Elliot @ 4, and the cap ramifications

[Craig]

I realize that, and I'm not pretending to be a scout. I want us to do exactly that, take the highest rated player, even if that player is a Rb.

I was agreeing with you...

 

[CWR]

Rated by whom? Everyone who has anything to do with this draft? There's no question that both quarterbacks qualify to be taken at #4. But you keep glossing over the fact that dollars and draft investment shoot this premise to $#|+.

Paying more money and the #4 draft pick for any running back is just plain dumb.

I'm not glossing over the dollars for the draft investment.

We would pay the same for:

Elliot plus 2nd round DL
as
Bosa plus Henry.

 

[CWR]

I was agreeing with you...

Sorry, I'm having a difficult time making my point. I'll admit it has holes too. The only reason I even considered this mindset is that regardles of our cap room we won't pay a premier FA. Our line is going to consist of our current guys plus our draft and some bargain bin players. Everyone like to pretend we are saving money by getting a DE in the draft because now we won't have to get one in FA, but the fact is we won't get one in FA anyways.

 

[CWR]

We might pay more up front for Elliott but the 5th year option and franchise tag for the 6th could be much cheaper.

3 of the top RB salaries have retired and Murray's deal was reduced. The 5th year option for players in the top 1/2 of the draft is equal to the transition tag. That would put it around 8m for RBs, compared to 18m for QBs or 14m for DEs.

So for 4yrs its 25m for anyone but with the option picked up it is:

5/33m and 6/42m for RBs
5/39m and 6/56m for DEs
5/43m and 6/65m for QBs

Good point, quality rbs are being paid well.

 

[Hardline]

This is a lie.

No. What is a lie is you purposely misrepresenting what that quote was about.

 

[Hardline]

It doesn't. It just makes you look worse.

No. You purposely misrepresenting the analogy I used which is 100% correct makes you look worse.

 

[Stash]

Clearly I'm speaking about the highest rated player according to the team! What's plain dumb is taking a player that makes since due to need or money but doesn't make sense when it comes to the players actual abilities. If Zeke is the highest rated player it's better to pay him and get production rather than pay Bosa for example and have him bust. Is it more prudent financially to pay a Bobby Carpenter or a RB that's is a near lock to be a great player? (I'm not saying Bosa will be a bust either) I'm only saying pick a stud and don't settle for a lesser player.

It just doesn't work or make sense. No matter where they have him rated. The salary, the draft cost, and the availability of the position vs others all show that it would be a bad decision, even if he was Adrian Peterson.

 

[Stash]

No. What is a lie is you purposely misrepresenting what that quote was about.

I copied your own post. Try again.

 

[Stash]

No. You purposely misrepresenting the analogy I used which is 100% correct makes you look worse.

I hear the sound of gears jamming in reverse.

 

[Hardline]

I copied your own post. Try again.

As soon as you respond there is no reason to try again. What I already said still stands.

 

[Hardline]

I hear the sound of gears jamming in reverse.

Nope. That sound is my foot on the accelerater

 

[Nightman]

It just doesn't work or make sense. No matter where they have him rated. The salary, the draft cost, and the availability of the position vs others all show that it would be a bad decision, even if he was Adrian Peterson.

Anything North of Murray but South of APeterson and he is worth the contract. If he is equal to Peterson it is not even close.

Just because you might be able to find someone that could do it for less it doesn't minimize the impact 1500 yds and 12+ TDs would have on this offense.

The thing is we have #4 and #34. Elliott will go somewhere in between but a lot closer to #4.

 

[CWR]

It just doesn't work or make sense. No matter where they have him rated. The salary, the draft cost, and the availability of the position vs others all show that it would be a bad decision, even if he was Adrian Peterson.

Yep your right, we should definitely draft less highly rated players. That's clearly the key to a championship take the better deal not the better player. I think we are done here.

 

[Stash]

As soon as you respond there is no reason to try again. What I already said still stands.

Blah, blah, blah....

Your own post was quoted. If it was 'wrong', it's because you were wrong.

 

[Stash]

Nope. That sound is my foot on the accelerater

While driving off the cliff.

 

[Stash]

Anything North of Murray but South of APeterson and he is worth the contract. If he is equal to Peterson it is not even close.

Just because you might be able to find someone that could do it for less it doesn't minimize the impact 1500 yds and 12+ TDs would have on this offense.

The thing is we have #4 and #34. Elliott will go somewhere in between but a lot closer to #4.

None of it makes sense.

And he's not close to any of the hypotheticals you're giving anyway.

 

[Stash]

Yep your right, we should definitely draft less highly rated players. That's clearly the key to a championship take the better deal not the better player. I think we are done here.

You were done as soon as you started. Your premise just doesn't work.

 

[CWR]

You were done as soon as you started. Your premise just doesn't work.

It's all good buddy, we can agree to disagree. You'd rather be more financially prudent and I'd rather take the better player. At the end of the day what we want equates to a pile of steaming dog crap.

 

[Stash]

It's all good buddy, we can agree to disagree. You'd rather be more financially prudent and I'd rather take the better player. At the end of the day what we want equates to a pile of steaming dog crap.

Very reasonable and sensible take.

 

[mattjames2010]

Anything North of Murray but South of APeterson and he is worth the contract. If he is equal to Peterson it is not even close.

Just because you might be able to find someone that could do it for less it doesn't minimize the impact 1500 yds and 12+ TDs would have on this offense.

The thing is we have #4 and #34. Elliott will go somewhere in between but a lot closer to #4.

Once again, these guys are being found outside of the first round.

McCoy - 1,600 yards, 9 TDs
Bell - 1,300 yards, 8 TDs - 854 receiving yards
Murray - 1,800 yards, 13 TDs
Charles - 1,400 +1,500 yard seasons
Martin - 2 1,400 yard seasons
Foster - 1,600 yard season

Only one of them were taken in the first and he was in the late rounds. Why the hell would you give a big contract to a rookie RB when nearly every quality back in this league were most productive on cheap rookie deals? We talk about overspending on here a lot, people whining about Dunbar, and we're here talking giving RBs contracts that normally go to premium positions?

There is no reason to give Zeke that kind of contract when you're most likely to find someone who gives you similar production outside of the first.