these players won’t work out. I kind of wish they tried to get who they wanted at the top of the draft vs just going with quantity over quality. 

I’m looking forward to this being the best draft class ever, just feels different I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really buy that there wasn’t a player taken between our original 2nd round pick and the 52 pick that we were hoping to get at 52. I think the second trade back in the 2nd round was a reaction to the guys they wanted at that pick no longer being there. Based on that I would have to give a pretty low grade on how the draft was run. I think the best trade back spot was the first round where we could have, for example, traded back with the Bears and picked up an extra first round pick next year and gotten Caleb Farley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...