Columbia Jet Fan Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 who you wouldn't trade to Detroit for the #1 pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Why would we want the #1 pick? To draft a tackle from ****ing BAYLOR? To draft a junior QB that wasn't that great in college? To plunge another $50 million into our linebacker corps? I wouldn't trade anyone (not even Pouha) for the #1 pick, unless I could use the #1 pick to get Jay Cutler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 who you wouldn't trade to Detroit for the #1 pick? I'm not sure I want the #1 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I wouldn't trade anyone (not even Pouha) for the #1 pick, unless I could use the #1 pick to get Jay Cutler. I would definitely trade Pouha for the #1 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think we have the cap room for a $13M/yr rookie. Agree with Troll; the only reason I'd want the pick is to trade it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdropOFvenom Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah, nowadays having the #1 pick is more of a curse then a blessing because of the obscene contract that comes with it. Add in the lack of a prospect truly worth spending the #1 overall pick on, and it's a tough sell IMO. Now if you said the #10 pick, that would be a more interesting debate. A much more reasonable contract and you could get a legit player with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 who you wouldn't trade to Detroit for the #1 pick? Rhodes, Revis, Jenkins, Harris, Scott, Pace, Brick, Mangold, Keller, Cotchery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 There's no one I'd want with the first pick and I sure as hell don't think they want to pay someone that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNJet Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Rhodes, Revis, Jenkins, Harris, Scott, Pace, Brick, Mangold, Keller, Cotchery yeah agreed, and this guy named Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 All of them if nobody will trade for the #1 pick once they got it... the JETS having the #1 pick this year would be a terrible thing money wise... and player wise to be honest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bachelors3 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Whenever we traded down or had a top five pick there was no guarantee we would get a superstar. For every Keyshawn, Joe Namath, and Freeman McNeil there was a Blair Thomas, Vernon Gholston (so far), and Lam Jones. And then we usually get better players in the second half of the first round than early on. Like Mangold over D'Brick. We actually do better in the second through fourth rounds (see list above). And the cap value on these later picks doesn't cripple your team. One thing they don't take into account when doing measurables, (40 speed, high jump, etc.) is desire and competitive spirit. I mean two of our greatest players ever were Klecko and Chrebet! And we did draft Dedrick Ward in the late rounds and both of our new FA signings, Bart Scott and Leonhard, went undrafted, as well. And we may have a starting QB who went undrafted, this year, come to think about it! So keep your #1 in the draft pick. Give me guys who have something to prove, have a chip on their shoulders, and want to win. Give me the Revis', the Mangolds and the Leon Washingtons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Whenever we traded down or had a top five pick there was no guarantee we would get a superstar. For every Keyshawn, Joe Namath, and Freeman McNeil there was a Blair Thomas, Vernon Gholston (so far), and Lam Jones. And then we usually get better players in the second half of the first round than early on. Like Mangold over D'Brick. We actually do better in the second through fourth rounds (see list above). And the cap value on these later picks doesn't cripple your team. One thing they don't take into account when doing measurables, (40 speed, high jump, etc.) is desire and competitive spirit. I mean two of our greatest players ever were Klecko and Chrebet! And we did draft Dedrick Ward in the late rounds and both of our new FA signings, Bart Scott and Leonhard, went undrafted, as well. And we may have a starting QB who went undrafted, this year, come to think about it! So keep your #1 in the draft pick. Give me guys who have something to prove, have a chip on their shoulders, and want to win. Give me the Revis', the Mangolds and the Leon Washingtons. +1 I'm always a proponent of the shotgun approach to drafting. Trade down and stockpile and by no means do you trade away picks for players unless it's a fourth for randy moss or the equivalent. More picks, more projects, more bodies, and most likely more contributors at low cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm in favor of instead of making the worst team draft 1st, 2nd worst draft 2nd, etc instead allowing the worst team to select their position... 1-32... Then the 2nd worst team select, etc etc... This way, if you don't want #1, and you're the Lions, you can just put yourself in slot 5, for instance. If you do want it, you can take it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm in favor of instead of making the worst team draft 1st, 2nd worst draft 2nd, etc instead allowing the worst team to select their position... 1-32... Then the 2nd worst team select, etc etc... This way, if you don't want #1, and you're the Lions, you can just put yourself in slot 5, for instance. If you do want it, you can take it Technically they can do that now by not making a pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Technically they can do that now by not making a pick. Good point. So say the Lions knew they could get their man at pick # 3 or 4... and do not want to pay him #1 money just because... they could just let themselves slide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Technically they can do that now by not making a pick. i can see the lions pulling a Queens and not make pick after time is up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think we have the cap room for a $13M/yr rookie. Agree with Troll; the only reason I'd want the pick is to trade it away. I agree, too. Having a top pick at this point is more of a burden than a luxury. Congratulations on having the worst record in football! Now you get to have the highest paid unproven commodity in the league, too! Isn't life grand? I think this is one of the reasons a guy like Mark Sanchez is coming out early. If there's a cap in 2010, there'll almost certainly be some kind of rookie cap in place, too. These rookie contracts have gotten way out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 It can be done now. No GM has the stones to do it though because every Mayock & Kiper & beat writer who doesn't have to deal with salary cap implications would be screaming what fools they are & cherry-pick the best player in the draft that they "could have" had in hindsight. The answer is to make a rookie cap with some responsibility. I can't believe the NFLPA is actually against that since their constituents voting on it are all veterans who would stand to make a lot more money. The only ones who should be against it are the yet-to-be rookie players themselves and their agents, none of whom are part of the NFLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.