thebandit27 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, matter2003 said: I guess my thought process is that at some point those huge numbers they are putting up are going to start dropping(which can be off a cliff for WR's), but their contract value is not. I'd personally prefer not to trade any picks for a WR, but if I wanted a true #1, it would have to be for a younger WR...I don't want to pay for past performance while future performance would be much less valuable... I guess the problem I have is that you are trading a #1 pick AND then taking on a massive contract for unknown future production. Basically you are taking on a contract they got for past production, but you have no idea whether or not they will earn that money, which is the case anytime you sign a player, but those negotiations didn't include age as a factor at that time. Yeah that's where we differ: I'm much more willing to wager a pick and a contract that a WR that's been super-productive for a half-decade will continue to be a legit WR1 for 2+ years than I am to bet picks and a contract on a guy that's never been a WR1; especially if that guy is only 29 like Julio or 30 like AJ Green and Antonio.
Rufridr101 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 I think Golden Tate might be a nice veteran to add. Quality lockeroom guy, 30 years old, Superbowl experience, tenacious blocker. Plus his stats were down this year which probably makes him affordable.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Rufridr101 said: I think Golden Tate might be a nice veteran to add. Quality lockeroom guy, 30 years old, Superbowl experience, tenacious blocker. Plus his stats were down this year which probably makes him affordable. Trade down from 9 to get two mid to low firsts, take a WR and a OL in the first along with signing Tate and you have a potential #1 WR, Tate, Foster and Zay, which would be a big upgrade.
formerlyofCtown Posted January 3, 2019 Author Posted January 3, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, thebandit27 said: I guess I'm still confused. You think that Foster can be better than Anderson (which I don't think is ridiculous by the way), but you also think that it's common sense to prefer trading a 2nd round pick for a WR that averages 700 yards and 5 TDs per year (plus has multiple off-field issues) over trading a 1st round pick for one of the 3 best WRs in football simply due to age? Maybe the corollary I'm drawing isn't evident the way I'm presenting it: if you can so easily find a WR that can put up Anderson/Foster type numbers, why trade a 2nd round pick for him? It's very uncommon, however, to find a WR that can put up Julio/AB/Hopkins/OBJ type numbers, let alone to do so past the 1st round, which is why I think it makes more sense. Again, I'm not trying to blast you here; I simply don't understand the duality of thinking here. Already forgot the season with McKown as his QB huh, how convenient for your arguement. Edited January 3, 2019 by formerlyofCtown
thebandit27 Posted January 3, 2019 Posted January 3, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said: Already forgot the season withMcKown as his QB huh, how convenient for your arguement. Care to explain? He averages 700 yards and 5 TDs per season--this includes the McCown year. #maths If we're going full snark I could reply that pointing to his one season of three with 900 yards is quite convenient to your argument. Or we can just discuss the merits and leave that stuff out. Edited January 3, 2019 by thebandit27
CommonCents Posted January 3, 2019 Posted January 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Care to explain? He averages 700 yards and 5 TDs per season--this includes the McCown year. #maths If we're going full snark I could reply that pointing to his one season of three with 900 yards is quite convenient to your argument. Or we can just discuss the merits and leave that stuff out. 941 yards and three of those games Bryce Petty was the starting QB. Petty averaged 176 YPG in that 3 game stretch. 1
thebandit27 Posted January 3, 2019 Posted January 3, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, CommonCents said: 941 yards and three of those games Bryce Petty was the starting QB. Petty averaged 176 YPG in that 3 game stretch. Yep. It's all part of the evaluation. Look, I'm an Anderson guy. Very good player. But he's the kind of guy that can be found in the mid rounds is my point. Edited January 3, 2019 by thebandit27
formerlyofCtown Posted January 3, 2019 Author Posted January 3, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Care to explain? He averages 700 yards and 5 TDs per season--this includes the McCown year. #maths Sure to start with its 760 not 700. His Rookie year drags that way down given it was 587 yards. 2017-63-941-7 matbe you dont think thats an important detail. 2018-50-752-6 he only played in 14 games also something that should be considered. So you could fairly say in 16 games it could have been 57-850-7. With a rookie QB. So where he is likely ar now is a projection of 60-900-7. That is saying he doesnt develope further, which I think he will. I believe his numbers would be much better with Allen as his QB (if he doesnt drop a ton of passes). Now if you wanted to argue catch percentage you would have a valid concern of mine. Try to take everything into account. Because that is exactly what an NFL GM would do. 25 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: 14 minutes ago, CommonCents said: 941 yards and three of those games Bryce Petty was the starting QB. Petty averaged 176 YPG in that 3 game stretch. Good to hear some common sense. NPI 25 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Care to explain? He averages 700 yards and 5 TDs per season--this includes the McCown year. #maths If we're going full snark I could reply that pointing to his one season of three with 900 yards is quite convenient to your argument. Or we can just discuss the merits and leave that stuff out. That stuff would ruin your arguement huh. Given that season was recent and he has only had three seasons as well as the fact that with a full 16 games he probably would have had closer to the 941 in '17. Cant help but notice you keep rounding down. probably dont like how close he got to 1000. Edited January 3, 2019 by formerlyofCtown
thebandit27 Posted January 3, 2019 Posted January 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said: Sure to start with its 760 not 700. His Rookie year drags that way down given it was 587 yards. 2017-63-941-7 matbe you dont think thats an important detail. 2018-50-752-6 he only played in 14 games also something that should be considered. So you could fairly say in 16 games it could have been 57-850-7. With a rookie QB. So where he is likely ar now is a projection of 60-900-7. That is saying he doesnt develope further, which I think he will. I believe his numbers would be much better with Allen as his QB (if he doesnt drop a ton of passes). Now if you wanted to argue catch percentage you would have a valid concern of mine. Try to take everything into account. Because that is exactly what an NFL GM would do. Good to hear some common sense. NPI And what I'll tell you is to look at the WRs that are putting up 800-900 yards per season--most of them are names like Landry, Lockett, Shepard, Sanders, Edelman, Jeffery, Godwin, Sanu, & Humphries. You can find these guys pretty readily. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave now to avoid ruffling any more feathers 1
formerlyofCtown Posted January 3, 2019 Author Posted January 3, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: And what I'll tell you is to look at the WRs that are putting up 800-900 yards per season--most of them are names like Landry, Lockett, Shepard, Sanders, Edelman, Jeffery, Godwin, Sanu, & Humphries. You can find these guys pretty readily. That's all I'm saying. I'll leave now to avoid ruffling any more feathers Thank you for acknowledging the numbers. Im not certain I would give up our second rounder as high as we are picking but if it was lower in the round I would in a heartbeat. The Jets will likely tender him at a 1st round level if the new staff likes him. Edited January 3, 2019 by formerlyofCtown
Alphadawg7 Posted January 3, 2019 Posted January 3, 2019 4 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said: Trade down from 9 to get two mid to low firsts, take a WR and a OL in the first along with signing Tate and you have a potential #1 WR, Tate, Foster and Zay, which would be a big upgrade. Not bad, but this is better. Sign BOTH Tate and Humphries and resign McKenzie. Then trade down in round one a little and take Fant or even take him at 9 if need be. Meanwhile also go sign a quality RB like Ingram to work in a committee with McCoy. QB Allen RB - McCoy and Ingram tandem (McCoy playing more that Kamara role while Ingram is the down hill runner who can also catch) TE - Fant WR1 - Tate WR2 - Foster WR3/Slot - Humphries WR4 - Zay (he is not a starting caliber WR IMO) WR5/ST - McKenzie Divison title is as good as ours. Didn't give up any picks or break the bank at WR and still maybe have acquired more picks if we traded down in the first. You can still add another WR in the draft too as its a deep draft at WR once you get out of the top 15 picks.
Recommended Posts