Chiefs Albert/Joeckel perspective - Page 2

planetdoc · 04-19-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

Albert has to say he is a lt since he was franchised. The dropoff from lt to any other spot on the o-line with the franchise tag is pretty steep.

I dont believe that is accurate.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag#Non-exclusive_franchise_player_costs_by_position

It appears as if offensive lineman are considered one group and a franchised player would get the average pay of the top 5 highest paid players in the "offensive lineman" group regardless what position he plays (RT, LT, C, G).

Thus the designation would have no bearing on Albert's franchise tag pay, but could have a bearing on a longterm contract (since a LT pay >RT>G>C).

AussieChiefsFan · 04-18-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing.

#1 pick = 3000 points
#54 pick = 360 points

difference is 2640 points

#2 pick is worth 2600 points

Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.

Those are 3 very big "ifs".

saphojunkie · 04-19-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan

Those are 3 very big "ifs".

I don't want to hear about no mutha****in' IFS. All I want to hear from yo ass is, "you ain't got a problem, Jules. Go back in, chill them n****s out, and wait for the GENO, which should be comin' DI-reck-ly."

**RealSNR** · 04-18-2013, 11:15 PM

I already knew just from looking at it that this deal was terrible for the Chiefs.

I didn't need the stat guy to mathematically prove it for me. That just makes it sting even more.

**Ming the Merciless** · 04-19-2013, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

I already knew just from looking at it that this deal was terrible for the Chiefs.

I didn't need the stat guy to mathematically prove it for me. That just makes it sting even more.

i did because i masturbate to inflicted pain

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing.

#1 pick = 3000 points
#54 pick = 360 points

difference is 2640 points

#2 pick is worth 2600 points

Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.

Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

**cdcox** · 04-18-2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

Okay it's outdated. The early picks are worth even more now since they don't have a heavy salary penalty. We'll factor that in and the trade is even worse.

ChiefsCountry · 04-19-2013, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

Dane,

The teams followed the chart on the first round trades last year.

Jaguars/Bucs
#5 (1700) for #7(1500) and #101(96)
1700 for 1596

Cowboys/Rams
#6 (1600) for #14(1100) and #45(450)
1600 for 1550

Eagles/Seahawks
#12 (1200) for #15(1050), #114(66), and #172(22)
1200 for 1138

Pats/Bengals
#21 (800) for #27 (680) and #93 (128)
800 for 808

Pats/Broncos
#25 (720) for #31 (600) and #126(46)
720 for 646

Vikings/Ravens
#29 (640) for #35(550) and #98(108)
640 for 658

Bucs/Broncos
#31 (600) and #126(46) and #36(540) and #101(96)
646 for 636

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Dane,

The teams followed the chart on the first round trades last year.

I'm not stating that teams haven't held true to the draft chart: I'm stating that it should be no longer relevant.

Football people are ****ing dumb. It's a network of "friends". Once one of these dumbshits figure out that the value has decreased radically due to the new CBA, they'll all fall in line.

ChiefsCountry · 04-19-2013, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm not stating that teams haven't held true to the draft chart: I'm stating that it should be no longer relevant.

Football people are ****ing dumb. It's a network of "friends". Once one of these dumbshits figure out that the value has decreased radically due to the new CBA, they'll all fall in line.

The chart is from Jimmy Johnson era which is Plan B free agency and before the big money rookies, its came full circle where its probably back to being more accurate.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

The chart is from Jimmy Johnson era which is Plan B free agency and before the big money rookies, its came full circle where its probably back to being more accurate.

Right, which makes it even more irrelevant today.

Any team that's willing to pay those outdated rates is foolish.

patteeu · 04-19-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

The chart is from Jimmy Johnson era which is Plan B free agency and before the big money rookies, its came full circle where its probably back to being more accurate.

The chart doesn't account for the fact that some years have a high value player like Andrew Luck in them and some don't. This one doesn't. In other words, the chart value of the first overall pick is too high, not too low as cdcox suggested. That's why the Chiefs are reportedly trying to trade down for a pittance.

Fish · 04-19-2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm not stating that teams haven't held true to the draft chart: I'm stating that it should be no longer relevant.

Football people are ****ing dumb. It's a network of "friends". Once one of these dumbshits figure out that the value has decreased radically due to the new CBA, they'll all fall in line.

Ironic considering that your current views align with those "Football people"...

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Ironic considering that your current views align with those "Football people"...

My view? What view? That I don't give a shit? That POV?

Yeah, I don't give a shit that Brendan ****ing Albert, a slightly above average nearly 29 year old tackle for a shitty ****ing football team is being traded for a second round pick.

The ****ing guy was the "anchor" for two 2-14 teams, a 4-12 team, a 7-9 team and a 10-6 team. He's never been under ANY pressure to perform at a high level. He's not playing in New York or Philly or Washington or Dallas or Baltimore. He's played for a shit team and his play has been "okay".

Get the pick and move on. JFC.

bowener · 04-19-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

This. I would venture to guess this chart is beyond outdated now that the rookie wage scale is in place.

04-18-2013, 11:15 PM	#4
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $2210208	I already knew just from looking at it that this deal was terrible for the Chiefs. I didn't need the stat guy to mathematically prove it for me. That just makes it sting even more.
Posts: 90,582