57 minutes ago, devpool said:

They could go edge and fulfill their DL obsession. DT would be an awful pick

If the best player on their board is a DT it would be awful not to take him. Taking second best on purpose is just stupid and self-defeating.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

They went to crap the last few years. Horrible service and the hidden warehouse handling fees are BS.

 

11 minutes ago, just relax said:

If the best player on their board is a DT it would be awful not to take him. Taking second best on purpose is just stupid and self-defeating.

I disagree. You can't take strictly BPA all the time, we pick DT again and that's 3 first round picks at DT in 3 years when we have dire needs at DE/EDGE and safety. Absolute waste of resources.

 

Edit: To add, the second best player on their board could be their highest graded player at another position. You can't ignore need and draft BPA every pick, that would be stupid 

34 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

His profile kinda reminds me JoJo Domann. He had a lot of hype for some reason despite being old and having a ton of injuries in college. I think he’s a little younger than Domann though. 

I comp him to Van der Esch

Big, fast.  Extremely good.  Injury concern. 

 

Superbowl!

6 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea, he took a small pay cut with the Titans. Then when he was traded to the Eagles, Howie took whatever was left on his base and gave it to him as a bonus and spread it out over dummy years because they needed that whopping $770k in cap space. 

But if that 770k of cap space isn't used, it gets carried over. So could end up being a nothing move. That's why dead cap should always be looked as a net of the cap carried forward from previous years. its the net of those two that you are either up or down on the base cap level that can be used on the team for that year   

1 minute ago, kiwieagle said:

But if that 770k of cap space isn't used, it gets carried over. So could end up being a nothing move. That's why dead cap should always be looked as a net of the cap carried forward from previous years. its the net of those two that you are either up or down on the base cap level that can be used on the team for that year   

Yes, it is essentially a nothing move considering they rolled over around $2M. Just explaining why he has dead cap to begin with. 

15 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

Superbowl!

No Georgia players.  It's either perfect, or horribly wrong!

15 minutes ago, kiwieagle said:

But if that 770k of cap space isn't used, it gets carried over. So could end up being a nothing move. That's why dead cap should always be looked as a net of the cap carried forward from previous years. its the net of those two that you are either up or down on the base cap level that can be used on the team for that year   

Except when the dead cap space is a result of a horrible personnel decision that got worse because of the decision to overpay moving forward based on past performance.

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

Except when the dead cap space is a result of a horrible personnel decision that got worse because of the decision to overpay moving forward based on past performance.

Yep dead cap can be bad, but you still look at the net.

For example sake, lets say I have zero cap room and a contract which I am tied to where I am paying a guy $5m this year. Then I move $4m of that into future years which creates room in this year's cap. If I don't use the $4m up. I get to carry it into next year. Lets say I cut the guy the very next year (or had done a Howie special by adding void years) the dead cap of $4m created in next years' cap is cancelled out by the cap rollover created from that move. Net impact on next year's cap is zero and its exactly the same as what I would have had available if I didn't make that move at all which created both the dead cap and the cap rollover.

Now if I used some of the $4m I opened up and therefore don't have the full matching rollover - that's when dead cap starts hurting next year's available cap.

That’s just horrible 

6 hours ago, greend said:

For those that know me here I wanted to pass on the good news. I will be retiring from fulltime work in October of this year. Looking forward to not working 10 hour days anymore.

Congrats brother!  Welcome to that retired life.

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

51 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

No Georgia players.  It's either perfect, or horribly wrong!

I figured drafting another Jaylon would balance that out.

51 minutes ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

What about build the defense with the money from Bradberry’s departure? How much money do we get from that?

1 hour ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

Because we have so much dead money on his deal (how we were able to keep bringing him back on 1 year contracts), we have to June 1st him and only save about 1.5m$

11 minutes ago, QuinnWR4 said:

What about build the defense with the money from Bradberry’s departure? How much money do we get from that?

We would have to June 1st him, which makes it a push this year and we lose 10m$ in cap space next year. Makes more sense just to keep him as a backup

1 hour ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

Preferably he comes back because he's the best option at C, but I'd understand if he retires after that abortion of a season. I could see both ways; how he wouldn't want to end on that note but also a crap ending like that could turn him off.

1 hour ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

Kelce is an all-timer, a HOFer and hopefully a part of this organization for a long time to come. I just think it's time to move on and let Cam Jurgens take over.

We're now almost 3 years removed from his rookie season so it can be easy to forget how naturally gifted Cam Jurgens is playing Center. His body is maxed out at 6-3 302 and playing out of position at RG makes him a less effective player than what he could be. I'd wager he finished the year at 290. That's just not sustainable as a RG in the NFL. He's a 2nd round draft pick and even though he started at RG, that's not what he was drafted to do. He was drafted to replace Kelce. Let him do that. 

Tyler Steen is a 3rd round draft pick and was drafted with the intent of being the RG of the future. He's got 3" and over 20 lbs on Jurgens at 6-6 322. I'd imagine he can hit 330 with ease. There still might be a learning curve with both players but geez, you drafted them in the 2nd and 3rd round. They've got to be on the field. Look at the Chiefs draft classes. They have rookies, 2nd year and 3rd year guys playing at high, high levels and they are winning back to back SBs. I'm sick of the thought process that you have to wait to play guys or drafting knowing that they might sit for 3 years. It's why I'm so against drafting a RT in round 1 just incase Lane Johnson gets hurt. We just saw what happens with Andre Dillard. Traded up in the 1st round and drafted with the intent to replace JP and was a reserve. 

 

 

2 hours ago, kiwieagle said:

Yep dead cap can be bad, but you still look at the net.

For example sake, lets say I have zero cap room and a contract which I am tied to where I am paying a guy $5m this year. Then I move $4m of that into future years which creates room in this year's cap. If I don't use the $4m up. I get to carry it into next year. Lets say I cut the guy the very next year (or had done a Howie special by adding void years) the dead cap of $4m created in next years' cap is cancelled out by the cap rollover created from that move. Net impact on next year's cap is zero and its exactly the same as what I would have had available if I didn't make that move at all which created both the dead cap and the cap rollover.

Now if I used some of the $4m I opened up and therefore don't have the full matching rollover - that's when dead cap starts hurting next year's available cap.

Yes... but what if you make the horrible decision to bring back a player that you shouldn't (aka, Bradberry) and pay him too much money... and tie up extra money in dead cap space when you know he will be long gone?     There's no 'savings' there.  There's just piling good money on top of bad.  

1 hour ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Build the defense with Kelces 14 milly? Or Kelce one more year?

One more year. He's still so damn good 

Saw barstool posted on Facebook that the chiefs haven't been called for offensive holding in 3 straight super bowls. If that's true, that's some of the fishiest crap I have ever seen there is no freaking way

56 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

We would have to June 1st him, which makes it a push this year and we lose 10m$ in cap space next year. Makes more sense just to keep him as a backup

Yuck

I like to joke about NFL conspiracies and rigging games and whatnot, but my biggest question regarding that stuff is why would the NFL choose to rig games for one specific team for so long? Like the patriots, why 15+ years? Or the chiefs now? Sure rig a couple seasons so a team wins the super bowl and you get a huge influx of cash from that fanbase for a while. But to have a team win multiple championships?

The league would be better served rigging seasons so other teams could win, they get infinitely more fan interest from those teams for a while thus more money.

It's also interesting how the quality of the product has declined the last few years and yet somehow viewership increases. Like this super bowl, arguably one of the most boring super bowls since pats Rams from two of the most disliked teams in the league through 3.5 quarters and somehow the most watched?

Things I think about while trapped under my sleeping newborn.

Concensus board is the most predictive.

Would be thrilled with Wiggins at 22.