thebandit27

I don't know how "good" you'd call these guys, but here's what I've got: Seantrel Henderson (2014, R7) has started 26 games in his first 2 seasons Arthur Moats (2010, R6) has started 40 games over 6 years with 2 teams; coming off back-to-back 4-sack seasons as a role player Ellis Lankster (2009, R7) played for 5 seasons, and had back-to-back years with the Jets in which he played 15 games Then you get all the way back to Stevie and Demetrius/Demetress Bell in 2007 (R7) and Kyle Williams in 2006 (R5).

This really does put things into context, doesn't it?

You're both right. I thought Dez looked absolutely lost last year, and had completely written him off. That said, the biggest positive that I can glean from what the media reports is that Dez is apparently impressing the staff enough that his reps with the 1's are increased significantly, so that tells me that the staff is seeing something. Now, how that evolves as the offseason progresses is anyone's guess at this point, but it would be enormous if a guy with Dez's measurables could become a contributor. It would also shock my socks off.

Not sure Pittsburgh would do that--they're pretty frugal with how they invest both picks and money, and they just spent a first on Burns this year

I think it's more about the investment of both picks and gtd money than it is about one or the other. Obviously QB has much greater positional value than any other spot, so I think teams are much more willing to do what's necessary to get their guy. For me, I think Gilmore's a top-7 CB. I think it's possible that a team will be willing to make a deal for him and pay him, but much of it will depend upon the market, his health, and how close that team believes they are to winning a championship

I'm not backtracking at all. The fact that Seattle hadn't paid Sherman yet doesn't change the point. If you want to ignore the results on the field, that's fine, but I think it's obtuse to do so. So what position is it okay to pay? Not LT Not CB Besides QB, who are you okay with giving a market-level deal?

Been calling for it since March, so yeah, I'm on board

No, the argument is that the teams that compete for (and win) championships have no trouble paying their elite corners top-5 and top-10 money because they know the value they bring to the table. And to WEO, let's not bang the "where are the rings" drum too loudly; Peterson and Norman both played in the NFC Championship game last year, and Norman's team went to the Super Bowl. In no small part thanks to their play by the way. The only reason that a team wouldn't deal a 1st for Gilmore (or any other player of his caliber) is that they'd have to part with the pick AND a hefty sum of guaranteed money, whereas drafting a player in the 1st round is a very small monetary investment. If you have any doubts about how he's viewed around the league, we'll revisit them after he signs his next contract

Talib was the 9th highest paid CB last year, so 2012 would be the answer to my question. The Super Bowl champions of the last 3 seasons think you're wrong.

Who was the last Super Bowl winner that wasn't paying an elite CB top-10 money when they won the title?

Sort of like they prioritized it heavily in this year's draft, waiting until the 6th round to take one? Also, CB is by far the most commonly drafted position, so that's hardly a bold prediction

Gah. I hate this--I really want Gilmore back next year, and while I understand why he wants $15M AAV, that's a ton of money. I'd feel a lot better if a Robey were playing good football the last two years, as that would leave a worst case scenario of needing one starting corner next year. If Gilmore leaves, we really need one of Seymour/White/Moore/Arenas/Butler to step up

Agreed Maybe they feel like they can try to pick up a guy like Darius Slay or Robert Alford in FA and save some cash

If this is indeed the case, then I'd definitely tag him next season and try to move him for a draft pick. Not tagging him may mean a high compensatory pick in 2018, but that's a 3rd rounder at best. Odds are you can fetch better in a trade--though the mega-deal he wants will make it tougher to get trade value, as it always does (see Josh Norman). Disappointing though--I hate losing good players

They really only suffer if they cut him this year (which they won't do). He counts against the cap regardless, but will indeed save money if he's cut any time after this season. $1M saved if he's cut after 2016 $3.7M saved if he's cut after 2017 $6.4M saved if he's cut after 2018

He's under contract through the 2017-18 season

Oh heck no I'm only part-time consulting anymore I still do it because it's profitable, but I pay a lot more attention to my wellness consulting business--it's a heckuva lot more fun and far easier

I just think that Roman did a nice job, and I don't want Rex to think he had to overreach to prove that he can turn things around after 2015

Well, you did warn me. I don't know man--that Shah-spleen-removal take was pretty incredible

I have a dual degree in engineering and math, so yeah, statistics are like a second language to me. And yes, I watched every play of Jack's final two seasons at UCLA--more than once. As to my batting average when it comes to draft prospects, I'd say I'm coin-flip accurate. You can decide for yourself if that's good or not. In the meantime, I'll end my discourse with you until the time that you formulate an argument that is grounded in more than mere speculation about theories that you haven't vetted.

You're pretty confident that I wouldn't? Based on what? The fact that I have a working knowledge of many of the draft prospects? What it sounds like you're saying is that you'd let a computer run your draft, and not bother with the scouting process. What it further sounds like you're saying is that you basically believe that Shaq shouldn't have been selected based upon a set of criteria that you don't know, understand, or care to know or understand. #analytics You don't know what the #analytics would tell you to do, you don't know what they predict for Shaq (or anyone else), and wouldn't bother finding out unless you were the person making the pick. And in light of that, you can confidently say that Shaq shouldn't have been the pick? That is the most fundamentally flawed logic toward arguing...well...anything that I've ever heard. This pick sucks, because someone else should've been picked. I strongly suspect algorithms designed to measure just such likelihoods would have offered several better bets in statistical terms to draft in the same situation, but I can neither prove nor intelligently discuss them because I'm not the guy making the pick. All I know is that this pick sucks because #analytics. Yeah, we're done here.

"If you don't like something, change it. If you cannot change it, change your attitude toward it." - Maya Angelou

There is absolutely zero chance he signs for that--here or anywhere else.

The big loss along the Ravens' OL was Osemele; best guard in the NFL IMO. They'll still be strong up front. Stanley will start at LT and should be solid. The question will be at LG, where John Urschel will attempt to replace Osemele. I'm not a huge Ricky Wagner fan at RT, but he seems to get the job done much of the time.

So what you're saying amounts to that you don't know who they should've picked; you only know that it shouldn't have been Shaq. This is apparently all based upon the idea that he's going to miss 4-6 games of his rookie season, and has absolutely zero to do with what level of player he will become when healthy. That is, IMO, a terrible way to run an organization. Now, if it were your opinion that Shaq simply isn't going to become a good player when healthy, well, that'd be a different discussion altogether, and at least it would make sense.