NFL Free Agency Around the League

[Chief X_Phackter]

A LOT of talking heads out there linking Mac Jones to SF after that trade. It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't buy much of anything this time of year...it's all smoke and mirrors between now and the draft.

[CRedskinsRule]

If they used all that capital for Jones then they better hope he pans out. I doubt that they did though. He could have been had at 6 just by trading directly with the eagles. No need to jump to 3.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Number44]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If they used all that capital for Jones then they better hope he pans out. I doubt that they did though. He could have been had at 6 just by trading directly with the eagles. No need to jump to 3.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I think that it is fair to say, that no matter who they pick after giving up that much capital, they will certainly be hoping that he pans out.

[Pervis_Griffith]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If they used all that capital for Jones then they better hope he pans out. I doubt that they did though. He could have been had at 6 just by trading directly with the eagles. No need to jump to 3.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Maybe ... but you aren't saving a ton of draft capital in a trade to move to just 6. You're still giving up a butt load of picks. So why risk just going to #6? You may as well go all the way to 3, and dare one of the top 2 picks to draft Jones.


This could all be smoke.

But the way Shanahan has talked after pulling off the trade, and the similarities between Jones and Matt Ryan and Kirk Cousins ... it certainly "fits".

It's not a gamble I would make.

But I'm not sold on any of these QB's after Trevor Lawrence. (I'm also a benefits specialist. So what da fuq do I know? haha).

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Number44

I think that it is fair to say, that no matter who they pick after giving up that much capital, they will certainly be hoping that he pans out.

Yep. Plenty of examples of jumping up to the top 3 for a QB - and he doesn't pan out.

I think I saw something the other day that out of the last six or seven QBs that were taken after a team traded into the top 3 to get him, only one is still on his original team (for now) - Sam Darnold

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Number44

I think that it is fair to say, that no matter who they pick after giving up that much capital, they will certainly be hoping that he pans out.

If I am the 49ers I would take the Best non qb at 3. I don't know stats, but I think if you look at the past 10 drafts and the first non-qb picked your chance of an elite player skyrockets.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Scalper]

Sewell safest pick in draft.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If I am the 49ers I would take the Best non qb at 3. I don't know stats, but I think if you look at the past 10 drafts and the first non-qb picked your chance of an elite player skyrockets.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Problem is you don't keep your job trading the farm for non-QBs.
Cerrato would have taken a replacement for our long snapper with the #3 pick.
LOL.

[Scalper]

Watson is probably paying all the accusers to come forward. :-))
He wants out of Houston that bad.
Or you could argue he has to play now to settle all the lawsuits.
LOL.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Problem is you don't keep your job trading the farm for non-QBs.

Cerrato would have taken a replacement for our long snapper with the #3 pick.

LOL.

The bigger problem is the best player is an OT and they just signed TW to a major new contract. So now they are either taking the 3rd Qb (assuming 1 and 2 are qbs) or at best the 2nd best non-qb player.

Dumb trade no matter who they take.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Players agreed to this for a larger part of revenues, does that make them hypocrites too?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

There are plenty of players who have spoken out against playing 17 games.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

There are plenty of players who have spoken out against playing 17 games.

But they, as a union, agreed to it because of the increased percentage of revenue. I find it more hypocritical on the players part then the owners.

When you say "plenty", there about 1800 active players, i doubt 10% of them have complained, and I certainly don't see anyone refusing the salary cap increase that will come as a part of it.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Players won't hesitate to cash those paychecks lol

17 games is a non issue

[Monkeydad]

Colt McCoy, 1 year to the Cardinals.

[Redskins247]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

A LOT of talking heads out there linking Mac Jones to SF after that trade. It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't buy much of anything this time of year...it's all smoke and mirrors between now and the draft.

Another thing to consider here is, the Jets coach just left the 49ers...so probably safe to say that Kyle knows what that pick is going to be...maybe they're not taking Wilson and Kyle knows he will get him at 3.