- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Messages
- 3,280
- Reaction score
- 5,551
What would Kevin Costner do?
Technically , you're right , but at some point the salary cap becomes a consideration. We got 3 #1's last year that eventually will have to be re-signed. One of them might be a franchise QB. if you skip a year after 2 years of double/ triple first rounders you may be able to keep the core talent together for a little while longer while still extending the string of extra #1's to play with. Just saying...Well, let's reverse that. We gave UP OUR R1 next year (not 2 years down the line)
+ additional mid round capital to move from 12 to 6! So I'm assuming EVERYONE
on this board realizes we have TWO NUMBER ONES invested in that #6 pick!
You think that's "good value? You think that's good yield off the the #3 pick???
Seriously. I'm not making this **** up. The yo-yo was a loser. Period.
I think we will still have SF's #1May wanna check your math there, it would leave us with no 1sts in 2022. So in essence we’d have moved back 1 spot and traded a 2022 first for a 2023 first
I've heard that kind of justification / explanation before. However I'm not sure how much savings in 5 years (rookie deals) moving form 3 to 6 will deliver -- let alone IF it will matter whatsoever. So that's more speculation IMO and insufficient reason to do what we did. So for me the salary cap thing is essentially nonsense.Technically , you're right , but at some point the salary cap becomes a consideration. We got 3 #1's last year that eventually will have to be re-signed. One of them might be a franchise QB. if you skip a year after 2 years of double/ triple first rounders you may be able to keep the core talent together for a little while longer while still extending the string of extra #1's to play with. Just saying...
The only argument I can make against your thinking is that at the time of trade, Pitts hadn’t had his pro day yet and was not quite as popular on draft boards as he was after the trade....You know we are closing in on the draft, when this is a headline. Mel Kiper suggests that the Dolphins aren't finished trading and has Miami trading up with Atlanta to #4 to take Pitts.
I don't know what it would cost, but I think Grier stays at #3 if Pitts was the target. My best guess is Chase or Smith, probably in that order as the Dolphins are more sized based than a lot of teams.
Pitts had one concussion from an illegal violent hit in the Georgia game...which broke his nose that required surgery....he came back from that and helped nearly beat a far Superior Bama team in the SEC championship including beating Surtain Jr in the game.After reading the post here yesterday explaining how not to expect Pitts to be productive for a year or two plus taking into consideration his concussion issue throw in that Tua has probably a 2 year window to prove himself then I am going to say Pitts is definitly not our target or should be. We need to see what Tua can produce this year meaning we are targeting Chase, Smith or Waddle IF we are targeting a pass catcher with our first pick in this year's draft.
I'd say his stock has risen. Many evaluators have him as the #2 talent in the draft.Is there a chance they thought they could get Pitts at 6 when it happened? Hasn't his stock risen even more since the trade? It seems to me it has
Using that logic we had 3 #1's and a 3rd invested in the 3rd overall pick.....Well, let's reverse that. We gave UP OUR R1 next year (not 2 years down the line)
+ additional mid round capital to move from 12 to 6! So I'm assuming EVERYONE
on this board realizes we have TWO NUMBER ONES invested in that #6 pick!
You think that's "good value? You think that's good yield off the the #3 pick???
Seriously. I'm not making this **** up. The yo-yo was a loser. Period.
Zero clue what you're remotely trying to infer.Using that logic we had 3 #1's and a 3rd invested in the 3rd overall pick.....
He made the two deals minutes apart.Zero clue what you're remotely trying to infer.
Fact is we traded 2 R1s for THAT PICK!
#12 in '21 and our #1 in 22.
Pretty simple dude.