mary owen Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 hey who says this all revolves around a QB and Nate? what if they wish to deal the disgruntled Lavar Arrington and try to grab one of the stud LB's in the draft? anything is possible when Snyder's involved. also, I think the Bills and NC have nothing to do with Washington's draft plans. People are reading too much into the GW connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Mickey, I agree with you on most of these points. What I was trying to say was that if you are going to use the #9 on CB, why not keep Nate? It may be me having a bad perception, but top 10 picks are NO cheaper than proven pro bowlers. I think , and again I could be wrong, everyone just assumes picks are cheaper. On the whole, that may be true, but not in the top 10 . Now, if you feel that no one gets that kind of money on your team, than trade for lots of picks outside of the first rd and try to grab his replacement there. Or, what I would do(as he will not probably restructure at this late date) is have him play out his contract and make decisions on him next year. 310217[/snapback] I agree, I wouldn't trade Nate for a high pick right now, no way. He is on the roster for at least another year and that makes a better team than we would be without him. Plenty of time to deal with this after the season. If we can't keep him then, there is always free agency and we could pick up a project guy like McGee in this year's draft. First round flops are a disaster for any team and if you trade Nater for a high pick, that is exactly what you are risking, a borderline pro bowler for a first round flop. Yikes. Why take that risk when we have a solid starter as it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Why take that risk when we have a solid starter as it is? because he's worth nothing to the bills after this season. If TD has the cap projected till next year and he sees that its impossible to sign NC, then he's forced to take the hit at CB this year and trade him at the draft for a prospect. Conversely, TD could sign NC to a long term deal to make him happy and we'd sacrafice depth and be in cap hell. Or we could just let him walk and get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 because he's worth nothing to the bills after this season. If TD has the cap projected till next year and he sees that its impossible to sign NC, then he's forced to take the hit at CB this year and trade him at the draft for a prospect. Conversely, TD could sign NC to a long term deal to make him happy and we'd sacrafice depth and be in cap hell. Or we could just let him walk and get nothing. 310388[/snapback] We have cap room next year and the league caps are going up substantially next year. If we want him we have the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 We have cap room next year and the league caps are going up substantially next year. If we want him we have the money. 310405[/snapback] 2006 TV contracts are up 50% so the cap will go up a good amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 We did do something similar last year. Here is the difference: We waited until the pick was on the clock. We did not make the trade 4 days before the draft and then leak the player we were after. TD might have been aware that this would reduce our leverage. 310292[/snapback] But your point was insanity about the trade not when the trade should happen. My comment was based on that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 But your point was insanity about the trade not when the trade should happen.My comment was based on that fact. 310418[/snapback] Mine was not the original point. I was simply replying to your post. With that said, timing is part of the insanity. If they truly want that QB (I realize it could be about something else) why not wait until the 24th pick has gone by and then call Denver? It has been well publicized that they wanted to move from that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 i see where you're coming from, but think of the ravens in 2000 -- lots of first rounders, and most of them were top ten selections (sam adams, mcallister, jamal lewis, ogden, duane starke, rod woodson -- the steelers drafted him, of course). ray lewis was a late first rounder, and jamie sharper was something like the first pick of the second round. now, they have terrell suggs, who was a top 10 pick. He's averaging over 10 sacks per season. Also, Ed Reed was a late-mid first rounder. bottom line -- first rounders are generally better players, and the ones drafted higher are the best of the bunch. 310366[/snapback] Dave, not saying first rounders do not have more talent, only that they get paid like they have already made the pro-bowl. While I hate the NBA, love the way they do rookie contracts. When is the last time you had a holdout in the NBA rookie class? Again, my only point is, except in rare cases, I would rather pay a proven pro bowl caliber player vs a rookie. I will say I am heavily influenced by Billy Beane and some of his concepts. He never drafts a kid out of high school, only college players, and again based strictly on productivity, not potential. Substitute current NFL players vs college players and I will take the guy with NFL experience, as long as he is 27 or younger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Dave, not saying first rounders do not have more talent, only that they get paid like they have already made the pro-bowl. While I hate the NBA, love the way they do rookie contracts. When is the last time you had a holdout in the NBA rookie class?Again, my only point is, except in rare cases, I would rather pay a proven pro bowl caliber player vs a rookie. I will say I am heavily influenced by Billy Beane and some of his concepts. He never drafts a kid out of high school, only college players, and again based strictly on productivity, not potential. Substitute current NFL players vs college players and I will take the guy with NFL experience, as long as he is 27 or younger 310525[/snapback] if this is in reference to clements, i wholeheartedly agree. if one was to judge his performance since being drafted and then redo that draft, it's a no-brainer that he would have been a top ten pick. i certainly think it's a wise move to keep him instead of moving him for draft picks. mind you, i think salary cap management excuse is a bit of a sham. teams get around it all of the time. it's pretty easy to manage it as long as you're not cutting players early who had big bonuses. since clements is pretty young, one would presume (barring serious injury) that if we did sign him to a big contract, he'd play through most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts