PDA

View Full Version : Do shifting values in Franchise tag $$$ effect who the Chiefs take with #11?


kcbubb
04-18-2012, 09:05 PM
Maybe I have undervalued interior lineman. But this list and recent franchise tags tend to place more value on interior lineman. Franchise money for OL have dropped the least among all positions. And the recent franchising of interior players may suggest the C and G are worth more than I thought.

Both:

New England Patriots - Logan Mankins G
Carolina Panthers - Ryan Kalil C

were franchised in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

Maybe DeCastro is worth more than I thought.

QB: $14.4 million in 2012; down from $16.1 million in 2011

RB: $7.7 million in 2012; down from $9.6 million in 2011

WR: $9.4 million in 2012; down from 11.4 million in 2011

TE: $5.4 million in 2012; down from $7.3 million in 2011

OL: $9.4 million in 2012; down from $10.1 million in 2011

DE: $10.6 million in 2012; down from $13 million in 2011

DT: $7.9 million in 2012; down from $12.5 million in 2011

LB: $8.8 million in 2012; down from $10.1 million in 2011

CB: $10.6 million in 2012; down from $13.5 million in 2011

S: $6.2 million in 2012; down from $8.8 million in 2011


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8247df3a/article/franchisetag-values-will-be-down-across-the-board-in-2012

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/02/nfl-franchise-tag-period-begins-monday-under-new-rules/1

Bewbies
04-18-2012, 09:35 PM
We will never win a game if we don't draft DeCastro.

Hoover
04-18-2012, 09:49 PM
I've made this argument before. Interior linemen are increasing in value. More are being drafted in the first round of the draft and more and more of them are getting tagged. In many ways they are like DT's, getting one in free agency cost too much, so its worth it drafting them.

Bewbies
04-18-2012, 10:41 PM
Draft Molk in the 3 or 4 and leave Hudson at guard. Same effect, helluva lower cost. Does not compute with DeCastro crowd...

Tannehill in the first, Chapman in the 2nd, 3rd gone in a trade up, 4th on Molk. We just completed our team, and should the picks pan out built a Super Bowl team.

Of course, we could take DeCastro at 11 and build a Super Bowl team around him. It's less risky and easier as well.

aturnis
04-18-2012, 11:10 PM
Draft Molk in the 3 or 4 and leave Hudson at guard. Same effect, helluva lower cost. Does not compute with DeCastro crowd...

Tannehill in the first, Chapman in the 2nd, 3rd gone in a trade up, 4th on Molk. We just completed our team, and should the picks pan out built a Super Bowl team.

Of course, we could take DeCastro at 11 and build a Super Bowl team around him. It's less risky and easier as well.

I'll break things if we take Tannehill.

Hoover
04-18-2012, 11:16 PM
The best thing the Chiefs front office has done in recent drafts is pick guys like Hudson and Aasamoha (SP its late). We should continue doing that. Would love to grab a center or guard in the 3rd.

BossChief
04-19-2012, 12:37 AM
That franchise figure is for all offensive linemen and is calculated by the average of the last 5 years of the 5 highest paid offensive linemen.

To act as if guards pay has anything to do with that figure is silly.

Is there a single guard that makes 9.5 million per year?NICKS

That average is more than likely all left tackle or top ten pick money from the old CBA.

The farther away we get from those picks, the lower that cap figure will drop till it stabilizes around 8 million in a year or two.

Using that as a way to prop up a Decastro argument is foolish, at best.

kcbubb
04-19-2012, 09:41 AM
That franchise figure is for all offensive linemen and is calculated by the average of the last 5 years of the 5 highest paid offensive linemen.

To act as if guards pay has anything to do with that figure is silly.

Is there a single guard that makes 9.5 million per year?NICKS

That average is more than likely all left tackle or top ten pick money from the old CBA.

The farther away we get from those picks, the lower that cap figure will drop till it stabilizes around 8 million in a year or two.

Using that as a way to prop up a Decastro argument is foolish, at best.

This is what I have always thought, but I think Kalil, Mankins and Nicks are some of the highest paid guys on the OL in the league. Maybe even Hutchinson??? I don't know. Click on the wikipedia link to see how players have been franchised over the years.

Does anyone have a list of the highest paid OL in the league right now?

And I am not in the Decastro camp. I don't want to take a G at 11. But I am now reconsidering how low I have ranked interior linemen in positional value.

whoman69
04-19-2012, 03:50 PM
Draft Molk in the 3 or 4 and leave Hudson at guard. Same effect, helluva lower cost. Does not compute with DeCastro crowd...

Tannehill in the first, Chapman in the 2nd, 3rd gone in a trade up, 4th on Molk. We just completed our team, and should the picks pan out built a Super Bowl team.

Of course, we could take DeCastro at 11 and build a Super Bowl team around him. It's less risky and easier as well.

It computes. Does it compute with you that probably the biggest positional upgrade we could do would be DeCastro over Lilja?

For me, everything I've read and seen with Tannehill tells me he is not the pick. If Pioli and team think he's the guy, I'm going to be ok with that. I just hope they aren't just overvaluing his position like many here are.

Nightfyre
04-19-2012, 04:14 PM
It computes. Does it compute with you that probably the biggest positional upgrade we could do would be DeCastro over Lilja?

For me, everything I've read and seen with Tannehill tells me he is not the pick. If Pioli and team think he's the guy, I'm going to be ok with that. I just hope they aren't just overvaluing his position like many here are.

You cannot overstate the importance of the QB position in today's NFL.

Bewbies
04-19-2012, 05:28 PM
Pioli isn't a tard, so he's not going to take DeCastro at 11. In fact, there's little to not chance he'd take him at all. I don't care if we had a 5 year old starting at LG, there is no value whatsoever in taking a G that high. None.

buddha
04-19-2012, 05:43 PM
Draft Molk in the 3 or 4 and leave Hudson at guard. Same effect, helluva lower cost. Does not compute with DeCastro crowd...

Tannehill in the first, Chapman in the 2nd, 3rd gone in a trade up, 4th on Molk. We just completed our team, and should the picks pan out built a Super Bowl team.


Pioli isn't a tard, so he's not going to take DeCastro at 11. In fact, there's little to not chance he'd take him at all. I don't care if we had a 5 year old starting at LG, there is no value whatsoever in taking a G that high. None.

First of all, I don't see Tannehill dripping to #11, so expect to give up more than a third to move up.

Also, nice to know that we are only these three players away from a Super Bowl team in Bewbies land. You know the place, right? Anybody can play offensive line as long as you have "somebody different" at QB. The offensive line is meaningless here.

I'm not going to argue DeCastro with you because you've been dropped on your head far too often in life. My words and DJ's words are lost on you.

There is no doubt that KC needs more help at QB. Tannehill might be that guy, but I doubt that we'll make the moves necessary to grab him.

So...the obvious move is the trade down, right Bewbies? A QB will be waiting for us next year...well, probably not since we're poised to be a Super Bowl team, right? Picking too late to get any of the good prospects next year.

Hmmm? That's a tough one.
<!-- / message -->

Bewbies
04-19-2012, 06:26 PM
I never said we would be an instant Super Bowl team. I do know without a QB we aren't. We aren't picking DeCastro either. So get those tears out early you brain dead puss.

Chocolate Hog
04-19-2012, 06:34 PM
Pioli isn't a tard, so he's not going to take DeCastro at 11. In fact, there's little to not chance he'd take him at all. I don't care if we had a 5 year old starting at LG, there is no value whatsoever in taking a G that high. None.

I wonder what your reaction was when Munoz was taken at 3 and Munchek at 5.

Nightfyre
04-19-2012, 06:38 PM
I wonder what your reaction was when Munoz was taken at 3 and Munchek at 5.

FTR: Munoz was a tackle. But the game hasn't changed at all since the 80s, amirite?

Bewbies
04-19-2012, 07:05 PM
Considering Munoz was a LT I wouldn't be upset.

Now if our GM was busy building a team to compete in 1985 I'd be pissed.

whoman69
04-19-2012, 07:23 PM
You cannot overstate the importance of the QB position in today's NFL.

Picking a QB just to pick a QB isn't the answer. They still have to produce.

Bewbies
04-19-2012, 07:27 PM
The best production comes from the QB you never, ever, ever take a chance on.

Nightfyre
04-19-2012, 07:27 PM
Picking a QB just to pick a QB isn't the answer. They still have to produce.

You're right. Never picking a QB is clearly the answer. The fact is that you will have to take some calculated risks and reach for QBs given the new rookie contract structure. Pioli must make that determination based on the information he has at hand, which is substantially more than what I presently have on Tannehill.