MB's Final Mock

Dedicated to College Football and Draft discussion.
post

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:34 pm

Doctor wrote:"Locking down a position for ten years" is a stupid concept. Most players don't do that and that's okay. Booger didn't lock down his position for ten years or Dwight Smith or Keyshawn after trading 2 first rounders for him. Yet all were huge pieces to our SB ring. In all honesty, even a guy like Mike Evans is likely not going to retire a Buc or even play here ten years. Randy Moss wasn't a Viking for ten years. Torry Holt wasn't a Ram for ten years. Heck, Calvin Johnson wasn't a Lion for ten years. Not everyone can be Jerry Rice or Issac Bruce. And that's fine.


So it's a stupid concept to draft guys in the 1st round w/ the expectation/hope of them developing into good players and re-signing with the team?

We traded Booger for 2nd round pick
Dwight Smith was a 3rd rd pick (not a 1st)
Mike Evans will re-sign w/ the Bucs. Hopefully you don't think that that is a "stupid concept".
Randy Moss left Minny b/c of off the field stuff, talent was never an issue. He's a 1st ballot HoF
Torry Holt and Megatron both signed 2nd contracts with the team that drafted them and were outstanding players.

All of the examples you provided are terrible and do nothing but support my point here.

With the exception of QB and specialists an NFL players 'prime years' are around 25-30. This was a major factor in changing the latest CBA so that 2nd contract players get the bulk of the money. It's because those guys are by in large the best players in the NFL.

If you follow franchises that are actually run well and sin consistently you'll see they have great track record of re-signing their own players to 2nd contracts and NOT signing them to 3rd contracts when players decline and teams are paying for past performance. Packers, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, etc all have this in common.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:33 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Doctor wrote:"Locking down a position for ten years" is a stupid concept. Most players don't do that and that's okay. Booger didn't lock down his position for ten years or Dwight Smith or Keyshawn after trading 2 first rounders for him. Yet all were huge pieces to our SB ring. In all honesty, even a guy like Mike Evans is likely not going to retire a Buc or even play here ten years. Randy Moss wasn't a Viking for ten years. Torry Holt wasn't a Ram for ten years. Heck, Calvin Johnson wasn't a Lion for ten years. Not everyone can be Jerry Rice or Issac Bruce. And that's fine.


So it's a stupid concept to draft guys in the 1st round w/ the expectation/hope of them developing into good players and re-signing with the team?

We traded Booger for 2nd round pick
Dwight Smith was a 3rd rd pick (not a 1st)
Mike Evans will re-sign w/ the Bucs. Hopefully you don't think that that is a "stupid concept".
Randy Moss left Minny b/c of off the field stuff, talent was never an issue. He's a 1st ballot HoF
Torry Holt and Megatron both signed 2nd contracts with the team that drafted them and were outstanding players.

All of the examples you provided are terrible and do nothing but support my point here.

With the exception of QB and specialists an NFL players 'prime years' are around 25-30. This was a major factor in changing the latest CBA so that 2nd contract players get the bulk of the money. It's because those guys are by in large the best players in the NFL.

If you follow franchises that are actually run well and sin consistently you'll see they have great track record of re-signing their own players to 2nd contracts and NOT signing them to 3rd contracts when players decline and teams are paying for past performance. Packers, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, etc all have this in common.


Pump the brakes, home slice.

We want all of the draft picks to exceed expectations and be big time contributors. It's just unreasonable to expect them to all do that. Maybe Bolles plays 12 years for us, maybe we move on or trade him after his rookie deal. Maybe he bombs out of the league in 2 years. THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW what will happen.

I think every player from Winston to this year's UDFA's need to be treated the same way. One contract at a time. This is about putting together the best 52 we can have this year. Not the best 52 we can have in ten years.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8265
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 477 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Doctor » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:50 pm

The point is the "ten year" measuring stick is simply stupid. Many players can come in and player 2 year or 6 years and still be incredible contributors to the franchise or a SB run. Even signing a player to a "second contract" doesn't mean ten years as most almost never finish it (if it even reaches ten years). Yes, CJ and Holt did sign second contracts, but they didn't play ten years with their team, don't try to create a strawman to fit your argument, I'm not talking second contracts, I'm talking about the ten year mark. The only position that really ever gets locked down like that is a franchise QB you drafted, and there are only about a dozen of those in the league at a time. It's always stupid when experts or anyone says something like "Oh, if they draft ____ they can pair him up with ____ and lock down the ___ position for the next ten years". No. It doesn't happen. It's a stupid thing to say. It's a stupid standard to have.

Can this guy contribute to a SB run. I don't care if Bolles plays just 5 years for us, can he contribute to a SB run during those five years? If yes then he's a great ****ing pick. And I'm not even on the Bolles wagon.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Alpha » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:50 am

Doctor wrote:The point is the "ten year" measuring stick is simply stupid. Many players can come in and player 2 year or 6 years and still be incredible contributors to the franchise or a SB run. Even signing a player to a "second contract" doesn't mean ten years as most almost never finish it (if it even reaches ten years). Yes, CJ and Holt did sign second contracts, but they didn't play ten years with their team, don't try to create a strawman to fit your argument, I'm not talking second contracts, I'm talking about the ten year mark. The only position that really ever gets locked down like that is a franchise QB you drafted, and there are only about a dozen of those in the league at a time. It's always stupid when experts or anyone says something like "Oh, if they draft ____ they can pair him up with ____ and lock down the ___ position for the next ten years". No. It doesn't happen. It's a stupid thing to say. It's a stupid standard to have.

Can this guy contribute to a SB run. I don't care if Bolles plays just 5 years for us, can he contribute to a SB run during those five years? If yes then he's a great ****ing pick. And I'm not even on the Bolles wagon.


The point was..."10 years" was a random number. The concept isn't.

Doc just gets a chubby every time he gets a whiff of my ass...he's probably still mad that I ain't paying his old lady child support...
Alpha
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Doctor » Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:33 am

Alpha wrote:
Doctor wrote:The point is the "ten year" measuring stick is simply stupid. Many players can come in and player 2 year or 6 years and still be incredible contributors to the franchise or a SB run. Even signing a player to a "second contract" doesn't mean ten years as most almost never finish it (if it even reaches ten years). Yes, CJ and Holt did sign second contracts, but they didn't play ten years with their team, don't try to create a strawman to fit your argument, I'm not talking second contracts, I'm talking about the ten year mark. The only position that really ever gets locked down like that is a franchise QB you drafted, and there are only about a dozen of those in the league at a time. It's always stupid when experts or anyone says something like "Oh, if they draft ____ they can pair him up with ____ and lock down the ___ position for the next ten years". No. It doesn't happen. It's a stupid thing to say. It's a stupid standard to have.

Can this guy contribute to a SB run. I don't care if Bolles plays just 5 years for us, can he contribute to a SB run during those five years? If yes then he's a great ****ing pick. And I'm not even on the Bolles wagon.


The point was..."10 years" was a random number. The concept isn't.

Doc just gets a chubby every time he gets a whiff of my ass...he's probably still mad that I ain't paying his old lady child support...

Who are you again?
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:11 am

Doctor wrote:The point is the "ten year" measuring stick is simply stupid. Many players can come in and player 2 year or 6 years and still be incredible contributors to the franchise or a SB run. Even signing a player to a "second contract" doesn't mean ten years as most almost never finish it (if it even reaches ten years). Yes, CJ and Holt did sign second contracts, but they didn't play ten years with their team, don't try to create a strawman to fit your argument, I'm not talking second contracts, I'm talking about the ten year mark. The only position that really ever gets locked down like that is a franchise QB you drafted, and there are only about a dozen of those in the league at a time. It's always stupid when experts or anyone says something like "Oh, if they draft ____ they can pair him up with ____ and lock down the ___ position for the next ten years". No. It doesn't happen. It's a stupid thing to say. It's a stupid standard to have.

Can this guy contribute to a SB run. I don't care if Bolles plays just 5 years for us, can he contribute to a SB run during those five years? If yes then he's a great ****ing pick.


So you define a 1st rounder to be a "great ****ing pick" providing he can stay on the roster and contribute to the team for the duration of his rookie contract?

That is pretty low standard imo. But I don't blame you. It's pretty common among older Bucs fans to have these types of standards based what they've endured.

It's odd you consider a higher standard (where teams would want 1st rd picks to re-sign 4-5 years later) to be stupid, but w/e. We can agree to disagree.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:17 am

Did...did you just call us old?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8265
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 477 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Doctor » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:25 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Doctor wrote:The point is the "ten year" measuring stick is simply stupid. Many players can come in and player 2 year or 6 years and still be incredible contributors to the franchise or a SB run. Even signing a player to a "second contract" doesn't mean ten years as most almost never finish it (if it even reaches ten years). Yes, CJ and Holt did sign second contracts, but they didn't play ten years with their team, don't try to create a strawman to fit your argument, I'm not talking second contracts, I'm talking about the ten year mark. The only position that really ever gets locked down like that is a franchise QB you drafted, and there are only about a dozen of those in the league at a time. It's always stupid when experts or anyone says something like "Oh, if they draft ____ they can pair him up with ____ and lock down the ___ position for the next ten years". No. It doesn't happen. It's a stupid thing to say. It's a stupid standard to have.

Can this guy contribute to a SB run. I don't care if Bolles plays just 5 years for us, can he contribute to a SB run during those five years? If yes then he's a great ****ing pick.


So you define a 1st rounder to be a "great ****ing pick" providing he can stay on the roster and contribute to the team for the duration of his rookie contract?

That is pretty low standard imo. But I don't blame you. It's pretty common among older Bucs fans to have these types of standards based what they've endured.

It's odd you consider a higher standard (where teams would want 1st rd picks to re-sign 4-5 years later) to be stupid, but w/e. We can agree to disagree.


Many ways to skin a cat. It can be a success if during their short time here they helped us get to a SB. Bradley Roby and Knowshone Moreno, Star Lotulelei . First rounder that re-signs can also be a success but not always. Remember we did re-sign Michael Clayton. But even if you re-sign a great that doesn't mean they play ten years for you. Many MANY players never see the end of their second contract for a reason. Davin Joseph, for example, is a successful 1st rounder for us. He didn't "lock down the position for ten plus years" like Joe Thomas did, but so what?

My point is the locking down for ten years comment is stupid. The NFL occurs in very small windows. One moment you're the Ravens or 49ers or Cardinals or Panthers in the Superbowl, the next minute you can't win your division. The idea of "pick this player he's X years young, he'll play for us longer" is NOT a reason to pick a player.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Sammich » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:58 am

I think a lot of the fear in drafting an older player is that they are likely closer to their ceiling than a younger player would be. Definitely physically, and possibly mentally as well. Later in the draft I'd have no problem with it, but I'd rather avoid it in the first.
Sammich
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:52 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Alpha » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:35 am

Doctor wrote:
Alpha wrote:
The point was..."10 years" was a random number. The concept isn't.

Doc just gets a chubby every time he gets a whiff of my ass...he's probably still mad that I ain't paying his old lady child support...

Who are you again?


Maybe you aren't fluent in English:

I'm the dude that isn't paying your wife child support. As I stated in the post you quoted. Dumbass.
Alpha
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:06 am

Doctor wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
So you define a 1st rounder to be a "great ****ing pick" providing he can stay on the roster and contribute to the team for the duration of his rookie contract?

That is pretty low standard imo. But I don't blame you. It's pretty common among older Bucs fans to have these types of standards based what they've endured.

It's odd you consider a higher standard (where teams would want 1st rd picks to re-sign 4-5 years later) to be stupid, but w/e. We can agree to disagree.


Many ways to skin a cat. It can be a success if during their short time here they helped us get to a SB. Bradley Roby and Knowshone Moreno, Star Lotulelei . First rounder that re-signs can also be a success but not always. Remember we did re-sign Michael Clayton. But even if you re-sign a great that doesn't mean they play ten years for you. Many MANY players never see the end of their second contract for a reason. Davin Joseph, for example, is a successful 1st rounder for us. He didn't "lock down the position for ten plus years" like Joe Thomas did, but so what?

My point is the locking down for ten years comment is stupid. The NFL occurs in very small windows. One moment you're the Ravens or 49ers or Cardinals or Panthers in the Superbowl, the next minute you can't win your division. The idea of "pick this player he's X years young, he'll play for us longer" is NOT a reason to pick a player.


We have a fundamental disagreement on team building philosophy it seems.

To put it simply, You build your team through the draft (especially in the early rounds) and if you're a franchise that is NOT re-signing your early round picks to 2nd contracts you're likely a perennial losing team. Free Agency is a tool to add pieces for the short term.

As far as the 'very small windows' comment, I don't believe that is how successful teams view the draft at all. Perhaps in certain cases where you have an aging Franchise QB and veteran team, but that is not who the Bucs are.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:08 am

I'll say it again. Everyone wants every draft pick to be a cornerstone player or develop into one in the timeframe of their rookie deal.

But it doesn't always happen. Doc and I feel that it's silly to pick a player or not pick a player based on what you think they are going to be beyond that timeframe.

When talking about the first round, the question should be who is he now, and how much better can he get? What impact will he have on the team now?

It just makes no sense to scratch your head and wonder what he's going to be five years from now. You're not drafting that guy, you're drafting him NOW.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8265
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 477 times

Re: MB's Final Mock

Postby threadkiller » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:38 am

It's not just a player development thing either, players leave teams that would rather keep them every season. The "top" of every FA class are the players leaving their rookie deal with the team that drafted them to chase the most money they can get on their second deal. Many times the evaluation hits and it still doesn't make sense for the team to resign the player. You can't draft a guy looking at his second contract.
threadkiller
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:53 am
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Previous

post

Return to College Football/Draft Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zarniwoop and 6 guests