Part of it is money. Part of it is the conservative nature of GMs and Coaches who don't want to be the fall guy for moving up for a player that ends up busting.

I can't think of one team that was really set back because of the money given to rookies. Your set back because you missed adding a great player and you have a big hole, not really because of the money. The Lions were set back because they grabbed (mostly sub par) receivers and nothing else. The Raiders were set back because they missed on Russell. KC missed on Sims. None of those teams were really hampered by salary cap restraints.

Didn't we offer Detroit our #3 overall pick in exchange for their 2nd rounder and they said no? I'm sure that had nothing to do with money.

???? Detroit had the #1 pick.

Yep, they drafted Stafford and we wanted out to the top 5...they had the 21st pick too but I don't think we wanted that either.

So you are saying KC wanted to fall back into the 2nd round and give up the #3 for the 33rd pick?

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure before the draft one of the network guys said we had offered our #3 pick to Detroit for peanuts. Someone else will remember I'm sure...

Detroit actually had pick #20, so i'm thinking it was for #20 and their second, or maybe third rounder

Yeah that is just ridiculous.

Hey if it meant not being stuck with Tyson ****ing Jackson, I would've taken that deal.

Of course, I much rather would have stayed at 3 and taken Raji :banghead:

Word.

I wanted Aaron Curry, so it kinda makes me feel better that he's not a badass..but still

or 30 other 1st rounders

You meant Sanchez there. :thumb:

http://www.aolnews.com/2009/04/25/re...lions-arent-i/

This one indicates we offered the #3 overall and a 4th for the #20 and #33. Pretty even trade value there. LMAO

Am I the only guy that remembers this?

Knowing that we still would of picked Tyson Jackson, that would of been the definition of trade rape

No I remember it I just try not to think about who we could have had because Jackson sucks the balls