2018 NFL Transactions & News

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Well, I’m assuming Indy knows their QB situation.

As for Goff, maybe I shouldn’t have used him as an example because I don’t know if he is good. He might be.

They cleared the cap and are going to get a QB they believe in. Good enough for me.

I can’t read evaluate this because I have no clue about how to evaluate college QBs. I hope Bates and the GM do.

I wanted them to take Watson last year and everyone said at the time it was bad value so I’m a little skeptical of NFL heads talking about value.
The problem with the bolded is that they haven't actually improved their position to get a QB.

As of right now, they'll still get the second or third best QB in the draft, depending on what the Giants decide to do; they'll end up paying more for the same player, and have fewer opportunities to build around him this year.

EDIT: Let me try explaining a different way. They just traded four picks to move past the colts, broncos, and the browns second 1st. None of those are likely to be a QB pick.
 
Last edited:

Bosox1528

New Member
Dec 22, 2017
178
It’s not that bad. They didn’t give up any future 1sts.
100% disagree. Giving up one future first would be much better than what they gave up. If we use this chart, and estimate the 2019 pick as being around 55 or so, the 3 second round picks are worth more than any pick in the draft except for #1 overall. Taken as a whole, the chart has the Jets basically giving up a picke equivalent to #5 overall for free.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,862
St. Louis, MO
The problem with the bolded is that they haven't actually improved their position to get a QB.

As of right now, they'll still get the second or third best QB in the draft, depending on what the Giants decide to do; they'll end up paying more for the same player, and have fewer opportunities to build around him this year.

EDIT: Let me try explaining a different way. They just traded four picks to move past the colts, broncos, and the browns second 1st. None of those are likely to be a QB pick.
Why wouldn’t the Broncos?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
100% disagree. Giving up one future first would be much better than what they gave up. If we use this chart, and estimate the 2019 pick as being around 55 or so, the 3 second round picks are worth more than any pick in the draft except for #1 overall. Taken as a whole, the chart has the Jets basically giving up a picke equivalent to #5 overall for free.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
If the move works out and the QB is a franchise guy, the price won't matter. If it doesn't then you can second guess. We won't know for a few years.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
The problem with the bolded is that they haven't actually improved their position to get a QB.

As of right now, they'll still get the second or third best QB in the draft, depending on what the Giants decide to do; they'll end up paying more for the same player, and have fewer opportunities to build around him this year.

EDIT: Let me try explaining a different way. They just traded four picks to move past the colts, broncos, and the browns second 1st. None of those are likely to be a QB pick.
The Broncos certainly seems like their pick has a decent chance to be a QB, Keenum is a 30 year old coming off a single breakout year, and they only gave him a 2 year deal. Now it's possible they don't go QB in the 1st, but far from a given.

Additionally, 3,4 and even 5 have all been rumored to be on the block for other teams looking for QBs (Bills, Fins, Skins, Cardinals.
It's a high price, but locking a top 3 pick if you have a tier of 3 QBs you're very happy with is not a terrible idea.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Why would they let Slater get out of the building?
Maybe not convinced of his health? Or more likely, told to go get an offer a la Hightower and Pats could evaluate matching it. You’d certainly think he’d be in line ahead of Ebner for Pats ST funds.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,289
Why would they let Slater get out of the building?
If the Steelers want to overpay a soon-to-be 33 year old who plays about 10 plays per game, many of which end up with the opponent taking a knee or fair catch regardless of who is running toward him...well, everybody (with two exceptions) is replaceable.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Why would they let Slater get out of the building?
He's a soon to be 33 year-old coverage specialist who missed half of last year, given the number of very good special teams players they have (including the re-signed King and Ebner) who provide at least emergency value elsewhere, it's not surprising that they're only going to bring him back if the price is low.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,016
Oregon
If Slater and Fleming leave, we'll be treated to the inevitable poll thread on which of the many player losses will hurt the most
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
I love the "Patriots are losing so many players!" thing I'm seeing.

Hey folks, guess what, I guarantee that the Patriots net will be 0, just like every other team in the league.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
It’s a great trade for the Colts if Luck is healthy.
I was wondering about this - if Luck isn't healthy, isn't their #1 QB still Jacoby Brissett? For $750k?

With a looming cut to Dorsett, and Brissett clearly able to deliver a #15-to-#25-in-the-league QB performance, the Colts kinda won that trade going away.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/19/jets-gave-up-far-more-than-the-last-team-to-move-up-to-no-3/

This suggests a Jets’ overpay when compared with the last comparable move up. But this evaluation is year specific as piece notes: is it a decent QB class? In this connection, it is far from an overpay when compared to what the Redskins paid to move up for RG III.

Unless Jets are nuts, this move is for a QB. And they had better like more than one of them in this class.

The Colts now have lots of assets to build a line for Luck. Unless it’s too late.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Few people speculating that Jets want Barkley at 3 which is absolutely insane and would be Peak Jets
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Or it could be smoke to distract from having a team trade up for the QB they are targeting.
Which is possible but not likely imo, for a couple reasons.

First they can't really "target" anyone, since two teams that need a QB are picking ahead of them and they will be left with whatever is left - this was one of the biggest criticisms some of us have about paying such high price when they are still at the mercy of two other teams leaving scraps.

The second would be to look at the teams immediately behind them - the Browns at 4 will likely already have taken QB, the Broncos likely aren't paying the price to move up to 2 - if the value for 3 was that high, 2 is going to be pretty high and the Giants either want Barkley or a QB - and then you don't get to another team that would be in the market until you hit 11 (Dolphins), 12 (Bills), 13 (Skins) and 15 (Cardinals). If the price to go from 6 to 3 was 4 top two round picks, the price for 2 from double digits is going to be insane; like franchise crippling insane.

TLDR I think it's exactly what it appears to be - either the Jets being Jetsy or writers looking for clicks.
 

Greekca

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2017
89
The actual move saves $2.35mm of cap space, but since we are in the top 51 contracts part of the season I think that is how Pats Pulpit gets the $1.72mm number. Apparently McClellin was released with a failed physical designation.
 

boca

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
509

@AdamSchefter
Jaguars are releasing WR Allen Hurns, per source. Strong market expected for him.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The actual move saves $2.35mm of cap space, but since we are in the top 51 contracts part of the season I think that is how Pats Pulpit gets the $1.72mm number. Apparently McClellin was released with a failed physical designation.
This is exactly right. At this time of year, and until Day One of the regular season, the cap is only counting the 51 highest salaries. Typically, when anyone is removed from the roster of 51 highest paid, he is replaced by someone making the minimum, which is about $530k.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I was wondering about this - if Luck isn't healthy, isn't their #1 QB still Jacoby Brissett? For $750k?

With a looming cut to Dorsett, and Brissett clearly able to deliver a #15-to-#25-in-the-league QB performance, the Colts kinda won that trade going away.
You're way overestimating Brisset's talent level. FO has him at -14.3% DVOA for last year. Replacement level is set at -13%. He had the 3rd lowest completion percentage in the league (above Beathard and Kizer), and got sacked on 10% of his dropbacks (which is absurd). He's terrible.

He's still super young, and 3rd year tends to be a make-or-break bump year for QBs, but its looking like he's your run-of-the-mill replacement level QB at this point.

It was a trash for trash trade. Dorsett is a decent depth receiver - he caught the ball when targeted (67%), had a first down on 67% of his receptions, and can play special teams. I'd much rather have that than a quarterback that I never want to see on the field.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
You're way overestimating Brisset's talent level. FO has him at -14.3% DVOA for last year. Replacement level is set at -13%. He had the 3rd lowest completion percentage in the league (above Beathard and Kizer), and got sacked on 10% of his dropbacks (which is absurd). He's terrible.

He's still super young, and 3rd year tends to be a make-or-break bump year for QBs, but its looking like he's your run-of-the-mill replacement level QB at this point.

It was a trash for trash trade. Dorsett is a decent depth receiver - he caught the ball when targeted (67%), had a first down on 67% of his receptions, and can play special teams. I'd much rather have that than a quarterback that I never want to see on the field.
I agree; I think both likely would have been cut last preseason had the trade not gone down. As for the bolded, Dorsett was active for every game last year and played a total of zero special teams snaps.

Is there any room for him in NE? They've already got Jules, Cooks, Hogan, Mitchell, Britt and Patterson in the fold. Not sure they've got the space for him.
Yeah, I don't get wishing after another WR when we had the #1 scoring O in the league last year and the D was terrible. Spent the money on a LB.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,088
How did I miss Jacksonville giving $9.6M guaranteed for 1 year to Donte Moncrief? What the hell is that? Dude is a JAG.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
So that’s JPP for a 3rd - minus. Culture change continues; they seem to be getting rid of almost everyone who has been a pain at one time or other.