Oso planning to go pro
Gotta say, I don't love the Claypool trade from a Bears perspective.
He's an elite athlete, but has run very hot and cold in Pittsburgh and pretty much wore out his welcome there. The ascendance George Pickens made him expendable, and a likely early second seems to be a great return.The Steelers don't often make bad decisions on receivers.
When the Packers decided to pay Rodgers $50M rather than move on to the guy they moved up to take in the first round to replace him, they should've been going all in for Rodgers's remaining time with the Packers. That's your Super Bowl window. They absolutely should've tagged Davante (they could tag him for 2 years. There's 0 chance Davante sits out for 2 years hoping the Packers trade him. He has no leverage) and then, if still needed, made one more "all in" move to get another wideout at the deadline. Instead Gutey trades Davante for Christian Watson and Devonte Wyatt and sits on his hands at the deadline.
Goodbye Aaron. No way Rodgers plays for this mess next year.
Yeah, that’s a great point on the Steelers, if they’re trading you a wideout, something isn’t working out with that guy.I would much rather have Calvin Ridley and the package Jax gave up for him than Claypool.
You'd rather have a guy that will be 28 and will have not played competitively in nearly 2 years by the time the 2023 season starts? Ok....I know 28 isn't old for a WR and they didn't give up a lot but plenty of risk here.And part of the reason for the Claypool deal is to get Fields more help this season to see if he can continue to play well. Not to mention, the WR crop in free agency is garbage since Metcalf, Samuel, Brown, and McLaurin all signed extensions. Unless you're excited about adding a Lazard, JuJu, or Jakobi Meyers.
I get what you’re saying, but yes, I’d take the upside of Ridley at the possibility of a lower asset cost. Both Ridley & Claypool will be playing for contracts next season.I’m just not a huge Claypool fan though either.
That would have to be a retirement wouldn't it? Cap nerds, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he's basically unmoveable.
That's because Gutey doesn't actually have a strategy.
I'm not convinced the salary cap is real. There's enough weird cap wizardry and shell game antics with every contract as to make every report of "Team X is over the cap" functionally meaningless. I'll believe there are cap consequences to a personnel decision the moment teams aren't talking about their cap problems while simultaneously resigning dudes to long term deals. We're gonna find out that they're paying dudes against the 2046 cap number like everyone's Bobby Bonilla and Dan Orlovsky is gonna put on horn rimmed glasses and nod at what savvy cap management that is and we'll all just keep on going about our business.
I think he has a strategy, but it is a dated one of over-valuing draft picks. As wades points out above, the Packers post-Rodgers are going to be bad. And if they are going to be bad, they may as well be REALLY bad with a cap situation that will take a couple years to fix. But during that time you are drafting high and hopefully building back your talent base.In the meantime, go all in.
Yeah, but you can only over-value draft picks if you're good at drafting.He's not.
Commanders for sale. Probably will be for $5B.
Pack whiffed on claypool
Pack whiffed on claypool and waller