Jump to content

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    36,206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    461

Superman last won the day on April 20

Superman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33,828 Hall of Famer

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    .

Recent Profile Visitors

48,825 profile views
  1. Maybe they did panic, but I assumed when they traded Ford that they were working on something. It could have been that they hoped to get someone in the draft, maybe they wanted Sweat but didn't like his medical, or something like that. Either way, I'm not sure the price is as drastic as we're making it seem; this is less than the Bears gave up for Mack. As for the guaranteed money, it's always overstated. End of the day, with rare exceptions (Mack and Donald, so far), the guaranteed money is contained in the first three years of the deal. As the cap and yearly averages increase, the three year guarantee goes up with it. But there's been no dramatic change in the way contracts are done. For the most part, even these big money contracts are 2-3 year deals, with team options after that. Even Kirk Cousins, everyone got excited because it was fully guaranteed, but every QB gets a three year guarantee, so the guaranteed money wasn't that big of a departure from the norm. The big difference is that it's only three years, so Cousins has just as much flexibility as the Vikings do, assuming he's still a commodity when his contract is up.
  2. I don't really agree with a lot of the characterizations of how Grigson operated, but there's no need to go back over all of that in detail. With the Chiefs, they've been kind of in limbo offensively, and I think that's a big part of why Sutton was fired. And the defensive adjustments they've made are defensible. I think they overpaid Hitchens, but not dramatically. They overpaid Mathieu. I don't think they overpaid Clark, but they did pay a steep trade price. But I understand letting Houston, Berry and Ford go, especially Ford with the scheme change. As for their approach with adding outside players, it's an interesting change, and I'm not sure it's working. Their best players have still been their homegrown guys, the FAs have been kind of 'meh' to this point, and now they undermined their future homegrown pipeline with the Clark trade. Of course, Dorsey has done a little bit of everything with the Browns. We'll see that works out also.
  3. The Falcons have cap problems, this year and next. But they still have almost three months to negotiate with Jarrett. Him signing the tender just means it's guaranteed.
  4. Their value matrix seems a little out of whack, right? These deals have all been more brash than basically anything Grigson did. I think Clark is a good player and I understand making a move for him and paying him, but I do think they paid a steep price.
  5. Daniel Jones can run, though. He's a pretty good mover, in the pocket and on the run. I actually like him, and it's not outrageous that the Giants would have him as QB1 in this draft.
  6. Looks like it's just an ACL, no cartilage damage, no meniscus damage, no nerve damage... If that's the case, I'd take him with a mid round pick, and I'd be fine if he misses 2019 entirely.
  7. Yeah, the cost difference is considerable. But if you feel one player is better than another, it explains why a team would spend more resources on him. I still don't like the deal for KC, but I understand why they would prefer Clark to Ford.
  8. For Frank Clark? I don't know, sounds like someone in the Colts organization would have vouched for him. For Demarcus Lawrence, I think so. But add in the picks, and it's a non-starter.
  9. And he gets the Demarcus Lawrence contract, basically: Ballard was never gonna do this. I believe he or Dodds might have made a call or two, but the idea that they were 'in the driver's seat' on this never made sense to me.
  10. I was aware of Clark at the time, and liked his tape. I wasn't surprised he went in the second, even though some people had him in the third or fourth, but the reason most people were off of him is because he had red flags off the field. He was also a bit of a tweener, and the NFL continues to struggle with tweener edge rushers (I wonder about Josh Allen, to be honest). But yes, players in later rounds can outperform earlier draft picks. Justin Houston was a third rounder for similar reasons to Clark.
  11. Our OL and receivers played really poorly, Hilton was hurt, Luck wasn't sharp, and I didn't like the gameplan and playcalling either. It was a really bad showing for the Colts offense. But the strength of their defense was always the front four, and our issues on offense fed right into what they wanted to do. And their most important front piece was and will continue to be Chris Jones. He'll be the centerpiece of what they do defensively, and now he has a true, every down running mate.
  12. Apples to apples, it looks that way. But Clark and Ford are different players with different traits, and I'd argue Clark has been better and more consistent than Ford. I can see the Chiefs feeling Clark is a better player and more worthy of the contract he's eventually getting. That first rounder, though...
  13. They basically traded Dee Ford and a first rounder for Frank Clark. Plus they cut Justin Houston, who's now a Colt. Pending the draft, it's a net loss for them so far.
×
×
  • Create New...