Longgone

Public minimum demand means nothing, it's just a ploy in which you are placing way too much stock.

It's a negotiation, one side usually starts high, the other low, both are serious, neither are reflective of the actual worth, the market dictates that.

He'd be fine on the right side. He has very little experience on the left and it should be expected that side will take some time.

He gets off by committing acts of violence against women, whether consensual or not, that is a deal breaker for me.

Hell no

There is no 1,2 or 3 wide receiver, there are roles in an offense based on the types of routes generally run. Jamo is a Y, Reynolds is a Y. Chark was an ideal X. DPJ will probably fill the X role, which has been sorely lacking.

You only get a comp pick if you don’t sign anyone else decent and I believe they plan on signing free agents, and i think the depth on the dline is fine, but if Jacobs or Sutton goes down, they are in trouble.

Its fair now, it's just that you can't judge a player's potential based on stats incurred when they are performing at less than 100% of capability.

We won't know what they have in him until he has a stretch where he is fully healthy, able to get in shape physically and and is able to get into a good routine, all things he hasn't had so far.

A rational, factual basis and forming assumptions based on a few anecdotes are two completely different things.

An obtuse prediction with no basis.

Also, and no one seems to want to give him credit, but Geno Smith played his ass off, and while their oline is dinged up, they have a lot of weapons.

Nope, they played a very good team and played well enough to win, it's disappointing that they didn't, but it's not all bad. They lost the turnover battle, and that was it.

Because a dt who is doing his job is stacking blockers, filling gaps, penetrating, etc., not necessarily making splash plays.

Trades-C Free agents, waivers, etc. -C Staffing-B Player development -B Draft-A International -Inc.

They had not used up all the other ways, that's ludicrous and you're assuming what they had wasn't working. They wanted a draft for obvious reasons. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one, you don't have to conjure up any conspiracies. Every major and most minor sports leagues successfully have drafts, and if you believe it's for bonus suppression and not competitive balance, then there's no point for any further discussion.

There were thousands of easier, simpler ways they could have suppressed bonuses, from caps on. They wanted a draft for what a draft logically provides. They didn't need subterfuge.

I agree they, probably unanimously, wanted to suppress bonuses, but you are completely ignoring the motivating factor for the majority of the owners and the actual function of a draft, it distributes talent in an equitable manner.

They went to the highest bidder, for the top talent that was almost always to the few biggest markets who hoarded them on a plethora of farm clubs. There was a definite class structure, much resented, that was greatly improved with the draft.

None of this very trite, tired, jaded rant about greedy owners changes the historical fact that deep unrest within owners of mid to smaller market franchises, who were not granted a level playing field and could not compete with the big market clubs for talent, led them to pursue a draft. This disparity and rift amongst owners has been addressed in various ways yet still remains today, and will remain until revenues are shared as per other major sports. Do owners want to control costs? Of course! Are they greedy? Some, probably. Does a draft inhibit amateur bonuses? Absolutely. Still, the prime purpose of a draft is to equitably distribute talent. Sometimes face value is face value.

You speak of controlling costs as if it were a nefarious plot. You own a business you have to control costs to survive. But the actual business of a sports league is competitive balance.

I kind of admire your cynicism. However, the essence, the essential quality of any sports league is the ability of each member to be able to compete. No one wants a league of perennial haves and have nots, and no teams should be granted inherent competitive advantages. The idea is to win, not balance spreadsheets. You have to cost control to remain viable, but you have to have competitive balance to maintain a healthy interest in the league itself. The motivating, historical issue for the draft was competitive balance. Sure, it also controls costs, but parity was the issue.

The motivating issue was competitive balance. Of course they want to contain costs, what business owner doesn’t? But do you think these rich, egotistical creatures bought a team to control costs? No! They all want to win and they want a fair playing field where they can compete, for their egos and for their communities. Cost control is just their nature.

That’s disingenuous. It was for competitive balance. Most of the teams in the league couldn’t compete with the big market clubs. It was a league of haves and have nots, and the majority of med to smaller market clubs pushed for a draft to alleviate that. Of course they also wanted to contain costs, the objectives are intertwined.

The main purpose is to distribute incoming talent in an equitable manner, which also happens to contain costs more efficiently than the alternative of big market clubs outbidding everyone for top talent. It serves no purpose to provide rewards, or punitive actions if it has absolutely no impact on corrective, constructive or positive behavior changes. Your last paragraph makes no sense, as a “garbage franchise“ is just as likely to get rewarded as any other since there is no correlation between the lottery and behavior.