Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Watson Mock!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post

    I don't think that's even close. Lock may be a long term starter, and some teams with the right coaches would have some value for him. And Patrick "is coming off his best campaign as a pro, with 51 catches (79 targets) for 742 yards and six scores across 15 games. Perhaps even more impressively, Patrick had three performances with over 100 receiving yards in 2020." Pretty good year given the situation. And who knows what Houston is thinking with a WR group that is no longer reliable. Fuller can be a stud, but seems oft injured.

    Regardless, Lock and Patrick are not worth nothing, and if you read my review, I said maybe Hamler, and that Patrick was just one example. Combined with Chubb, I think offering Lock and Patrick or Hamler, maybe even Fant for example, might help lessen the draft cap required.

    But if that's all you got from the post, I must suck at this.

    No offense to Patrick, because I like him quote a bit as a player, but he's at best WR2 on a team, and he'll be a UFA next season. It's fairly easy to find a WR2 in free agency from year to year. So would he really move the needle for a team in a big trade? Or would the Texans be more interested in receivers who project as possible WR1 type guys (Sutton and Jeudy) or a WR2 that has big time speed, and has 3 more seasons of cheap team control?

    In building a trade the Texans are going to be looking for players that have either displayed they can play a high level (Chubb types), or younger players that project as having big upside. They'll also want multiple years of contract control with that player.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

      No offense to Patrick, because I like him quote a bit as a player, but he's at best WR2 on a team, and he'll be a UFA next season. It's fairly easy to find a WR2 in free agency from year to year. So would he really move the needle for a team in a big trade? Or would the Texans be more interested in receivers who project as possible WR1 type guys (Sutton and Jeudy) or a WR2 that has big time speed, and has 3 more seasons of cheap team control?

      In building a trade the Texans are going to be looking for players that have either displayed they can play a high level (Chubb types), or younger players that project as having big upside. They'll also want multiple years of contract control with that player.
      Here's my formula...based on the flow I see coming to the final decision:

      1) 2 first rounders...easy....no question
      2) 2 or 3 players. Chubb would be a likely choice, but who knows. Then maybe a receiver or another Dman. The receiver could be Sutton, Jeudy, Hamler, Patrick or Fant. Maybe Lock too, if they see a place for him. Regardless of who, the more player value, the less other draft value we give...and vice versa.
      3) The final piece. I prefer not to give them 3 firsts, or even 2 straight firsts/2nds, because that means for 3 years we do not have a reasonably high pick. I prefer 2 thirds, maybe even a 2nd in '23. Having said that, if we can trade another player or two to another team or two, we may be able to add more draft capital to suffice. That's not a given though.

      So...for me it comes down to how much player value we get, and how much can we handle that player loss. If we gave up average starters, we will have to pay bigger in the draft. But if Chubb or even Simmons is involved, or a Sutton or Jeudy (just examples), and one other player, and maybe Lock, hopefully we can convince them to deal with possibly 2 firsts and 2 thirds, at most.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by CanDB View Post

        Here's my formula...based on the flow I see coming to the final decision:

        1) 2 first rounders...easy....no question
        2) 2 or 3 players. Chubb would be a likely choice, but who knows. Then maybe a receiver or another Dman. The receiver could be Sutton, Jeudy, Hamler, Patrick or Fant. Maybe Lock too, if they see a place for him. Regardless of who, the more player value, the less other draft value we give...and vice versa.
        3) The final piece. I prefer not to give them 3 firsts, or even 2 straight firsts/2nds, because that means for 3 years we do not have a reasonably high pick. I prefer 2 thirds, maybe even a 2nd in '23. Having said that, if we can trade another player or two to another team or two, we may be able to add more draft capital to suffice. That's not a given though.

        So...for me it comes down to how much player value we get, and how much can we handle that player loss. If we gave up average starters, we will have to pay bigger in the draft. But if Chubb or even Simmons is involved, or a Sutton or Jeudy (just examples), and one other player, and maybe Lock, hopefully we can convince them to deal with possibly 2 firsts and 2 thirds, at most.
        Simmons won't be involved. He's a free agent and can't be traded. Even if he is tagged, he can't be traded until he signs his tag, which means he essentially has a no trade clause. Why would he want to go to the Texans?

        Add to that, he has indicated he won't be happy about being tagged a second time, do you see him being happy with losing his right to free agency and then being told the Broncos have chosen his next team for him?

        And regardless of how you or I see it, that'll play no part in any trade. The Texans will have their values, the other teams will have their's and it will have nothing to do with how any fan feels. Patrick may be involved (on the slim chance the Broncos make a trade for Watson) but he'll be an add on, not a key part.
        Last edited by Butler By'Note; 02-15-2021, 07:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

          Simmons won't be involved. He's a free agent and can't be traded. Even if he is tagged, he can't be traded until he signs his tag, which means he essentially has a no trade clause. Why would he want to go to the Texans?

          Add to that, he has indicated he won't be happy about being tagged a second time, do you see him being happy with losing his right to free agency and then being told the Broncos have chosen his next team for him?

          And regardless of how you or I see it, that'll play no part in any trade. The Texans will have their values, the other teams will have their's and it will have nothing to do with how any fan feels. Patrick may be involved (on the slim chance the Broncos make a trade for Watson) but he'll be an add on, not a key part.
          Geez, I thought I was the puppet master and controlled the universe. Seriously, the bolded is pretty much a given isn't it?

          We come here with our opinions. Sometimes our ideas come to fruition. I've heard lots of similar comments here, and yet, some of us, even with limited info (given we are not part of these team's management), are fairly astute with the info we have. I've been on the Watson trade from day one, but it may not happen. But doesn't mean I don't have ideas, or even valid ones at that. And to be sure, I mention names, some admittedly may not be realistic given I don't know what these teams are thinking, but some of it is related to rumours we get back. We've heard a few, whether or not they are factual. So my overall theory is based on things we've heard, and some possible player exchanges. Please try to forget the Patrick thing though, because I already addressed that as just one of many names possible.

          Lets see how this unravels. And again, though you may be right about a player here or there, you don't know the outcome. In the end, the formula I offer is one that I would follow. It might not pass your litmus test, but I like it, other than I don't know who they want. My main point was that I would not talk total draft pick package until I assessed the player package....other than I'd expect to give up 2 firsts automatically.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by CanDB View Post

            Geez, I thought I was the puppet master and controlled the universe. Seriously, the bolded is pretty much a given isn't it?

            We come here with our opinions. Sometimes our ideas come to fruition. I've heard lots of similar comments here, and yet, some of us, even with limited info (given we are not part of these team's management), are fairly astute with the info we have. I've been on the Watson trade from day one, but it may not happen. But doesn't mean I don't have ideas, or even valid ones at that. And to be sure, I mention names, some admittedly may not be realistic given I don't know what these teams are thinking, but some of it is related to rumours we get back. We've heard a few, whether or not they are factual. So my overall theory is based on things we've heard, and some possible player exchanges. Please try to forget the Patrick thing though, because I already addressed that as just one of many names possible.

            Lets see how this unravels. And again, though you may be right about a player here or there, you don't know the outcome. In the end, the formula I offer is one that I would follow. It might not pass your litmus test, but I like it, other than I don't know who they want. My main point was that I would not talk total draft pick package until I assessed the player package....other than I'd expect to give up 2 firsts automatically.
            Your main point is broken for a few reasons: 1. Draft picks (and 4-5 years of contract control on potential good players) is the highest commodity in NFL trades. 2. By starting with players first you've done nothing to move them off of their initial asking price of 3 firsts, 3 seconds and a player or two. If you start with draft picks and let them know you wouldn't be willing to do 3 and 3, by first negotiating the draft picks then it decides which players will be involved. But the players have less value because Denver has already used up some of their cheaper contract years. And in the case of one player that you believe they'd be interested in, he has only one year left until he's a UFA, and he doesn't do much to upgrade their roster. This isn't the NHL where you make player for player deals and then fill in the draft picks to even it out, in the NFL you figure out the draft picks and then add in players to even it out.

            Final point, Denver isn't doing the Texans a favour by looking at this trade. The Texans have the player that many teams will want, and because of that the trade will be made based on the Texans' terms. There's going to be a decent number of teams trying to trade for Watson, and some of them will have much better draft pick compensation to offer, and more intriguing players, Denver will need to beat those offers, and telling them that they can choose players and then Denver will offer draft pick compensation based on that isn't going to get it done.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

              Your main point is broken for a few reasons: 1. Draft picks (and 4-5 years of contract control on potential good players) is the highest commodity in NFL trades. 2. By starting with players first you've done nothing to move them off of their initial asking price of 3 firsts, 3 seconds and a player or two. If you start with draft picks and let them know you wouldn't be willing to do 3 and 3, by first negotiating the draft picks then it decides which players will be involved. But the players have less value because Denver has already used up some of their cheaper contract years. And in the case of one player that you believe they'd be interested in, he has only one year left until he's a UFA, and he doesn't do much to upgrade their roster. This isn't the NHL where you make player for player deals and then fill in the draft picks to even it out, in the NFL you figure out the draft picks and then add in players to even it out.

              Final point, Denver isn't doing the Texans a favour by looking at this trade. The Texans have the player that many teams will want, and because of that the trade will be made based on the Texans' terms. There's going to be a decent number of teams trying to trade for Watson, and some of them will have much better draft pick compensation to offer, and more intriguing players, Denver will need to beat those offers, and telling them that they can choose players and then Denver will offer draft pick compensation based on that isn't going to get it done.
              just a little rebuttal here. some teams will be a no go due to watsons ntc. minnesota has already been discounted due to this.
              and not all hockey trades are like how you put it. it just depends on what the deal is. besides you know the draft for the nhl is much different than the nfl
              Glen Haven Fire

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

                Your main point is broken for a few reasons: 1. Draft picks (and 4-5 years of contract control on potential good players) is the highest commodity in NFL trades. 2. By starting with players first you've done nothing to move them off of their initial asking price of 3 firsts, 3 seconds and a player or two. If you start with draft picks and let them know you wouldn't be willing to do 3 and 3, by first negotiating the draft picks then it decides which players will be involved. But the players have less value because Denver has already used up some of their cheaper contract years. And in the case of one player that you believe they'd be interested in, he has only one year left until he's a UFA, and he doesn't do much to upgrade their roster. This isn't the NHL where you make player for player deals and then fill in the draft picks to even it out, in the NFL you figure out the draft picks and then add in players to even it out.

                Final point, Denver isn't doing the Texans a favour by looking at this trade. The Texans have the player that many teams will want, and because of that the trade will be made based on the Texans' terms. There's going to be a decent number of teams trying to trade for Watson, and some of them will have much better draft pick compensation to offer, and more intriguing players, Denver will need to beat those offers, and telling them that they can choose players and then Denver will offer draft pick compensation based on that isn't going to get it done.
                Broken???? With that starting point, it makes it hard to continue with a grown up discussion. No offence, but like most of us, you are not always correct.

                BTW....are you absolutely sure about their request? Do you have inside info?

                Last....I doubt that any team, be it the messed up Texans, or some others, would not listen to 2 firsts, potentially two good starters (go ahead, you pick 2 seeing as the ones I mention don't pass your test)...and then talk other picks. Because if I'm trading a player and some team offers me 2 firsts, maybe 2 or even 3 young players, and then says we can talk about other picks after we sort out the player situation...I would listen. I want starters, and even 1st rounders guarantee nothing. But I use Chubb in many examples because he is young, talented and potentially a stud. If The Texans don't like him as one of the choices, so be it. But imagine if they say Chubb and Sutton. Then I go back to the drawing board and likely come back with either a "no dice" or a lesser amount of draft cap, beyond the 2 firsts. Likely none, given that both players could be pro bowlers for many years.

                So that's my story. Whether broken or whatever you describe it to be.

                Comment


                • #38
                  There was a Watson sighting in Miami with some pals, including players. Though that might be telling, it could just be him visiting his pals. Then again, from the get go this offseason I've felt like Miami is in an envied position with regard to daft picks and team direction. However, for them to max out it would be better to trust Tua, and use all that capital for non QB types.

                  But certainly, they are a team that might really appeal to Deshaun, and Miami has lots to offer.

                  Again...might just be a social sighting.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                    There was a Watson sighting in Miami with some pals, including players. Though that might be telling, it could just be him visiting his pals. Then again, from the get go this offseason I've felt like Miami is in an envied position with regard to daft picks and team direction. However, for them to max out it would be better to trust Tua, and use all that capital for non QB types.

                    But certainly, they are a team that might really appeal to Deshaun, and Miami has lots to offer.

                    Again...might just be a social sighting.
                    Also Miami is a lot warmer than Texas right now

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by BiscuitBronco View Post

                      Also Miami is a lot warmer than Texas right now
                      Yeah...maybe he doesn't like snow!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        As others have said, I love the effort you put into this. I have a very short attention span so I didn't read every word. The one thing that jumped out to me was you saying Jewell is a rising star. I think he is a serviceable back up, but rising star, not a chance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thread cleaned.
                          Administrator

                          #LupusAwareness

                          #TackleCancer

                          "a semicolon is used when an author could've chosen to end their sentence, but chose not to. The author is you and the sentence is your life ; "

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Soooooo....

                            Today's team of the day is Carolina with a reported 3 firsts and McCaffrey. Seriously...McCaffrey!!

                            Not saying this is pure you know what, but I think we will be hearing about a number of offers before this all settles.

                            Until I hear otherwise, The Broncos are still in the hunt for a QB, and quite possibly this one.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                              Soooooo....

                              Today's team of the day is Carolina with a reported 3 firsts and McCaffrey. Seriously...McCaffrey!!

                              Not saying this is pure you know what, but I think we will be hearing about a number of offers before this all settles.

                              Until I hear otherwise, The Broncos are still in the hunt for a QB, and quite possibly this one.
                              That report actually got blown out of proportion and wasn't a real offer. ESPN had all of their local reporters do a bold prediction on something that would happen this offseason and that's what the reporter predicted. There was a disclaimer before the story that it was just bold predictions of what could happen. But people ran with it.

                              https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...fe-of-its-own/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The Carolina offer was talked about on Pardon The Interruption. They did not confirm it was a legit offer, but talked about it. Like I say, there will be more of these alleged offers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X