ATL: The 2018 NFL Offseason - DeMarco Murray Retires (pg 86)

[IrishRainbow]

With the QB $$$ exploding and the typical decline in win% once your QB hits a certain cap%, will the MO ever get to the point where teams will back off paying that second contract to second tier QBs? Where as if you aren't HOF potential, you get shipped out for a new chance at a great rookie scale QB and start the window again?

This is asked with zero research on the actual win%dif compared to rookie scale QB vs second contract QB filtered with >.500 on rookie contact QB. (Anybody bored? ) Extrapolated, what, 5yrs?

I understand the variances of added years experience on one side of the balance sheet and reduced cap availability on the other, obviously with some sort of GM rider quotient, but I'm not sure how the past facts tell that story.

Sent from my SM-G935R4 using RealGM mobile app

[Prickle]

They got worse at WR but will save money to give to Gronk and pick up a first.

Not exactly some unbelievable plan they executed. Not a bad idea to say the least but I wouldn't say its masterful or anything. Or is the belief that Mathews is close to as good as Cooks? If so we need a shark to jump over

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

They didn't get worse at WR. They NEVER get worse at WR. They make these exact type of moves every single year. They know how to play the cap, they never overpay, and they understand that their system is the most important piece, not the players. Their receivers have been nothing but an interchangeable collection of "guys" ever since Brady's been the QB.

You don't think it's "masterful"? Well, it isn't (or is it?). I think that's part of what makes them a man amongst boys, in terms of roster construction each year. They never seem to make the "splashy" moves, but always make the smart, low-key type of moves every year, and I think the results speak for themselves.

So your saying is it was useless to trade for Cooks last year?

Are you kidding me? They make tons of "splashy" moves. Some work out. Some don't. But they make plenty of them

They just retconned a trade they probably regretted making. Solid move but as mentioned it's not like it's a net gain



Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

The Patriots yet again made the Super Bowl last season, with Cooks as a WR. I highly doubt they "regret" making that trade. Just like they won't regret acquiring Matthews this season, as it will more than likely end up in another SB appearance. Now, was the Cooks acquisition the sole reason they got to the SB? No, of course not. Will the Matthews acquisition be the sole reason they make it this year? Of course not. But you can bet your ass that they'll probably reach the SB once again, and Matthews will have a role in that.

This is the difference between the Packers and the Patriots. If the Packers signed Matthews, fans would be expecting WAY too much out of him. They'd be expecting him to be an All-Pro, Pro Bowl player, and he would be blamed for many of the offense's woes if he didn't perform to those levels. The Pats, on the other hand, just pick up these types of guys every year, and fit them into their system - a SYSTEM THAT ALWAYS WORKS!

What's splashy? Like I alluded to, the Packers signing Matthews would be considered splashy; when the Pats do it, it's not, Do they make some splashy moves? I guess. But I'd say that the splashiest moves they make are often the ones where they're letting guys go, not the ones where they're bringing them in. They have a philosophy, and they never seem to stray from it. They don't take players' or fans' feelings into account, only what will help them continue to win.

[Prickle]

Also, it doesn't matter if Matthews is as good as Cooks. That's the point. Matthews' value will be higher with the Pats than it will ever be anywhere else.

He had more yards, catches, and TDs in both of his two previous years with the Saints.

The Pats downgraded from him to Matthews, and lost Amendola. Highly likely they use one of their 4 picks in the first two rounds on a WR.

What's more valuable......having more yards, catches, and TDs for a sh*tty team, or having fewer personal stats while filling a meaningful role on a SB team?

For many of today's WRs, the former is likely the answer. But for the Patriots, the latter is all that matters, which is why they can continually replenish the position without skipping a beat. Check your egos at the door. When you have Brady and that system, everyone else is nothing more than a role player. This has been true for almost two decades now, let me know when it no longer is.

[Prickle]

Nothing new.....

The Patriots play chess, everyone else plays checkers.

They got worse at WR but will save money to give to Gronk and pick up a first.

Not exactly some unbelievable plan they executed. Not a bad idea to say the least but I wouldn't say its masterful or anything. Or is the belief that Mathews is close to as good as Cooks? If so we need a shark to jump over

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

To acquire Cooks last year, the Patriots sent out picks 32 (590 points) and 103 (88 points), and received pick 118 (58 points). Net loss = 620 points.

In flipping him this year, the Patriots received picks 23 (760 points) and 198 (12 points), and sent pick 136 (38 points). Net gain = 734 points.

The Patriots gained 114 points, which is equal to a late third rounder.

Matthews can get you most of the production Cooks did. And they gained a third rounder for their troubles. If TT did this, you'd likely tout it as a genius move.

Thanks for doing the math, but I really don't think there's any reason to try to justify any of the moves the Patriots make. No one ever wants to give NE the credit they deserve. Why? Because they always win. Everyone hates the Pats, which naturally makes it impossible for anyone to admit how great that organization is run. I hate the Pats, but at least I can admit why - it's because they're better than the Packers, and have been for two decades.

[th87]

They got worse at WR but will save money to give to Gronk and pick up a first.

Not exactly some unbelievable plan they executed. Not a bad idea to say the least but I wouldn't say its masterful or anything. Or is the belief that Mathews is close to as good as Cooks? If so we need a shark to jump over

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

To acquire Cooks last year, the Patriots sent out picks 32 (590 points) and 103 (88 points), and received pick 118 (58 points). Net loss = 620 points.

In flipping him this year, the Patriots received picks 23 (760 points) and 198 (12 points), and sent pick 136 (38 points). Net gain = 734 points.

The Patriots gained 114 points, which is equal to a late third rounder.

Matthews can get you most of the production Cooks did. And they gained a third rounder for their troubles. If TT did this, you'd likely tout it as a genius move.

Thanks for doing the math, but I really don't think there's any reason to try to justify any of the moves the Patriots make. No one ever wants to give NE the credit they deserve. Why? Because they always win. Everyone hates the Pats, which naturally makes it impossible for anyone to admit how great that organization is run. I hate the Pats, but at least I can admit why - it's because they're better than the Packers, and have been for two decades.

By a country mile.

And I don't find moral victories of us being second to them very satisfying at all.

[th87]

They got worse at WR but will save money to give to Gronk and pick up a first.

Not exactly some unbelievable plan they executed. Not a bad idea to say the least but I wouldn't say its masterful or anything. Or is the belief that Mathews is close to as good as Cooks? If so we need a shark to jump over

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

To acquire Cooks last year, the Patriots sent out picks 32 (590 points) and 103 (88 points), and received pick 118 (58 points). Net loss = 620 points.

In flipping him this year, the Patriots received picks 23 (760 points) and 198 (12 points), and sent pick 136 (38 points). Net gain = 734 points.

The Patriots gained 114 points, which is equal to a late third rounder.

Matthews can get you most of the production Cooks did. And they gained a third rounder for their troubles. If TT did this, you'd likely tout it as a genius move.

I never said it was bad. And more like I'd tout it as a "well at least they knew to cash out" type of move or more likely "why even trade for him in the 1st place?"

You could also argue, point chart aside, that had they never traded for Cooks in the first place they'd be in a better position this coming season as they'd have their 1st round pick with a year of expierance under his belt.

Good trade for them. But damn if people get defensive when you don't praise every single transaction

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

Prior to the 2017 season, the Patriots decided that they had a weakness at WR and wanted to fix it with their first round pick. If they kept their pick, it either gets spent on a rookie WR (who likely wouldn't have contributed as much), or elsewhere, leaving a hole at the WR position, which would perhaps be big enough to prevent them from reaching the SB.

There is no point in focusing on what 2018 would look like in 2017, especially given that they made the SB, and that their QB is 40.

You are often disparaging of the Patriots' moves and minimize their success.

[RRyder823]

To acquire Cooks last year, the Patriots sent out picks 32 (590 points) and 103 (88 points), and received pick 118 (58 points). Net loss = 620 points.

In flipping him this year, the Patriots received picks 23 (760 points) and 198 (12 points), and sent pick 136 (38 points). Net gain = 734 points.

The Patriots gained 114 points, which is equal to a late third rounder.

Matthews can get you most of the production Cooks did. And they gained a third rounder for their troubles. If TT did this, you'd likely tout it as a genius move.

I never said it was bad. And more like I'd tout it as a "well at least they knew to cash out" type of move or more likely "why even trade for him in the 1st place?"

You could also argue, point chart aside, that had they never traded for Cooks in the first place they'd be in a better position this coming season as they'd have their 1st round pick with a year of expierance under his belt.

Good trade for them. But damn if people get defensive when you don't praise every single transaction

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

Prior to the 2017 season, the Patriots decided that they had a weakness at WR and wanted to fix it with their first round pick. If they kept their pick, it either gets spent on a rookie WR (who likely wouldn't have contributed as much), or elsewhere, leaving a hole at the WR position, which would perhaps be big enough to prevent them from reaching the SB.

There is no point in focusing on what 2018 would look like in 2017, especially given that they made the SB, and that their QB is 40.

You are often disparaging of the Patriots' moves and minimize their success.

I've repeatedly said they've been the standard bearer in the league.

Just because I don't think every thing they touch turns to gold isn't minimizing their success. They grossly mis managed the trading of Jimmy G and would've gotten more had they traded him prior to the draft last year and while Gilmore rebounded in the 2nd half of the season that's not exactly a great looking contract they handed out to him last year and then ostracised their other starting CB right before the biggest game of the season where a CB that could've caused a single incompletion would've made a pretty huge difference.

Pointing out things like that isn't minimizing their success no matter how much people want it to be. Its pointing out that even the best run organizations make mistakes.



Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

[emunney]

With the QB $$$ exploding and the typical decline in win% once your QB hits a certain cap%, will the MO ever get to the point where teams will back off paying that second contract to second tier QBs? Where as if you aren't HOF potential, you get shipped out for a new chance at a great rookie scale QB and start the window again?

This is asked with zero research on the actual win%dif compared to rookie scale QB vs second contract QB filtered with >.500 on rookie contact QB. (Anybody bored? ) Extrapolated, what, 5yrs?

I understand the variances of added years experience on one side of the balance sheet and reduced cap availability on the other, obviously with some sort of GM rider quotient, but I'm not sure how the past facts tell that story.

Sent from my SM-G935R4 using RealGM mobile app

I think this is pretty smart, but I think for the most part teams will be too scared that they're letting go of Drew Brees as long as most contracts are still non-guaranteed. I do think that this guaranteed contract thing for 2nd tier QBs that Kirk Cousins is kicking off is a doomed trend. But I could see it being adopted more permanently for the top guys.

[Cactus Jack]

You can see the strange logic. They're clearly in rebuild mode on defense. Wilson is expensive and they're concerned about his longevity.

It would be extraordinarily ballsy to move Wilson for a rookie. They'd get massacred by the press - and their fan base. But, it could work out in the long run.

Unless the Browns were to offer up their entire arsenal of picks, there is no way he's moved. It would take a Herschel Walker type haul.

[Cactus Jack]

Theres more to this if he’s upset about that

He certainly suspects as much. But it's not necessarily an indication of anything nefarious in their part.

Worst case scenario: They're planning to move on from a well-regarded QB who is entering his prime via a trade or a release and they're willing to move up for the right QB.

Best case scenario: Schneider was just doing his due diligence and was more curious than anything. No plans to move on from Wilson. But, maybe if he slid, they'd consider taking him as protection for Wilson because his physical style of play exposes him to an injury risk.

I doubt they'd seriously consider the former because of the extraordinary risk that it is and the low likelihood they'd be able to make a big leap in the draft. But I'll never say never.

He’s not going get traded but his time in Seattle seems short to me

That seems like wishful thinking?

[Mags FTW]

Can’t wait for the Robert Kraft/Meek Mill Mixtape to drop.

[sdn40]

The guaranteed money on the Matthews contract says it all. I'm guessing there are major concerns there the Packers just didn't want to deal with

[Ron Swanson]

I've never viewed Wilson in that elite tier of QB's that can carry your offense though. Which is why I don't think it's crazy to explore the market on him and think that you can go the younger and cheaper route by strengthening other holes on the roster.

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

Jesus.

[midranger]

Yeah. He's going to jail/prison for a spell.

[Iheartfootball]

Red flags be damned. Packers should have drafted him, right?

I thought it would be injury though, not domestic abuse.

[th87]

Read on Twitter

Jesus.

Now all we need is for TJ Watt to get into a barroom brawl over England's greatest prime minister, and we're set.

[emunney]

Saw the Texans released Derek Newton. Just watched the play where he got injured and I have no idea how you lose BOTH patellar tendons just sliding out on a pass block. Horrible.

[WeekapaugGroove]

The alleged details with Foster are really bad.

Not to beat a dead horse but it kind of reinforces my belief when you starting hearing about character issues and a talented guy drops because of them there's probably a lot more that teams know than we in the general public hear about. The reality with football is there are some questionable character guys who play (just the nature of a violent sport) and teams have a certain level of this they can look past so when they stop looking past it you know there's some serious concerns.

Now that's not to say every guy who drops because of character concerns ends up having problems; much like regular people some guys grow up and change.