SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 9, 2024 6:51:25 GMT -5
I'd say that's why there are so many QB busts and why so many QBs rise up ranking after the season. It's the we need one, so just take one who cares if it makes sense value wise. You trade down potentially if you feel like I do, that Daniels and McCarthy aren't top 3 pick type QBs. Nevermind you have them in the same tier as 5 other QBs in this draft. Per reports the Patriots are asking for the moon right now, example given Vikings two first, next year's first and a player. If that gets Vikings into top 3, can't we do the exact same thing next year with 2 first round picks? Nevermind I have a feeling if we trade down, they have another QB they like a lot that they will target. I'd only complain if there's a QB at 3 that they think is worth the pick and they still trade down, just to get more value. No way they should do that and I don't think they will. I get all that, and fully agree if they are truly unbelieving in whoever is left at three, trading down or picking #1 player on the board is correct. But expecting we'll have a better chance at a franchise QB in the future is wrong. History says this is our best near-term chance, especially since there are consensus Top 10 pick-worthy QBs (not like Kenny Pickett type years). I don't want to see another situation where they are trying to outsmart everyone and only outsmart themselves. The chance to draft a franchise QB doesn't matter if they don't think the guys available are franchise QBs (or there is enough doubt that they want to hedge their bets). And, despite every other narrative, that will be why they trade down (if they do). If you believe otherwise, than you have ZERO confidence in the FO (so any decision they make should be questioned). I'd also just add, if they DO trade back, you won't here the real reason why. Can't imagine the team saying "well, we didn't think he was valuable at 3 so we traded back and were lucky enough to get him". You'll, as we typically do, hear the "we would've taken him at 3 but . . ."
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 8, 2024 14:27:48 GMT -5
In the tweet where he first shared this, Evan did say he doesn't endorse the trade down. He was just entertaining the scenario.
I've also read him say that he only believes they should trade down IF they don't like the options enough at 3 to bet their draft on it (or something like that).
Remember, content providers have to . . . provide content.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 7, 2024 13:04:53 GMT -5
Also happy that they didn't add to their list of needs by letting these guys walk. It does seem a bit steep. Here are some of the better safeties who signed during this offseason. Winfield got 17.12 for 1 yr, franchise tag McKinney got 16.75 for 4 yrs, 23 guaranteed Curl got 4.5 for 2 yrs, 6 guaranteed Stone got 7 for 2 yrs, 6 guaranteed Gilman got 5.06 for 2 yrs, 5.63 guaranteed But I dont have an issue with them overspending a bit to keep one if their better players. It woyld have been nice if they had signed a true FS so they could keep Dugger closer to the line. To the extent you believe the snap numbers in PFF, this is already true. Peppers is really the Free Safety here with Dugger more in the Box.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 7, 2024 10:50:26 GMT -5
Base: 58m Max: 66m Guaranteed: 32.5m Seems a bit steep to me, but building a new culture of "if you do well you'll be rewarded HERE" seems like a decent precedent to set (though not maintain forever) in light off BB's "you get exactly what I think you're worth or else you're gone." I'm so very ready for the draft. Also happy that they didn't add to their list of needs by letting these guys walk.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 7, 2024 9:01:18 GMT -5
Not sure anyone could've predicted that Onwenu, Dugger and Uche would all be Patriots heading into next season.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 7, 2024 8:17:59 GMT -5
Dugger signed. 4 yr deal.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 6, 2024 8:49:50 GMT -5
Texas got me thinking so I did a Penix mock draft using PFM mock draft simulator just for fun, all offense. Trade down with Giants to #6, WR Odunze, 2nd QB Penix is there, Giants 2nd WR Polk, then OT Rosengarten, OT/OG/OC Puni, RB Davis, OT Jones, TE All, WR Johnson, RB Steele, RB Johnson. Kinda upset, wanted all 3 Washington WR, only got two of them, but also got a Washington OT and RB lol. Thanks Texas, that was fun. Was debating which QB/WR combo I'd want the most: Maye (3rd pick)/Walker (3rd Rd?) Daniels (3rd pick)/Thomas Jr (trading up to mid 1st) McCarthy (3rd pick)/Wilson (trade back from 34?) Odunze (3rd or maybe slight trade back)/Penix (trade up into 1st). Ignoring the cheat that having the right QB overcomes everything else, I came up with option 4 as the best combo. As you discovered, more of a fun exercise than an intended strategy.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 5, 2024 14:22:12 GMT -5
Wouldn't mind them getting aggressive (assuming they get their QB at the top) and move up to get an X in the late 1st.
Or really go crazy and draft Odunze at 3 and then move up to get Penix to pair the former teammates (only partially joking here).
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 3, 2024 14:01:01 GMT -5
Would HAVE to think they are taking a QB at some point in the 1st or 2nd rd. Whether it be:
- 3rd pick - a later 1st rd pick (either by trading back from 3 OR taking another position at 3 and moving up from 34) - their 2nd rd pick.
I'd be STUNNED if they don't pick someone by pick 34.
And, AGAIN, they would NOT be "trading back for their guy" If they are trading back, they don't have "a guy" (or, at least, not 1 they want to take without hedging their bets without additional assets to offset the risk).
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 3, 2024 10:46:28 GMT -5
TBC, I'm not saying he's capable and, yes, it just got a LOT tougher. But it just means they have to build it a bit differently now. Maybe it's just semantics but that's different than saying the window is closed.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 3, 2024 10:41:58 GMT -5
I know they're low picks, but I'd be annoyed as a Bills fan for giving up a star player like Diggs and having to give up 2 additional draft picks just to get the Vikings 2nd rounder. I guess this means the Bills window has closed. Dan Jeremiah just said it. Once you pay your QB, you're trusting him to elevate younger (cheaper) receivers. I wouldn't say the window is closed. Keeping it open just requires Josh Allen to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 3, 2024 10:03:19 GMT -5
Bills trading Stefon Diggs to Houston.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 26, 2024 8:52:57 GMT -5
Khari Thompson tweeted something along the lines of JJ McCarthy being a chance to see how high Brock Purdy would be drafted if you knew what he'd become.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 25, 2024 15:50:48 GMT -5
More fodder as "reports" are circulating that execs believe Washington is most likely to take McCarthy.
IF that happens and Patriots choose Daniels over Maye (or over MHJ, or even trading back), pretty sure I know whose head will absolutely explode.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 25, 2024 14:27:47 GMT -5
I honestly don’t think the Pats are in a trade down scenario. Both Drake Maye and MHJ are elite talent you can only find at the top of the draft. They have other needs, sure, but you can build teams around these guys. I really hope they don’t get cute. So using the 21 trade up for #3 as a benchmark: - 12th overall - '25 1st Rd Pick - '25 3rd Rd Pick - '26 1st Rd Pick. Now while that was for a QB, SF traded up with a team (Miami) that had a QB. That matters, in all likelihood (unlike that year, teams will be trying to "talk" NE out of taking the QB - while trading up to, in fact, take the QB). So it's not unreasonable to assume an offer to make them move HAS to be better than this package. But again, it's only good business based on their evaluation. I really don't think they trade down to "fill other needs". It really comes down to the players: 1. They don't think Maye (or Daniels) and McCarthy are worthy of the 3rd pick. 2. The difference between MHJ and the other WRs is minimal enough that they think they can trade back and still get a player worthy of that slot. If those things are true, then trading down is good business. If not, take the player (QB or otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 25, 2024 13:46:55 GMT -5
It's very unwise to (over)react to one comment or another. As with all sports reporting, the best thing to do is to look for patterns. What remains consistent from statement to statement (or rumor to rumor).
Not that THAT even points you to the truth but, to the extent any of this stuff is coming from the team, it's hard to tell the same lie over and over without inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 25, 2024 10:16:50 GMT -5
I really don't think teams "trade down for a QB" though. As a matter fact, I don't think teams trade down for any player.
The idea is (or, at least, s/b) you trade down bc:
1. You don't like who is there at your pick, or 2. There are enough players you DO like at your pick, you feel you can get one of your guys AND pick up extra picks.
So the "failings" in trade backs are just as much an endorsement for trading back as they are a deterrent. The teams in those cases, likely weren't certain enough about the success of that player they'd otherwise take at their pick so they traded back, took the QB AND picked up additional assets.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 22, 2024 7:31:05 GMT -5
I don't really have a comment right now. Just wanted to get THIS thread updated since the latest comments have been in the 22 Offseason thread for some reason.
Carry on
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 21, 2024 20:00:12 GMT -5
They also have the player visits at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 21, 2024 13:54:58 GMT -5
Oh, and I just want draft day to get here. Just saw (didn't read) an article suggesting they don't have to draft a QB bc they have Nathan Rourke. So that's where we are.
Seriously, though. I could talk myself into SO many different scenarios. I'm ready to just start pulling for the guys they draft.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 21, 2024 13:53:10 GMT -5
I'm good with adding the pieces that UMass mentioned. Really want Gilmore. I know he's not what he was but still good and would allow Marcus to EARN the Slot job (would think Gilmore would move J Jones to the #1 slot spot with Marcus backing up for now).
I really hope they use the space they still have on extensions for Barmore and Judon (the latter wouldn't necessarily use up space, iirc). Would imagine a long-term deal for Dugger is still in the cards. Would think they could lower his cap # from the 13.
Just not sure there is a bunch of FAs to eat up much of the remainder (well, remainder less the buffer for what's needed during the season, including the draftees). Also not sure a trade is in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 19, 2024 15:12:51 GMT -5
Jeudy getting 41M guaranteed for 3 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 18, 2024 7:36:20 GMT -5
I don't know if Jeremiah had sources on this or if he's just trying to connect some dots (or just have a take). He's probably thinking #2 is the only way to get the guy they want. I'd also point out that Washington is in the exact same boat as NE and you are advocating the Pats consider taking a QB AFTER the 1st. So if it's okay for NE to do it, why wouldn't Washington be willing/interested? If Maye is gone I'll consider anything, assuming Williams goes #1 like everyone thinks. I think Washington takes Maye, as I've said a few times now. So you are right, I have been advocating the Patriots consider different things like maybe a QB not in the 1st. That's because we have pick 3 and not pick #2. If Mayes there at #3, they should take him. Add in Washington traded a young first year starter at QB that showed promise for very little. That screams we are taking a QB at #2. Maybe I'm wrong TBC - I'm more in line with YOUR thinking. Just trying to understand why Jeremiah might think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 18, 2024 7:02:41 GMT -5
I have a dumb question regarding the cap hits? Can they go down or be flat?
- Don't base salaries HAVE to increase? - Signing bonus will always be straight pro-ration - Roster Bonuses can be NLTBE in the 1st year (based on previous year's Active Games). But they're based on 17 Games Active in subsequent years (until they start playing the next season where their hits can go up or down based on activity).
- A lot of other incentives are typically NLTBE until actually earned.
Just don't know enough to know if Cap Hits are ever flat or decreasing.
EDIT - Just saw Bourne's deal and his year 2 and 3 salaries are definitely flat so they don't HAVE to decrease.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Mar 18, 2024 6:57:03 GMT -5
How would #2 be more likely? Washington traded Howell for very little. I don't know if Jeremiah had sources on this or if he's just trying to connect some dots (or just have a take). He's probably thinking #2 is the only way to get the guy they want. I'd also point out that Washington is in the exact same boat as NE and you are advocating the Pats consider taking a QB AFTER the 1st. So if it's okay for NE to do it, why wouldn't Washington be willing/interested? EDIT - The counterargument is that they might be fine with ANY of the QBs (even McCarthy) and know they can, at least, get up to #4.
|
|
|