DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

Administrators
  • Content count

    15,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry last won the day on June 8 2016

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry had the most liked content!

About DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

  • Rank
    Pro Bowler

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

11,686 profile views
  1. Nuanced retort. Good talk. See ya out there. We crushed the Bills in that trade....absolutely crushed them. But yeah, the "JJ points were equal." Okay.
  2. Yeah definitely not financial broke. I meant physically "broken" and wanted to use more colorful language but decided to cut if off at "broke" out of respect for the COC.
  3. And its a VERY tough question to answer. I think they thought Renfree could be the long term emergency guy (and so did I) but that apparently didnt work. I get it. I just dont know why you wouldnt tell Schaub that you wanted to hire him on staff, pay him the same and save yourself $3.5 mill on the cap. That's a 2nd round tender. It's a Y1 mid-tier FA. It's a nice place to fit a Hageman extension. There's so much you can do with that.
  4. Except that it doesnt.....it PROVES my theory. Look at the returns of those picks. The Bills essentially traded a free fourth round pick worth of actual value by sending those three picks to us for 63. Which is the whole point. Not only does the JJ chart fail to track actual value of the midround picks, analysis in support of the chart takes it a step further by ignoring the significance of those picks altogether.
  5. Colt McCoy, Nick Foles, and Matt Barkley have all played in versions of the WCO. Not the exact same versions but enough to integrate quickly enough. I'd feel better with any of those dudes taking snaps. And I think its not analogous to compare Ryan's situation to another potential QB addition...because any potential QB addition wouldnt be coming off of a 7-year career as a starter in a different offense. The "system" isnt so hard that Matt Ryan couldnt get it sooner so much as the "system" was DIFFERENT than what Ryan had played in for years and years. Again, at the end of the day, its not that big of a deal. But if we're looking at FO moves, having Matt Schaub hold $3.5m on the cap this year with a dead money hit of $1.25 million next year, is sub-optimal. Especially if you can pay him to provide 99% of the same value and have it not count against the salary cap.
  6. I get that. But I'd be more concerned with winning a game or two if needed. And I dont think Schaub gives us a very good chance of doing that, even if he has seen success in his career, and even in relation to comparable alternatives.
  7. When you appeal to outcomes that support your central premise while "explaining away" or disavowing outcomes that challenge your central premise, you're falling victim to confirmation bias. And let's be clear here.....your OP very clearly was an invitation to challenge your admiration for the JJ chart. So when I do so (after years of being arguably the loudest anti-JJ chart voice on the board), don't come at me with "superiority complex" stuff. Either you're willing to have the discussion or you aren't. If you're not, then OPs like this one are counterproductive.
  8. I think theres overlap. But my biggest issue is with the idea that the chart is driving trade talks rather than trying to track them after the fact. And I'd question the "makes sense to the chart" conclusion because every single time we run trades through the chart, people do the "well, yeah, the points going out are higher than coming in but it makes sense" thing. When you're talking about actual assets. 4th round picks. 5th round picks. These are integral parts of the chart. Yet because of the devaluation of mid-round picks by the JJ chart, people act like a given trade "still works" even if its missing a 4th or 5th round picks worth of capital. Thats what I mean when I say people bend over backwards to say the trade chart works. You look at trades and explain away significant value discrepancy as incidental.
  9. Schau was a good, solid QB for a relatively short period of time five seasons ago. He had a nice career. But his nice career isnt going to win him games five years later. His decline wasnt system based, it was physical talent based. And thats fine. It happens. No shame in that. Yes, the mental contributions he has made are likely significant and should be valued. I'm just not sure why its more valuable to pay him what we're paying him on the cap rather than off the cap. Do I think Schaub is less likely to win games than Matt Simms? IDK. Probably. But I'm pretty confident he's less likely to win games than players making a comparable (or less) amount of money. You're dealing in poor assets when you're down there but would I rather pay Matt Moore $2.1m than have Schaub take up $3.5m on the cap? Yep. Would I rather give Chad Henne $3.5m than Matt Schaub $3.5m? Yep. I dont think its the biggest deal in the world but as we move forward into the growth of this roster and we have to start paying dudes, decisions like this are going to have to be eliminated.
  10. Hi. This is exactly what confirmation bias looks like.
  11. And for the record, the Chase Stuart chart which was put together based on actual historical player outcome breaks down as follows: Falcons trade 31(12.7); 95 (5.6); and 249 (.05) for Seattle's 26 (13.9). We essentially received 75 cents on the dollar for the trade. Which is fine (i guess) if the pick is one driven by conviction and a sense of certainty that the fit is right. But this is still like giving away the 114th pick for free. For trade two, the Falcons trade 63 (8.2) to the Bills for 75 (7.1); 149 (2.7) and 156 (2.4). We turned a dollar into $1.48. The surplus generated by the trade is equivalent to getting the #122 overall pick for free. That's a good-ah; job-ah.
  12. I think the idea that teams are "tossing in extra premium value" equivalent to midround picks is what people say to try to preserve the "integrity" of the Jimmie Johnson chart. In reality, I think any given team has a very finite amount of draft capital to play with. Over time, expectations are established as to what capital is required to move around the board. To some degree, the Johnson chart tries to track those expectations. The success of that effort is very hit and miss. And its completely divorced from the actual production those picks are associated with. And thats always been my point....this idea that GMs are staring at some goofy chart and matching numbers up just doesnt fly. And people who seem strangely anchored the chart do all sorts of bending over backwards to explain the trades the chart doesnt track.
  13. He's broke, man. He was broke 4 years ago. If Matt goes down, the team goes down. Schaub is incredibly unlikely to stop that.
  14. We should have signed him as a QB coach then. Or offensive assistant.