|
Chromatic posted:Also, the chiefs should draft that mixon guy. I know he has character concerns, but the chiefs have to upkeep their rep of having nothing but quality, elite rbs trying to keep parm away forever? (not arguing)
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
I thought they left St Louis
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There is no difference. It's all a finite amount of capital you have available to spend to make the team better. And a 4th overall pick costs a fuckload more than a 7 AAV contract. If you gently caress up on a 7 AAV contract, it sucks, but you can still be competitive. You gently caress up the 4th overall pick, and it can set your franchise back years. I didn't say the Cowboys WOULD resign Murray, just that it would serve them well to pay him. And it would've. Demarco would probably still be killing it behind that line, and you could've had Bosa on the cheap. They didn't have the cap space to do that though, so they spent a high draft pick that they did have available instead. Had the roles been reversed, and they had traded the 4th overall pick away and they had a bunch of cap space available, do you honestly believe they still would've let Murray walk? Don't be silly. A team that drafts a player top 5 clearly values that players position. There's a huge difference. You can have a shitload of 4th overall draft picks on your roster, but you run out of cap space real quick paying market value for players. You're overestimating how bad a whiff on the #4 pick actually is--if whiffing on a 4th overall pick was actually that bad for anything but the QB position, then teams that didn't even get a 4th overall pick would be hosed. But the Patriots haven't had a high draft pick in years and have had to forfeit multiple first round picks due to cheating and it hasn't exactly set them back. The damage from a bad contract prevents you from re-signing your good players and picking up free agents you need. Even good teams whiff on draft picks from time to time. And yeah, letting Murray walk was the right deal. Remind me again of how great Murray was on the Eagles? Exactly how much of a difference would he have made after Romo got hurt? He'd have been better than Randle, but how many more yards was he going to put up than say, DMC? He missed games due to injury (a common occurrence in his career)--are we not counting those? I don't get your weird logic here, that they'd have somehow kept Murray by knowing two years in advance that they'd have the #4 pick? Letting Murray walk happened way before they ever got that pick. And letting Murray walk meant having money to re-sign other key players from the 2014 squad. Admittedly some of that money went to noted shitbag Greg Hardy, but from a "is the team better standpoint," I have to begrudgingly admit that it looked like a good move on paper at the time. The defense is the reason the Cowboys couldn't close in 2014--even if Dez's catch had gone for a TD, the Packers probably would have come back and scored a FG on our defense afterward. The Cowboys needed more help on defense than they did in the running game. You keep making the case that we needed Murray and were stupid to let him go and it's hard to take seriously when Darren McFadden ended up 4th in the league in total rushing yards after playing only 10 games of Romo-less football. Murray's a good player, but he's not some special talent--he struggled when he had to play in a different system behind a worse line, and he looked good when he got to play behind a good line again in Tennessee, though again it's not like 1300 yards on 290 attempts and 4.4 ypc is some amazing performance that's going to make me think it was a mistake. Also no I'm pretty sure keeping Murray wouldn't have given us Bosa, given that we picked after he was taken by the Chargers AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont understand how they are still in cap hell. They have money invested in Romo, Dez, Smith, Frederick, Free, Carr, and...? Witten? Lee? Romo's contract is massive right now because they've kicked that can down the road a couple of times. Witten's also got a large contract, but they can restructure that and extend him 2 years to make some extra room and lock him up through retirement. Romo's cap hit is like $25M right now and $25.5M next year. They restructured his contract in 2014 and 2015 to create room. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
JPrime posted:trying to keep parm away forever? (not arguing) he's already away forever. what's done is done
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:And yeah, letting Murray walk was the right deal. Remind me again of how great Murray was on the Eagles? I don't necessarily disagree with you but this is really disingenuous He was fantastic on a team that used him correctly last season
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you but this is really disingenuous He has a lot of bad opinions in general, such as disliking the Patriots and the Eagles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you but this is really disingenuous Yeah, I agree that the Eagles were completely stupid about using him. But it wasn't just that the Titans used him correctly (though I agree that was a factor); they also have a good line. And while he got a lot of yards, he also had a shitload of carries. He ended up 14th in ypa and tied for 24th in rushes of 20+ yards. The dude's good, but like I said two years ago: He's a Marion Barber, not an Emmitt Smith. Gumbel2Gumbel posted:He has a lot of bad opinions in general, such as disliking the Patriots and the Eagles. no but for reals gently caress both of those teams
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you but this is really disingenuous Titans have arguably the best O-line in the league
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You don't see kickers going top ten when they are the BPA. Now I'm wondering how amazing a kicker would have to be to go top ten, and have it be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
whiteyfats posted:Now I'm wondering how amazing a kicker would have to be to go top ten, and have it be worth it. A theoretical kicker that was over 90% from 60+ yards out would be well worth a first. If you had a guy who was money from that distance it would be a huge advantage. If your offense was functional at all you would barely punt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
whiteyfats posted:Now I'm wondering how amazing a kicker would have to be to go top ten, and have it be worth it. Due to year to year volatility at the position no kicker could ever be worth it. This hypothetical kicker is also a zen master who could do the job with a blindfold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Due to year to year volatility at the position no kicker could ever be worth it. Yeah, even for a prospect capable of being MVP, having an off year is way too risky to draft him with your first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Wait what happened to Parm?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 13:59
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Wait what happened to Parm? He melted down hard because the Chiefs signed Tyreek Hill
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
More like he painted himself into a corner with his gimmick and couldn't figure a way out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:He melted down hard because the Chiefs signed Tyreek Hill Grittybeard posted:More like he painted himself into a corner with his gimmick and couldn't figure a way out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
In case you're not following this story...quote:Chris Russell of 106.7 The Fan in D.C. reports Redskins GM Scot McCloughan is no longer running the team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
I wonder why Kirk Cousins doesn't want to sign for less than a billion dollars with that organization?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Grandma Gate
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
I knew something stupid was happening with the Skins when there were four rotoworld updates in one night about their loving GM
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Due to year to year volatility at the position no kicker could ever be worth it. And even then, he'd have to be so astronomically better than even the next best kicker that it'd be worth taking him over another position of need. Kickers in the NFL have improved substantially voer time, and keep getting better. Your hypothetical zen master might just be the first of many, until the NFL changes the rules to make kicking less reliable. troofs posted:A theoretical kicker that was over 90% from 60+ yards out would be well worth a first. If you had a guy who was money from that distance it would be a huge advantage. If your offense was functional at all you would barely punt. The idea that you'd ever be justified taking a kicker in the top 10, or that one would ever actually be "the best player available" is completely loving bonkers, but you've raised an interesting math problem. What kind of 60+ yard accuracy are we talking here? 75%? Would this change your strategy at midfield, where you stop trying to get a first down if you know you can kick a 65-yard field goal? Even if you could kick from 60+ yards out, you're only scoring 3 points on a drive that probably lasted at most, a minute or two, since you probably only got a couple of first downs. NFL teams usually average around 10 drives per game, so if your offense was poo poo (very possible because your team drafted a kicker #4 overall and was bad enough to be drafting 4th) and you just stalled out and kicked a field goal every time, you're looking at 30 points with 100% accuracy, or 21-24 points with 75% accuracy. That's not bad, but it's only league average for 2016 in terms of team points per game (30 is close to the top, though). By comparison though, your opponent only needs to score 3-4 touchdowns on their 10 drives to match that, and about one in four or one in five of those (2-3 per game) will probably be coming from inside your 40, unless your kicker has 100% accuracy from 60+ yards out. So you're going to want to go for touchdowns eventually. So you *might* kick more field goals in the 60-70 yard range, but would it actually be better to kick a field goal on 4th-and-1 from the 50 yard line than to go for it or attempt to bury the opponent with a punt? You're basically talking about increasing the "Field goal" area of this chart, and primarily eating from the "punt" section, where you'd replace more punts at midfield with field goals, and a few "go for it" instances:  My guess is that if you had this dude, overall you'd win a higher percentage of close games, since you'd have the ability to hit more field goals from further out. Between 2002 and 2014, about 23% of games were decided by 3 points or fewer, but a chunk of those already involve the winning team kicking in the final minutes of the game. Charitably, I'd reason that your superkicker may win you about 1 extra game per season over an average kicker. Less, if your team is so poo poo that kicking field goals won't keep you in the game, or if your team is so good that you don't need to kick last-second field goals to win very often. But again, you drafted fourth overall and spent the pick on a kicker, so you're probably the kind of team that loses by 4+ points pretty often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
I hate this dumb team. Why! Why me!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:In case you're not following this story... Dan Snyder is 52, cannot be impeached, and has no term limits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Wasn't McCloughan good? Lol what happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Wasn't McCloughan good? Lol what happened? Either addiction is a hell of a thing, or Dan Snyder is a hell of a thing. We don't really know for sure which it is. It could be both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The idea that you'd ever be justified taking a kicker in the top 10, or that one would ever actually be "the best player available" is completely loving bonkers, but you've raised an interesting math problem. Yeah, it's pretty much never going to be worth it. Even if you had a bionic kicker available to draft super high you'd basically always rather draft players to theoretically fix your team's other problems (probably offense since you're kicking from so far out all the time) rather than taking the kicker who'll let you cash in on all your bad drives. Mathematically though, I feel like there's got to be a point at which never having to punt is more valuable than say, drafting a really good guard at #10 or something. Maybe I am over-valuing field goals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
troofs posted:Yeah, it's pretty much never going to be worth it. Even if you had a bionic kicker available to draft super high you'd basically always rather draft players to theoretically fix your team's other problems (probably offense since you're kicking from so far out all the time) rather than taking the kicker who'll let you cash in on all your bad drives. It's possible, but you've got to remember that there's a significant number of cases where you are better off pinning your opponent inside the 10 than scoring 3 points
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Maybe the kicker could be worth it if the offense was heavily designed around the run. Combined with taking the max amount of time off the clock every down, that would help give the friendly defense time to rest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
troofs posted:A theoretical kicker that was over 90% from 60+ yards out would be well worth a first. If you had a guy who was money from that distance it would be a huge advantage. If your offense was functional at all you would barely punt. So you're saying it would be a wasted pick for the Texans TheChirurgeon posted:It's possible, but you've got to remember that there's a significant number of cases where you are better off pinning your opponent inside the 10 than scoring 3 points I'm struggling to think of one I'd rather be pinned at my 1 down a FG or less than have it at the 25 needing a TD if you're talking about time being a significant factor
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:It's possible, but you've got to remember that there's a significant number of cases where you are better off pinning your opponent inside the 10 than scoring 3 points I really cant think of any...
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I mean if your bionic kicker is so awesome at field goals he's probably pretty good at pop up kicks that land somewhere inside the 5 to slow down the other team's return game as well. Or if yours isn't, my top 10 kicker pick would be. You probably can't pin them inside the 10 very often, but inside the 20 is pretty doable off a kickoff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Don't forget that if you have an amazing kicker like that you could call fair catch kicks and instantly score uncontested whenever you want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:Either addiction is a hell of a thing, or Dan Snyder is a hell of a thing. We don't really know for sure which it is. Bruce Allen is probably a poo poo head too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
I'd be okay with the Chiefs spending a 4th on Mixon, if they feel like he's able to be a functioning member of society. Basically, after the Hill pick I was upset, but I feel like time and again Big Red and Dorsey have shown me that when they "do their homework" on a guy, they're legit making sure that the guy can be mentored and become a decent human being again. Tyreek Hill is still kinda immature and childish in some respects, but I think that given his previous actions, he is on the best possible trajectory for the state of his character and life at this point. If they feel that Mixon can be mentored and led to be the same, then so be it. If not, gently caress 'em, I'll make jokes when the Raiders draft him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Hasn't Mixon still shown basically no remorse though
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
The Raiders don't draft or sign players who hit women
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:I really cant think of any... The only time I can think you want this is when you are up by 9 or 10 points with like <2 minutes left in the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:The Raiders don't draft or sign players who hit women Or cut them if they only had longs records of being jackasses before hitting women, so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:42
|
|
Kalli posted:The only time I can think you want this is when you are up by 9 or 10 points with like <2 minutes left in the game. Why? Surely its still better to take your points?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
I guess if you're up 5 with like a minute or so left in the game and they have no timeouts But even then you're a missed tackle away from being hosed Actually Kalli's scenario is probably better
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:44
|
|