View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 23rd, 2014, 12:24 am



Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 IF a LT: Oher or Smith? 

Oher or Smith?
Oher 83%  83%  [ 15 ]
Smith 17%  17%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 18

 IF a LT: Oher or Smith? 
Author Message
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3349
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
What does letting the clock expire do? Im not being sarcastic, im just curious because Ive heard of it before.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


December 2nd, 2008, 10:55 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
kdsberman wrote:
What does letting the clock expire do? Im not being sarcastic, im just curious because Ive heard of it before.


Letting someone pick a player ahead of you and teams can keep doing it until you pick a player. Basically its a scheme the Vikings did twice to save cap room with a team owner, and uninformed fans use it as a rally cry for the Lions to do the same to save cap dollars. Save the cap dollars for what? Who knows.


December 3rd, 2008, 2:22 am
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
Quote:
Save the cap dollars for what? Who knows.


Save the cap dollars to pay other players. That's where the money goes. That's what you do with cap dollars. Every couple $million you overpay to a rookie because you picked him just a few spots higher than you could have is a proven veteran you can't afford to keep on your roster.

Salary demands at the top of the draft can be crippling for teams trying to rebuild.

If there was a fair rookie wage scale, then it would be better to have the #1 overall than the #5 overall, because you can pick the guy you want most and not overpay for him.

However, if the guy picked at #1 is going to cost way, way more than the guy picked at #5, so much so that the projected difference in quality is smaller than the known difference in cost, then sliding down the draft makes sense (if trading down is impossible).


December 3rd, 2008, 3:48 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
Quote:
Save the cap dollars for what? Who knows.


Save the cap dollars to pay other players. That's where the money goes. That's what you do with cap dollars. Every couple $million you overpay to a rookie because you picked him just a few spots higher than you could have is a proven veteran you can't afford to keep on your roster.

Salary demands at the top of the draft can be crippling for teams trying to rebuild.

If there was a fair rookie wage scale, then it would be better to have the #1 overall than the #5 overall, because you can pick the guy you want most and not overpay for him.

However, if the guy picked at #1 is going to cost way, way more than the guy picked at #5, so much so that the projected difference in quality is smaller than the known difference in cost, then sliding down the draft makes sense (if trading down is impossible).


December 3rd, 2008, 3:56 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
v1ly4 wrote:
Quote:
Save the cap dollars for what? Who knows.


Save the cap dollars to pay other players. That's where the money goes. That's what you do with cap dollars. Every couple $million you overpay to a rookie because you picked him just a few spots higher than you could have is a proven veteran you can't afford to keep on your roster.

Salary demands at the top of the draft can be crippling for teams trying to rebuild.

If there was a fair rookie wage scale, then it would be better to have the #1 overall than the #5 overall, because you can pick the guy you want most and not overpay for him.

However, if the guy picked at #1 is going to cost way, way more than the guy picked at #5, so much so that the projected difference in quality is smaller than the known difference in cost, then sliding down the draft makes sense (if trading down is impossible).


It isnt crippling if you make the right draft pick. Its only crippling if you make numerous top picks that dont pan out. Like the Lions. When you are a team trying to rebuild, why take the chance of the player you can get at #5 not being the best player in the draft? Having great football players is the only way to rebuild. The Lions have tons of cap space for 2009,especially if Bodden,Backus,Raiola and Culpepper are shown the door. The cap savings from 1-5 is inconsequential.


December 3rd, 2008, 4:27 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
Quote:
The Lions have tons of cap space for 2009,especially if Bodden,Backus,Raiola and Culpepper are shown the door. The cap savings from 1-5 is inconsequential.


I wouldn't agree with either of those points.

Unless I'm wrong about the salary cap, both Bodden and Backus are both signed to long-term big money deals (though Culpepper's deal is short-term and not as expensive), so if we cut them going into 2009, their pro-rated signing bonus would come due immediately, putting a lot of dead money on the 2009 cap (but saving money in 2010), which puts even more urgency on not overpaying for other players.

As far as the #1 vs the #5, in 2007 the #1 overall pick got a six-year deal with $31.5m guaranteed, and the #5 overall got a six-year deal with $18m guaranteed.

That comes out to $2.25 million more per year, which is around what the average NFL starter makes. And that's just the guaranteed part. If the incentive differences (which are more complicated and unpredictable) also skew in favor of the #1 overall, then you could be looking at even more.

But suppose it's only $2.25 million/year over six years, which is enough money to upgrade a different position from a backup-caliber guy (who would normally fetch somewhere above the league minimum) to a better, more talented guy (who would cost around $2.25 mil more than the backup-quality guy).

One of Detroit's biggest problems is that they have lots of backup-quality guys playing as starters because they're paying so much salary cap space to guys who are no longer with the team. We need upgrades all over the place.

The fact is, we don't know whether the #1 overall is going to be better than the #5 overall.

Maybe, five years from now, Levi Brown will be protecting Leinhart (or whoever's) blind side in Arizona while JaMarcus Russell is no longer with the Raiders, maybe not.

Maybe, six years from now, Glenn Dorsey will be making a bigger contribution on the Chiefs D-Line than Jake Long is on the Dolphins O-Line by comparison, maybe not. They were both regarded as "elite" prospects on numerous draft boards going into the last draft.

I'd rather have the money to upgrade two positions than just one, that is,
draft #5 overall AND have enough money to upgrade another position of need, than draft #1 overall and be stuck with the backup-guy starting at the other position.

Taking uncertainty into account, when the projected quality difference is smaller than the projected cost difference, go with the guy who's going to cost less.

If there was no salary cap, and money was unlimited, then, all else equal, it would always make more sense to pick at #1.


December 3rd, 2008, 5:34 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
v1ly4 wrote:
Quote:
The Lions have tons of cap space for 2009,especially if Bodden,Backus,Raiola and Culpepper are shown the door. The cap savings from 1-5 is inconsequential.


I wouldn't agree with either of those points.

Unless I'm wrong about the salary cap, both Bodden and Backus are both signed to long-term big money deals (though Culpepper's deal is short-term and not as expensive), so if we cut them going into 2009, their pro-rated signing bonus would come due immediately, putting a lot of dead money on the 2009 cap (but saving money in 2010), which puts even more urgency on not overpaying for other players.

As far as the #1 vs the #5, in 2007 the #1 overall pick got a six-year deal with $31.5m guaranteed, and the #5 overall got a six-year deal with $18m guaranteed.

That comes out to $2.25 million more per year, which is around what the average NFL starter makes. And that's just the guaranteed part. If the incentive differences (which are more complicated and unpredictable) also skew in favor of the #1 overall, then you could be looking at even more.

But suppose it's only $2.25 million/year over six years, which is enough money to upgrade a different position from a backup-caliber guy (who would normally fetch somewhere above the league minimum) to a better, more talented guy (who would cost around $2.25 mil more than the backup-quality guy).

One of Detroit's biggest problems is that they have lots of backup-quality guys playing as starters because they're paying so much salary cap space to guys who are no longer with the team. We need upgrades all over the place.

The fact is, we don't know whether the #1 overall is going to be better than the #5 overall.

Maybe, five years from now, Levi Brown will be protecting Leinhart (or whoever's) blind side in Arizona while JaMarcus Russell is no longer with the Raiders, maybe not.

Maybe, six years from now, Glenn Dorsey will be making a bigger contribution on the Chiefs D-Line than Jake Long is on the Dolphins O-Line by comparison, maybe not. They were both regarded as "elite" prospects on numerous draft boards going into the last draft.

I'd rather have the money to upgrade two positions than just one, that is,
draft #5 overall AND have enough money to upgrade another position of need, than draft #1 overall and be stuck with the backup-guy starting at the other position.

Taking uncertainty into account, when the projected quality difference is smaller than the projected cost difference, go with the guy who's going to cost less.

If there was no salary cap, and money was unlimited, then, all else equal, it would always make more sense to pick at #1.


Jeff Backus counts over 7 million against the cap for next year. Cutting him would save 1.5 million. Raiola counts 4 million against the cap for next year and cutting him would save 4 million. Leigh Bodden counts for 11 million against the cap for next year factoring in the 8.6 million dollar bonus in March. Cutting him before then saves over 2 million. Culpepper counts for 5 million next season and would save all 5 million by cutting him. Those moves alone puts the Lions near 30 million under the salary cap. That also does not factor in getting rid of the Tampa rejects after Rod is fired or any other deserving Lions cuts. Free Agency is a slippery slope in football. You are getting players with at least 6-7 years of NFL wear and tear. Guys with that much wear on them are largely on the downsides of their careers. Look at how many Millen free agents retired soon after they became Lions. I wouldnt blame you for not remembering guys like Bracey Walker,Brian Walker or Ross Verba being here. How many current Lions starters are in the last year of their careers. I have a feeling that its multiple. We have the cap room to potentially get top of the line FAs like Peppers,Suggs and Nnamdi as it is. I do understand that we cannot fill every position on the football team through the draft right now due to Millen's failures. But, purposely selecting a worse player to save a few bucks to sign a roster filler like a Chuck Darby? That is idiocy. Top of the line football players cover faults of players around them. I will take the chance of grabbing those players 99% of 100.


December 3rd, 2008, 6:19 pm
Profile
Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2301
Post 
Moving down in my opinion has less to do with cap space and more to do with filling more by at least adding to the depth of the team. As far as spending money on big name FAs I think any big money spent on FAs this year would be a waste towards the long term improvement of the team. Yes teams can turn it around quickly but if you honestly look at the lack of talent on the Lions they are far behind any team in recent history that has made that turn around.

Suggs, Peppers, or any other big name FA isn't going to come to Detroit to turn them into a champion. They would be doing it for the money.Then once they get that money on a team like Detroit are they going to put forth the same effort that landed them that fat contract? Give me a year or two with quality hardworking FAs looking to make a real name for themselves along with a couple of solid drafts and then go after those difference makers.


December 3rd, 2008, 6:31 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
But still, we don't know who the best guy to draft is, however we do know he's going to cost more.

I'd rather take the 2nd or 3rd best guy at a position at #5 (or the best guy at a different position at #5, as we have needs all over the place) AND have the money to upgrade from someone like Chuck Darby (or pick any other player whose position we could upgrade) than take the best guy at a position at #1 and be stuck with Darby because we can't afford someone better.

And the cheaper guy at #5 may very well prove to be a better selection...

For the last ten years' draft (excluding the most recent two drafts which are too early to call, so, that is 1997-2006), comparing the #1 to the #5, the #5 turned out to be a better player just as often often as the #1:

---
Years where #1 turned out better than #5 pick:
1997,1998,2003,2004,2006

Years where #5 turned out better than #1 pick:
1999,2000,2001,2002,2005
...
1997 NFL draft:
#1 Orlando Pace: HoF career, one of the great LT's of his generation
#5 Bryant Westbrook: drafted by the Lions (so you know he's doomed) early success cut short by injury

1998 NFL draft:
#1 Peyton Manning: HoF career, one of the all-time great QB's
#5 Curtis Enis: short, disapointing career

1999 NFL draft:
#1 Tim Couch: disappointing career cut short by injuries & inconsistency.
#5 Ricky Williams: early success (including Pro Bowl selection), followed by drug problems, now appears to be moderately successful in his role in his comeback with Miami.

2000 NFL draft:
#1 Courtney Brown: never made a Pro Bowl and struggled with injuries.
#5 Jamal Lewis: would have a long productive career, highlighted by a ProBowl selection and AP Offensive Player of the Year award in 2003.

2001 NFL draft:
#1 Michael Vick: 3x ProBowler, career cut short by criminal dogfighting activities.
#5 LaDainian Tomlinson: 5x ProBowler, single-season TD record, HoF-worthy career.

2002 NFL draft:
#1 David Carr: QB bust.
#5 Quentin Jammer: never a ProBowler, but still a long-term starter, re-signed with the Chargers through 2012.

2003 NFL draft:
#1 Carson Palmer: two-time ProBowl Quarterback. Still starting
#5 Terence Newman: one-time ProBowl Cornerback. Still starting

2004 NFL draft:
#1 Eli Manning: struggled early, but became a decent QB (no Pro Bowl selections yet, but a SB MVP award).
#5 Sean Taylor: 2x ProBowl Safety (second selection was posthumous), career cut short by tragic death.

2005 NFL draft:
#1 Alex Smith: QB bust.
#5 Carnell Williams: Offensive Rookie of the Year, injury problems, but still a productive & promising RB when healthy.

2006 NFL draft:
#1 Mario Williams: first year was slowed by injury, but he led Texans in sacks his second year (arguably should have made the Pro Bowl).
#5 A.J. Hawk: led the Packers in tackles his rookie year & was third-place in voting for Defensive Rookie of the Year, solid-but-not-spectacular-second year.


---


December 3rd, 2008, 6:37 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
sweetd20 wrote:
Moving down in my opinion has less to do with cap space and more to do with filling more by at least adding to the depth of the team. As far as spending money on big name FAs I think any big money spent on FAs this year would be a waste towards the long term improvement of the team. Yes teams can turn it around quickly but if you honestly look at the lack of talent on the Lions they are far behind any team in recent history that has made that turn around.

Suggs, Peppers, or any other big name FA isn't going to come to Detroit to turn them into a champion. They would be doing it for the money.Then once they get that money on a team like Detroit are they going to put forth the same effort that landed them that fat contract? Give me a year or two with quality hardworking FAs looking to make a real name for themselves along with a couple of solid drafts and then go after those difference makers.


How many hardworking FAs have Millen signed since 2001? Scores of them. His best FA 2 signings were of the high priced, overpaid variety (Bly,Woody). The only other FA that Millen signed otherwise that actually made a difference was Dan Wilkinson. The only players that are "quality,hardworking" guys that would be available and under 30 are guys that were cut from their former teams.


December 3rd, 2008, 6:39 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.