The 2015-16 'OFF SEASON' NFL Happenings Thread

[Patler]

Rams paid less than they got for the #2 pick in the RGIII trade.

That trade:

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 36m36 minutes ago
In 2012, #Rams traded No. 2 for No. 6, a 2nd and 2 firsts. In 2016, the #Rams traded for No. 1 & change for No. 15, a 1st, 2 2nds, 2 thirds.

That ended up being:
'Skins got #2 in 2012
Rams got #6 (which they traded to Dallas for #14 and #45) & #39 in 2012, #22 in 2013 (which they traded to Atlanta along with #227 in2015 for #30, #92 and #198) and #2 in 2014.

I love these multi-faceted deals!

Rams gave up #2 in 2012 and #227 in 2015.
They got back #14, #39 & #45 in 2012; #30, #92 & #198 in 2013 and #2 in 2014.

[George Cumby]

And how'd that work out for those teams?

[pbmax]

That ended up being:
'Skins got #2 in 2012
Rams got #6 (which they traded to Dallas for #14 and #45) & #39 in 2012, #22 in 2013 (which they traded to Atlanta along with #227 in2015 for #30, #92 and #198) and #2 in 2014.

I love these multi-faceted deals!

Rams gave up #2 in 2012 and #227 in 2015.
They got back #14, #39 & #45 in 2012; #30, #92 & #198 in 2013 and #2 in 2014.

The #2 in 2014 made it even more of a steal.

But this guy thinks the 3 first round picks over 3 years is overshadowing the very high up front cost of this year's deal.

Football Perspective @fbgchase 60m60 minutes ago
The RG3 trade had the "zomg 3 1st round picks" headline but you could argue the Rams paid a steeper price today http://www.footballperspective.com/d...eived-for-rg3/ …

He loses me a little because in the middle of making an argument about how to simplify the trade for comparison sake (consider the 4th and 6th to be roughly equivalent to a future 3rd) he said people tend to overestimate the cost of a pick occurring in the future. Except, that is basically the entire argument presented for the original point.

[mraynrand]

Wentz seems to be grading out with higher upside. But he was in a run heavy offense and a good defense in college and has never carried a team with his passing. Not dispositive, but there is a good sized projection going on with him.

Goff has carried a team with his passing but might have a more limited upside physically. Goff might start out in better shape before being overtaken by Wentz.

Problem is that the Rams might need Wentz to start immediately. And be coached by Jeff Fisher.

This is all if, and only Sam Farmer has this so far, that the Rams are really leaning to Wentz.

All true, but the Brownies really seemed to be fixating on Wentz and thinking they had him wrapped up. People were really psyched by some of the throws he made for scouts in the showoff season.

Jeff Fisher: I am shocked that the Rams 'braintrust' wanted to blow all these picks for a QB when they have a coach like that running football operations. You really would think this is the kind of move you make to get the franchise QB for an offensive guru you just brought in. Probably would have been better to trade Fisher and some draft picks for an up and coming OC...

[Patler]

The #2 in 2014 made it even more of a steal.

But this guy thinks the 3 first round picks over 3 years is overshadowing the very high up front cost of this year's deal.

Football Perspective @fbgchase 60m60 minutes ago
The RG3 trade had the "zomg 3 1st round picks" headline but you could argue the Rams paid a steeper price today http://www.footballperspective.com/d...eived-for-rg3/ …

He loses me a little because in the middle of making an argument about how to simplify the trade for comparison sake (consider the 4th and 6th to be roughly equivalent to a future 3rd) he said people tend to overestimate the cost of a pick occurring in the future. Except, that is basically the entire argument presented for the original point.

Kind of nice when the rest of the league decides to give you an Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady or Joe Montana, etc. for nothing more than a regular old pick, isn't it?

[Patler]

The problem I see with these massive trades for a QB in the draft are two fold:

- there is a significant risk the guy fails completely, or is OK but not special. He doesn't carry your team like a Rodgers or Brady can.
- even if he is special, it will be 3 or 4 years generally before he really hits his stride. Any legitimate stars on the team when he was drafted will be starting to reach the second halves of their careers and there are no other 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks in the most recent years to become the dominant players on their teams. For example, If GB had made a similar trade to get Rodgers, they would not have had the picks used for Collins and Hawk. Would they have won a SB in 2010 without Collins or Hawk? Look what happened when they lost Collins and Hawk declined prematurely. We saw the defense deteriorate significantly. They struggled for three years to replace Collins, and strung along with Hawk. The defense suffered. That shows what not having those picks would have caused even in 2010.

How much more successful might have the Packers been if just Collins career hadn't ended when it did? Might he have made a difference in some of the playoff losses?

Even if you get an elite QB, trading so many other opportunities for decent players almost ensures that the QB's supporting cast will be weak when he hits his prime.

[woodbuck27]

The problem I see with these massive trades for a QB in the draft are two fold:

- there is a significant risk the guy fails completely, or is OK but not special. He doesn't carry your team like a Rodgers or Brady can.
- even if he is special, it will be 3 or 4 years generally before he really hits his stride. Any legitimate stars on the team when he was drafted will be starting to reach the second halves of their careers and there are no other 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks in the most recent years to become the dominant players on their teams. For example, If GB had made a similar trade to get Rodgers, they would not have had the picks used for Collins and Hawk. Would they have won a SB in 2010 without Collins or Hawk? Look what happened when they lost Collins and Hawk declined prematurely. We saw the defense deteriorate significantly. They struggled for three years to replace Collins, and strung along with Hawk. The defense suffered. That shows what not having those picks would have caused even in 2010.

How much more successful might have the Packers been if just Collins career hadn't ended when it did? Might he have made a difference in some of the playoff losses?

Even if you get an elite QB, trading so many other opportunities for decent players almost ensures that the QB's supporting cast will be weak when he hits his prime.

Yes. Good post Patler.

[Smidgeon]

The problem I see with these massive trades for a QB in the draft are two fold:

- there is a significant risk the guy fails completely, or is OK but not special. He doesn't carry your team like a Rodgers or Brady can.
- even if he is special, it will be 3 or 4 years generally before he really hits his stride. Any legitimate stars on the team when he was drafted will be starting to reach the second halves of their careers and there are no other 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks in the most recent years to become the dominant players on their teams. For example, If GB had made a similar trade to get Rodgers, they would not have had the picks used for Collins and Hawk. Would they have won a SB in 2010 without Collins or Hawk? Look what happened when they lost Collins and Hawk declined prematurely. We saw the defense deteriorate significantly. They struggled for three years to replace Collins, and strung along with Hawk. The defense suffered. That shows what not having those picks would have caused even in 2010.

How much more successful might have the Packers been if just Collins career hadn't ended when it did? Might he have made a difference in some of the playoff losses?

Even if you get an elite QB, trading so many other opportunities for decent players almost ensures that the QB's supporting cast will be weak when he hits his prime.

Considering Collins was elite, yes.

[George Cumby]

Right.

The secondary was never the same without him. He was a dynamic difference maker who they have yet to replace.

[Striker]

Josh Norman is now available.

The Panthers have rescinded the franchise tag the team placed upon cornerback Josh Norman before the start of free agency.

He now becomes a free agent.

“After a number of conversations with Josh’s agent, we realized that a long-term deal was not attainable,” Panthers general manager Dave Gettleman said. “We thank Josh for all his contributions and truly wish him well.”

This is a stunner. Norman was No. 3 on PFT’s Hot 100 Free Agent List before the player movement period started. He’ll likely draw plenty of interest — and plenty of money — on the open market.

Norman started all 16 games for the first time last season and had a career-best four interceptions. He was a fifth-round pick of the Panthers in 2012.

[Guiness]

Josh Norman is now available.

Just saw this. Pretty incredible, don't think I've ever seen that before, a tag just yanked allowing a player to walk. Waiting for the other shoe to drop, have to think there's a failed test/suspension/commissioner's list event coming up.

He wanted starting QB money, it couldn't be just that demand that caused this, could it?

[call_me_ishmael]

Why not keep him on the franchise deal for a year and try to trade him for something in season? I guess he could be a locker room cancer on a lame duck deal.

[Teamcheez1]

Redskins sign Josh Norman to a $75M contract with $50M guaranteed.

That is the very reason we will beat them this season.

[mraynrand]

Carolina was smart to let him go. He's not that good.

[pbmax]

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora 2h2 hours ago
The numbers that matter most on Norman deal: $15M signing bonus alone eclipses the $14M franchise tag. He'll make $20M total in '16. Wow

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora 2h2 hours ago
Should amount to a 3-year, $51M deal for Josh Norman, with $36.5M fully guar at signing (by '18 he's over 30). That's Revis cheddar, folks.

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora 2h2 hours ago
So the Caps have yet again wasted a chance to close out series quickly against inferior opponent. Shocker