This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
We discussed that in another thread and basically Burress should be considered part of that trade because they were able to sign him because they didn't have to pay a 1st round pick.Something like this:Rivers + Merriman + Kaeding + Oben = Eli + Burress + $2 million a year.
I'm think the same thing. I wouldnt be suprised if Coughlin is a little relieved he mayb have an opportunity to give Jacobs the rock more next season. Its tough when the Vets stick aorund and the youth behind him is ready to blossom. if Faulk hadnt stepped aside like a man SJAX might be still waiting for his full time shot.
That is kind of nutty. Draft picks can be signed for less money than what their market value would dictate if they were free agents (since the team that drafted them has monopsony power over them). Proven free agents, on the other hand, must be signed for exactly what their market value dictates since they are free agents.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what he's said before, and how he approaches the draft.I think the salient point here is that he's willing to pay whatever price necessary to get the talent he wants, so the analysis should focus more on what Accorsi thinks of the RBs in question and less on the "price" - in money or draft picks.
On average, a $10 million draft pick will handily outperform a $10 million free agent. (See figures 9 and 10 in this paper and note that all draft picks, on average, have positive "surplus value" -- i.e., they outperform veteran free agents, on average, per dollar of compensation paid to them.)
Why would any team spend a number 2 pick on a guy they dont think can carry the load? Lets get real Bush is going to be the starter there next year.Da Guru said:
I thought the Loser's Curse was that bad teams waste money giving huge bonuses to unproven players who don't give them a good return on their money?
On average, a $10 million draft pick will handily outperform a $10 million free agent. (See figures 9 and 10 in this paper and note that all draft picks, on average, have positive "surplus value" -- i.e., they outperform veteran free agents, on average, per dollar of compensation paid to them.)
I completely disagree with this assessment. I definitely foresee the Saints looking to move Deuce for draft picks and paying a LOT LESS money for "another RB ndxt to Bush."
JuniorNB said:
2.7 reasons to TRADE McAllister. Trades mean you ditch the entire contract less a portion of signing bonus b/c the other tean accepts the player as is under his contract.FYI - the Giants are an excellent fit for Deuce.
Not running the ball at 2.7 a carry he won`t!
I've already said I like the idea of Jacobs leading the ground game. I'd like to see how that passing game works with a power running game punishing the line and backers in the second level all day. Gotta think Shockey becomes huge in a system like that if they can pull it off.As for the initial question, I don't want Turner due to the price, and I can't believe that the Saints would give up Duece. I don't see Ernie going after Turner and will be very displeased if he does. There are still other needs on the team that can be seriously helped with the picks and money that would be spent on Turner.
I think the "Loser's Curse" is a play on words, playing on the Winner's Curse. The Winner's Curse refers to the fact that winning bidders in an auction typically overpay based on the item's true value. (If an item is worth $15, a given group of 20 bidders may place values on it ranging from $10 to $20. It's the guy who values it at $20 who will win the item, and he will pay more than its true value for it. So the winner is actually a loser when it comes to value.)The paper is called the "Loser's Curse" in part because the draft is kind of like an auction, with various teams "bidding" on the top draft pick by offering to trade up. Whoever offers the most "wins" but is probably overpaying.I thought the Loser's Curse was that bad teams waste money giving huge bonuses to unproven players who don't give them a good return on their money?
On average, a $10 million draft pick will handily outperform a $10 million free agent. (See figures 9 and 10 in this paper and note that all draft picks, on average, have positive "surplus value" -- i.e., they outperform veteran free agents, on average, per dollar of compensation paid to them.)
That's what I took from the article. The same teams consistently get top 10 picks but they never seem to be able to get better since they pay huge bonuses to players who add little to the team and end up getting cut (Detroit is a recent example). On the other hand, teams like the Patriots get a solid, value player in the late first round and are able to spend the extra money on free agents to fill holes on the team. I've never understood why more teams with high picks don't trade down - even if they don't get good value according to some ridiculous pick value chart.I think the "Loser's Curse" is a play on words, playing on the Winner's Curse. The Winner's Curse refers to the fact that winning bidders in an auction typically overpay based on the item's true value. (If an item is worth $15, a given group of 20 bidders may place values on it ranging from $10 to $20. It's the guy who values it at $20 who will win the item, and he will pay more than its true value for it. So the winner is actually a loser when it comes to value.)The paper is called the "Loser's Curse" in part because the draft is kind of like an auction, with various teams "bidding" on the top draft pick by offering to trade up. Whoever offers the most "wins" but is probably overpaying.I thought the Loser's Curse was that bad teams waste money giving huge bonuses to unproven players who don't give them a good return on their money?
On average, a $10 million draft pick will handily outperform a $10 million free agent. (See figures 9 and 10 in this paper and note that all draft picks, on average, have positive "surplus value" -- i.e., they outperform veteran free agents, on average, per dollar of compensation paid to them.)
And it's also called the "Loser's Curse" because its principle finding is that low first-round draft picks are worth more than high first-round draft picks after taking salary into account.
So the best teams in the league, who go deep into the playoffs every year, end up with draft slots that are worth more than those held by the losing teams. Although the draft is theoretically supposed to promote parity, it has the opposite effect. The worst teams get "worse" picks (in the sense of having less surplus value after taking salary into account) than the best teams do. So the losers are cursed in the draft in a self-perpetuating cycle of disadvantage.
Don't get caught up in trying to pigeon hole Bush as a typical starting RB. He's getting the ball 20ish times per game. I think Sean Payton is VERY happy designing the offense with Deuce and Bush in the backfield.
Tim Carter
The draft doesn't have to have the negative effect because the bad teams could trade down.I think the "Loser's Curse" is a play on words, playing on the Winner's Curse. The Winner's Curse refers to the fact that winning bidders in an auction typically overpay based on the item's true value. (If an item is worth $15, a given group of 20 bidders may place values on it ranging from $10 to $20. It's the guy who values it at $20 who will win the item, and he will pay more than its true value for it. So the winner is actually a loser when it comes to value.)The paper is called the "Loser's Curse" in part because the draft is kind of like an auction, with various teams "bidding" on the top draft pick by offering to trade up. Whoever offers the most "wins" but is probably overpaying.I thought the Loser's Curse was that bad teams waste money giving huge bonuses to unproven players who don't give them a good return on their money?
On average, a $10 million draft pick will handily outperform a $10 million free agent. (See figures 9 and 10 in this paper and note that all draft picks, on average, have positive "surplus value" -- i.e., they outperform veteran free agents, on average, per dollar of compensation paid to them.)
And it's also called the "Loser's Curse" because its principle finding is that low first-round draft picks are worth more than high first-round draft picks after taking salary into account.
So the best teams in the league, who go deep into the playoffs every year, end up with draft slots that are worth more than those held by the losing teams. Although the draft is theoretically supposed to promote parity, it has the opposite effect. The worst teams get "worse" picks (in the sense of having less surplus value after taking salary into account) than the best teams do. So the losers are cursed in the draft in a self-perpetuating cycle of disadvantage.
As a Giants fan, I can't imagine anything I'd want less for my team.Not only has Parcells looked exhausted and somewhat disinterested as a coach this year, but his success as a GM and the necessary judgement of talent has been suspect to say the least in his stints in jobs with GM responsibilities on the Jets, Patroits and Cowboys. He seems to favor recycling "Parcells guys" and misjudge the talent of guys available.Pass, big time.
It's amazing to me that it took 69 posts for someone to mention Derrick Ward. Do most of you realize he was the #2 RB last year before he got hurt in December, and entered this year as the #2. Now I love Brandon Jacobs, so I'm not knocking him, but I think he might be more effective as part of a tandem. Ward is not particularly fast, but he hits the hole a lot faster than Jacobs and works hard. As a Giants local, it seems the team really likes him. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants went with some combo of Ward and Jacobs and drafted a speed back in the later rounds. Having said that, though, there have been recent articles that the Giants are interested in trading for Turner. But that's mostly as a result of Adam Schefflers speculation last week on NFL.com.No I don't believe the Giants will pursuit a big name FA RB.. if anything they would get a 3rd down speed back..or a rook (more likely) for depth. IMO they will run with Jacobs and Ward.. Ward was already getting to be a larger part of the offense before he got inj. He will be back though and the kid is GOOD. The jets dropped him a few years back in camp and the Giants swarmed in quick. The Giants have LB issues they will likely address first and foremost. Also another thing about the Giants.. if they do not make the playoffs or get whipped like last year do not be surprised to see Tom Coughlin gone...but on the other hand if he makes the Superbowl he just may be promoted..see TCs last link to those who hired him is gone after this season when GM Ernie Accorsi retires. When TC was brought in initially it was speculated that he may take over as the GM. The late owners Mara and Tisch loved the guy..they tried to get him years before. Anyway, Maras kids now own the Giants. TC can write his own ticket here ..either way. He was brought in to instill dicipline and pride back to one of the NFLs flagship teams.. the dicipline is not there.. they are still one of the most penalized teams in the league.. Well not to make a long subject any longer I'll stop now.. but bottom line is if the regimine changes then I would expect to see the new GM and HC possibly make a big move to stamp their tenures beginnings.. if TC stays on as HC then I would look to Jacobs and Ward for at least one year. Jacobs will be a great #1 RB imo.. he is fast, big and has a attitude of a LB.. if used properly (which he is not) they would use him consistantly at the beginning of the games to quickly wear down defenses.. then put in Tiki who would easily run past the tired def. IF they did that to begin with and used Jacobs 50/50 Tiki would not be retiring.. Tiki said just a YEAR ago that he believed that the addition of Jacobs would prolong his career by 3 years or more possibly.. but as you probably heard Tiki doesnt agree with the coaching and he is just run constantly and is wearing down (mentally and physically) .. bottom line is TC is a BOOB and though has done a lot of good for the franchise is also pushing a future HOF RB out of the league. Not that I am a Giants homer or anything.
I think Jacobs was used wrong last year but has been used correctly this year. You want your best player taking the majority of the carries and that is clearly Tiki. Jacobs does a lot good, but I don't think he could last getting 30 touches a game because he gets hit really hard a lot. I think his style would leave himself open for getting hurt a lot (as well as taking out some of the defense as well). I think he and Ward could be fine.I think TC knows what he is doing and I am fine with him as coach.No I don't believe the Giants will pursuit a big name FA RB.. if anything they would get a 3rd down speed back..or a rook (more likely) for depth. IMO they will run with Jacobs and Ward.. Ward was already getting to be a larger part of the offense before he got inj. He will be back though and the kid is GOOD. The jets dropped him a few years back in camp and the Giants swarmed in quick. The Giants have LB issues they will likely address first and foremost. Also another thing about the Giants.. if they do not make the playoffs or get whipped like last year do not be surprised to see Tom Coughlin gone...but on the other hand if he makes the Superbowl he just may be promoted..see TCs last link to those who hired him is gone after this season when GM Ernie Accorsi retires. When TC was brought in initially it was speculated that he may take over as the GM. The late owners Mara and Tisch loved the guy..they tried to get him years before. Anyway, Maras kids now own the Giants. TC can write his own ticket here ..either way. He was brought in to instill dicipline and pride back to one of the NFLs flagship teams.. the dicipline is not there.. they are still one of the most penalized teams in the league.. Well not to make a long subject any longer I'll stop now.. but bottom line is if the regimine changes then I would expect to see the new GM and HC possibly make a big move to stamp their tenures beginnings.. if TC stays on as HC then I would look to Jacobs and Ward for at least one year. Jacobs will be a great #1 RB imo.. he is fast, big and has a attitude of a LB.. if used properly (which he is not) they would use him consistantly at the beginning of the games to quickly wear down defenses.. then put in Tiki who would easily run past the tired def. IF they did that to begin with and used Jacobs 50/50 Tiki would not be retiring.. Tiki said just a YEAR ago that he believed that the addition of Jacobs would prolong his career by 3 years or more possibly.. but as you probably heard Tiki doesnt agree with the coaching and he is just run constantly and is wearing down (mentally and physically) .. bottom line is TC is a BOOB and though has done a lot of good for the franchise is also pushing a future HOF RB out of the league. Not that I am a Giants homer or anything.
When has Bush had more than 14 carries in a game? Answer = never.
