whatdrought

If the picks will be defaulted anyways, is there anyway for a trade to happen? I sent him a message offering one, but I haven't heard back.

But if he was put on the clock last night at 5:22, wouldn't that make the first pick due at 9:30 last night? I'm fine giving him until noon, just making sure I know the rules.

I had a vested interest in these picks, so I am alright waiting to see if he shows up.

How are there so many answers after this?... Who cares about anything but winning? The patriots become what they need to be to win each year. Let’s do that.

I’m actually at a point where I trust the FO to do what’s best for the team (somebody pinch me) as they have all along. That being said, I don’t love Metcalf as a player, I don’t care for his injury history, and I don’t like the value of WR at 9 (especially with a lot of good talent to be had in round two). But if that’s who the commish announces for the Bills at 9, I’ll be a giant DK Metcalf fan. This guy at SI (which I forgot existed) saying it doesn’t make me any more confident it’ll happen- probably less actually.

well yeah, players who are worth less would obviously like to get paid more. That doesn’t change the issue of players who are worth more being forced to play on one year deals. I don’t think it’s a huge issue, but it’s just always been surprising to me that the NFLPA doesn’t take more offense to it. Some of the more public happenings of tag issues lately may change that. As I said in the op, even something like lowering the comp for a tagee to one first would make a huge difference. Imagine if Demarcus Lawrence was out there for 1 1. Tell me someone wouldn’t try for that and see if Dallas matches their offer. Make it more of a transition tag meets RFA type deal.

The reasons that players don’t like the tag is that it limits them to one year deals. There’s no long term stability. Theres no guarantees beyond the one stretch. Don’t play the “15m is plenty” card because we’re talking about market value relative to their career and what they’re “worth.” Obviously if someone wanted to pay me 30 million or whatever for one year of work, I’d be glad to do that. But I’m not worth a long term deal that would guarantee my future at a very high rate. Thats definitely true. I was just watching a video about the supplemental draft of USFL players and how pissed they were (Steve Young included) that they didn’t become FA. I think there’s definitely a balance to it, but I have always thought the franchise tag is one specific area of overreach that is questionable at best.

I don’t know that the “small market” narrative holds any weight anymore. I think players play where they feel they have the best chance of being a star. New England and Indianapolis weren’t huge Mecca’s of football stardom before producing two of the best QB’s ever. More to rhe point, regardless of that protection, it’s still hardly fair to say that a player doesn’t ultimately have the right to play where he wants when his agreed upon contract expires. And the current franchise tag leads to bad faith negotiations where the team holds all the power (ala Redskins). Imagine if Cousins had gotten a career ending injury while playing on the tag. The tag, in effect, restricts a players freedom to excercise his rights to market his goods on the free market. I understand that under the current rules, it’s a part of the process, but I would be hard pressed to approve of a CBA that doesn’t change what that looks like.

An interesting thought I had today, and a nice distraction from the worst time of the offseason, was wondering what kind of barter it would take on the behalf of the NFLPA to make the Franchise tag (at least how we know it) go away? I would be surprised if that wasn’t a big topic of consideration in the next CBA, but it’s hard to imagine the owners letting it go without something big in return... Any thoughts on this? i think at very least it needs to be radically changed. Make it a one and done, or make the compensation for a team to sign a franchise tagged player less (1 first, instead of 2) to make teams think twice about using it for big time players.

And the ***** that falls from their polluting behinds must be good luck charms...

Harry is a good flashy piece to take the heat off the OBJ trade, and he rounds out the weapons nicely.

Rosen Gary Ferrell and Harry... Not bad...

The Colts and @aristocrat are on the clock. Lots of good receiver talent on the board.

something lame and stupid, no doubt.

A thoroughly productive day for a millennial communist.

See, this kind of ***** (no pun intended) is why Western Civilization is better. It's not an abstract sense of superiority, it's reality.

Gore really screwed the Gaines thing up...

Hockenson and Oliver have reached the top of my wishlist. I’d be happy with either.

So you're saying you missed the part where I traded for picks 33-64?

What hokie said. I meant that in hindsight, I should have stayed put so I’d have 3 picks in rd 2.

Yeah, and I wouldn't hate to get a target for Carr either. I'm kicking myself for trading up for Burns, cause I likely coulda had him or Ferrell at 24. I'd rather have White, Ferrell, and 3 second round picks.

Wilkins with Burns and White would have rebuilt my defense, but I like the idea of splitting that value into two picks.

There's no evidence of this. the auto correct that is. ? I was on the fence about trading back, but Wilkins was my main target. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

The Raiders have traded the 27th pick to the Vikings in exchange for picks 50, 53, and 190. The Raiders are pleased to diversify our holdings and open ourselves to getting great players in the second round.

Made you playing Gary inside, or outside?