Ice_Ice_Brady

Report: Top four teams have discussed trading down | ProFootballTalk.com

According to PFT, the top 4 teams have all discussed trading down. Now it makes sense that the Seymour trade was for a 2011 first-round pick, especially given that Oakland was likely to be one of these teams at the time of the trade.

It seems to me (although I'm no cap expert) that a very uncertain cap/CBA situation will make the draft a sticky situation for high-drafting teams. Players are going to demand a ton of money, arguing that there is no salary cap. Meanwhile, teams are going to be concerned about the long-term implications of signing players to mega-contracts without knowing the future structure of the league.

PFT also points out that the talent in this draft is very deep, which also makes signing a top pick a bad investment. Of course, draft "experts" have been saying this every year until the draft itself, when suddenly there are must-have players in the top three.

One other benefit that no one has really pointed out is the 4-5 quarterbacks that are likely to be taken in round one. Since the Patriots are already set at that position, that is 4-5 more relevant quality players that will available when they draft.

upstater1

If I'm a deep-pocketed owner picking late, I send my, say, #20 pick in the draft, and a 2nd (at best) for one of those picks, just to see if they bite.

Then I pick a stud and use this year's salary cap to my dvantage.

Say the going rate is $10 million a year.

Structure the contract like so:

$19 million
$9.5 million
$6.5 million
$6.5 million

You get a top first round pick with no negative impact on the salary cap.

You must feel strongly however that the guy will pan out.

makoute

It's only a bad investment if the player drafted is a burst. And also, I don't rookie signings this season being much different than other seasons, for the simple fact that if a rookie holds out this year, they know more than likely there will be a rookie cap next season and not only that, there might not be any football so they won't get paid at all, so it is in their benefit to sign this year, if there was any year teams can play hardball with rookies it's this year.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mcmurtry86

4 or 5? I would be shocked if 4-5 go in the 1st round, let alone before the Pats pick. Clausen and Bradford will go for sure, but the others probably won't, unless someone reaches for Tebow (and who knows, that may be New England). Doubt McCoy goes in round 1, if he does he will be at the end of the round. Not sure who you think is the 5th guy, but I definitely don't see anyone else worthy of a 1st rounder (Tebow and McCoy aren't really worthy of 1st rounders either but may get overdrafted).

Ice_Ice_Brady

I forgot that Jake Locker is staying in school. I wouldn't be surprised if there are 4 QBs in the first round. The Pats also have lots of second round picks... teams always reach for quarterbacks.

Ochmed Jones

My thoughts exactly. Any team taking Tebow or Lefevour in the first is over drafting.

However, I do expect McCoy to have a great pro day and really skyrocket up the draft board. I think McCoy's accuracy is the best in this draft. All he has to do is show decent arm strength and he is a first rounder in my opinion.

BradyBranch39

I find it hard to believe that McCoy suddenly is considered a first round possibility. 2nd is more realistic.

If a team takes Tebow in the first they're unbelievably dumb.

LeFevour I could see going as a Boller/Flacco fly up the boards type.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TriplecHamp

3rd is most likely where he would go. Tebow will probably go in the mid second unless somebody trades up or down. LeFevour isn't a good enough passer to make a Flacco type move up but he could also go in the second.

jsull87

I am pretty sure that the following year can't be less than 30% of the previous years salary or something like that. I am not definite but i think i heard something like that would be in place. But maybe it's that the salary can't exceed that 30%. Gist is i think there is something in place to stop that scenario even tho i think that would be a good idea too if possible

JFK

With the way he structured it, it isn't. Unless you mean the following year can't be more than 30% less than the previous years salary.