Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2013 Draft Thread Version 2.0
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5703
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
Comp picks? Here's a projection:

Oakland
The Oakland Raiders lost Kamerion Wimbley and will receive a 4th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Michael Bush and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Kevin Boss and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Samson Satele and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Jason Campbell who is cancelled out by Mike Briesel
The Oakland Raiders lost Trevor Scott who is cancelled out by Dave Tollefson

http://www.detroitlionsdraft.com/2013/01/predicting-the-compensatory-pick/2/

So we're going to get 4 comp picks???? Really??


Thats a load of bull imo. Pretty sure we cut Boss and Wimbley so we get nothing for them.


True, we get nothing for them. But I don't like the rule to be honest, and I will tell you why.

I think that if you cut a guy for whatever reason be it contract or conduct or performance, it should not matter whether or not it was a FA loss or a cut. The picks right now are determined by salary level essentially, on the new contract with the new team. If a guy you cut is worth it to another team to sign to a significant contract, then it is assumed the player was good enough to warrant that contract. And if he is, it is still a significant loss to the original team. In my opinion, whether the guy is cut or his contract ends is such an arbitrary way to determine compensation.

If another team signs the guy to a significant deal, it is a significant loss either way and compensation shouldn't change because of the manner in which the guy left the original team. Dumb flawed rule. Besides, there are ways to work language into contracts so that they void on a guy the team may want to release. Which are basically loopholes.

So now we're talking about a rule which doesn't make total sense and can reward a team who is more capable of abusing the loophole. That makes it even dumber.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 31792
Location: Rochester, NY
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
Comp picks? Here's a projection:

Oakland
The Oakland Raiders lost Kamerion Wimbley and will receive a 4th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Michael Bush and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Kevin Boss and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Samson Satele and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Jason Campbell who is cancelled out by Mike Briesel
The Oakland Raiders lost Trevor Scott who is cancelled out by Dave Tollefson

http://www.detroitlionsdraft.com/2013/01/predicting-the-compensatory-pick/2/

So we're going to get 4 comp picks???? Really??


Thats a load of bull imo. Pretty sure we cut Boss and Wimbley so we get nothing for them.


True, we get nothing for them. But I don't like the rule to be honest, and I will tell you why.

I think that if you cut a guy for whatever reason be it contract or conduct or performance, it should not matter whether or not it was a FA loss or a cut. The picks right now are determined by salary level essentially. If a guy you cut is worth it to another team to sign to a significant contract, then it is assumed the player was good enough to warrant that contract. And if he is, it is still a significant loss to the original team. In my opinion, whether the guy is cut or his contract ends is such an arbitrary way to determine compensation.

If another team signs the guy to a significant deal, it is a significant loss either way and compensation shouldn't change because of the manner in which the guy left the original team. Dumb flawed rule. Besides, there are ways to work language into contracts so that they void on a guy the team may want to release. Which are basically loopholes.

So now we're talking about a rule which doesn't make total sense and can reward a team who is more capable of abusing the loophole. That makes it even dumber.


I disagree. I think if you were stupid enough to sign a horrific deal like we did with Wimbley, you should deal with the consequences. Its not kicking you when you're down. Its more of 'you made your bed crooked, now you gotta sleep in it'
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5703
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
holyghost wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
Comp picks? Here's a projection:

Oakland
The Oakland Raiders lost Kamerion Wimbley and will receive a 4th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Michael Bush and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Kevin Boss and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Samson Satele and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Jason Campbell who is cancelled out by Mike Briesel
The Oakland Raiders lost Trevor Scott who is cancelled out by Dave Tollefson

http://www.detroitlionsdraft.com/2013/01/predicting-the-compensatory-pick/2/

So we're going to get 4 comp picks???? Really??


Thats a load of bull imo. Pretty sure we cut Boss and Wimbley so we get nothing for them.


True, we get nothing for them. But I don't like the rule to be honest, and I will tell you why.

I think that if you cut a guy for whatever reason be it contract or conduct or performance, it should not matter whether or not it was a FA loss or a cut. The picks right now are determined by salary level essentially. If a guy you cut is worth it to another team to sign to a significant contract, then it is assumed the player was good enough to warrant that contract. And if he is, it is still a significant loss to the original team. In my opinion, whether the guy is cut or his contract ends is such an arbitrary way to determine compensation.

If another team signs the guy to a significant deal, it is a significant loss either way and compensation shouldn't change because of the manner in which the guy left the original team. Dumb flawed rule. Besides, there are ways to work language into contracts so that they void on a guy the team may want to release. Which are basically loopholes.

So now we're talking about a rule which doesn't make total sense and can reward a team who is more capable of abusing the loophole. That makes it even dumber.


I disagree. I think if you were stupid enough to sign a horrific deal like we did with Wimbley, you should deal with the consequences. Its not kicking you when you're down. Its more of 'you made your bed crooked, now you gotta sleep in it'


Well then it's presented as punishment. #1. Is it a punishment system or a compensation system?

And #2, if another team signs the same guy to a significant contract, isn't he worth something in both team's estimation? That's the crux of my argument. We're not looking for compensation for bad contracts. The next teams Routt and Wimbley went to also signed them to significant deals, deeming them to be worth it.

I think that first off, if another team finds value in the guy then what the hell does it matter how he left the first team? Doesn't make sense.

But more than anything, you are accounting for the reasoning why a team let a guy go. But such reasoning can be widely varied. It can be contract, it can be performance, it could be a new regime going in another direction, it can be scheme change, it can be that someone else cheaper stepped up and took the guy's position, it could be injury, it could be a million things.
If you run a compensation system based on the reasoning of why a team let a guy go, it's gonna be a total mess. And if you create a system based on the manner in which a guy was let go, as it is now, well then it's going to be able to be manipulated with loopholes.

Either of those ways and it's a flawed system..

I think if you simply equate it to - who you gained, who you lost, and the salary levels of all involved - it is a simpler, more functional, fairer system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 7816
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
holyghost wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
Comp picks? Here's a projection:

Oakland
The Oakland Raiders lost Kamerion Wimbley and will receive a 4th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Michael Bush and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Kevin Boss and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Samson Satele and will receive a 6th round pick
The Oakland Raiders lost Jason Campbell who is cancelled out by Mike Briesel
The Oakland Raiders lost Trevor Scott who is cancelled out by Dave Tollefson

http://www.detroitlionsdraft.com/2013/01/predicting-the-compensatory-pick/2/

So we're going to get 4 comp picks???? Really??


Thats a load of bull imo. Pretty sure we cut Boss and Wimbley so we get nothing for them.


True, we get nothing for them. But I don't like the rule to be honest, and I will tell you why.

I think that if you cut a guy for whatever reason be it contract or conduct or performance, it should not matter whether or not it was a FA loss or a cut. The picks right now are determined by salary level essentially. If a guy you cut is worth it to another team to sign to a significant contract, then it is assumed the player was good enough to warrant that contract. And if he is, it is still a significant loss to the original team. In my opinion, whether the guy is cut or his contract ends is such an arbitrary way to determine compensation.

If another team signs the guy to a significant deal, it is a significant loss either way and compensation shouldn't change because of the manner in which the guy left the original team. Dumb flawed rule. Besides, there are ways to work language into contracts so that they void on a guy the team may want to release. Which are basically loopholes.

So now we're talking about a rule which doesn't make total sense and can reward a team who is more capable of abusing the loophole. That makes it even dumber.


I disagree. I think if you were stupid enough to sign a horrific deal like we did with Wimbley, you should deal with the consequences. Its not kicking you when you're down. Its more of 'you made your bed crooked, now you gotta sleep in it'


Well then it's presented as punishment. #1. Is it a punishment system or a compensation system?

And #2, if another team signs the same guy to a significant contract, isn't he worth something in both team's estimation? That's the crux of my argument. We're not looking for compensation for bad contracts. The next teams Routt and Wimbley went to also signed them to significant deals, deeming them to be worth it.

I think that first off, if another team finds value in the guy then what the hell does it matter how he left the first team? Doesn't make sense.

But more than anything, you are accounting for the reasoning why a team let a guy go. But such reasoning can be widely varied. It can be contract, it can be performance, it could be a new regime going in another direction, it can be scheme change, it can be that someone else cheaper stepped up and took the guy's position, it could be injury, it could be a million things.
If you run a compensation system based on the reasoning of why a team let a guy go, it's gonna be a total mess. And if you create a system based on the manner in which a guy was let go, as it is now, well then it's going to be able to be manipulated with loopholes.

Either of those ways and it's a flawed system..

I think if you simply equate it to - who you gained, who you lost, and the salary levels of all involved - it is a simpler, more functional, fairer system.

I agree with both sides. But I think the team who cuts the player should be free of Cap obligations if they are signed by another team who would then take on those cap numbers. But hey, shouldnt be an issue in 5 years hopefully.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 13887
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Compensation picks were added with free agency because teams were going to lose players on a regular basis. There's no reason to be compensated for cutting a player, no matter the reason he was cut, it's the team's call.

And voided contracts isn't much of a loophole. The Seymour situation is an exception but far from the rule (they put together a 5 years contract which was really a one year deal, in most cases teams signing a player to a long term contract want him to be here for the majority of his contract) and, even in his case, he was scheduled to be a FA in 2013 before last year's restructure.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
La_Vader


Joined: 04 Jan 2013
Posts: 182
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oaktown


Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 3222
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lewan is staying for his senior year. That will make Joekel more in demand. Hopefully he is there when oak picks. Def will help out trade down options.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5297
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
ps dont sleep on their oc Kliff Kingsbury he is my fav oc on any level right now. on the low his offense led the SEC in rushing, passing, scoring and total yardage this year. all this while playing the bamas, lsu's, florida's etc


Do you mean as an OC candidate for us, or just in general? Because he just took the HC job at his alma mater. Also, his offense at A&M was impressive, but how much of that was him and how much of it was Johnny Manziel? Not many QBs have the ability to run for 100 yards a game and still lead a good passing attack at the same time. If he had any other QB they wouldnt have led the SEC in rushing either, as Manziel accounted for about half their rushing yards.


yea imo he is the best oc period. i know he just became a hc. i really wanted him to be our oc. i dont know how he will do as a hc. check his resume he has been coaching for a while and doing a good job at it.


Meh, only in spread offenses though. I didnt follow him as a coach, so I could be completely wrong about him, I just have a bias against spread offenses in college. Sure, Houston put up big numbers with him calling the plays, but their offense was all pass and a lot of spread offenses put up similar numbers. Houston, Hawaii, Texas Tech, WV, Baylor, OK State, LA Tech, etc. A & M's offense was really mostly pass, too. Its just that Manziel is also an extrordinary runner so they racked up a ton of rushing yards with him.

I just dont like how spread offenses or their players translate to the NFL. I may be jumping to conclusions, but I think that a spread coach would follow the same trend.


i hear what you say and yea johnny helped the run game but the rbs averaged over 5yrs a carry and one rb was 200 away from a 1k season while getting limited carries.


True. I won't judge him specifically since I haven't seen enough of his games to form an opinion. In general I just don't like one dimensional spread teams. A lot of times their high YPC in the run game is more a result of a spread out defense than anything else, but its not always true. I'm also not even considering his play calling and knowledge, so like I said, I won't judge him.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dawsonleery


Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 608
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With Lewan and maybe Matthews staying in school that's good for us. Lets just hope Joekel is on on the board when we pick and we should get a bunch of offers. Eagles could swap picks with the Jags though, if the Eagles want Joekel bad enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chali21


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 2620
Location: Cali
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 7816
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chali21 wrote:
La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?

Indy.

Lets hope KC doesnt take Joeckel. I am pretty sure they will though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
La_Vader


Joined: 04 Jan 2013
Posts: 182
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chali21 wrote:
La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?



He started for the Colts, a playoff team
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
La_Vader


Joined: 04 Jan 2013
Posts: 182
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?

Indy.

Lets hope KC doesnt take Joeckel. I am pretty sure they will though.


Sucks there isn't a freak wideout, or star QB. I'm unsure of Geno Smith, I really like Bridgewater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3729
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

La_Vader wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?

Indy.

Lets hope KC doesnt take Joeckel. I am pretty sure they will though.


Sucks there isn't a freak wideout, or star QB. I'm unsure of Geno Smith, I really like Bridgewater.


Why does that suck? The Chiefs would get him...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo_Spice


Joined: 17 May 2009
Posts: 9719
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
La_Vader wrote:
I think we land 2 6ths in comp picks

for Bush and Sateele


Who does satalie play for?

Indy.

Lets hope KC doesnt take Joeckel. I am pretty sure they will though.


I doubt it. They have Brandon Albert on their roster and Donald Stephenson played well for them this year too. Plus after Luke Joeckel has an underwhelming combine he may not even be the first tackle off the board.

They're going to take Geno Smith or Tyler Wilson first overall. Whichever Reid likes more in the pre-draft process.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
Page 63 of 100

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group