I'm afraid that the correct comeback was

the entire tagging processes needs to be reevaluated. I dont have any particularly great resolutions but one I thought of was just lump tight ends in with WR from now on considering the way the game is changing and that the tightends are the number 1 receiver on a lot of teams, or at least number 2. No reason Jimmy should make less than really any other wideout in the league.

Anybody have any thoughts? Is my idea dumb?

Yeah, you're right. Who do you think the Colts will take tomorrow night?

I doubt the current CBA allows for that. If not, it would have to be collectively bargained, which probably wouldn't happen this offseason.

Lumping TEs and WRs together for tag purposes seems like the obvious solution, since I doubt any team would tag a primarily-blocking TE (offensive lineman are already grouped together), but again, I think that would require changes to the CBA.

They get 80 wins from Matt Hasselbeck, none of which from when he was in Green Bay.

At some point the top TEs will get paid what they're worth, right? All it takes is the top five guys to get their contracts for the franchise tag to be appropriately priced. The problem will fix itself before the next CBA

Good call, was trying to remember their picks.

Sure probably but that doesn't help Jimmy right now.

Brunell was another Packer draftee.

So did I. If they bumped it back to 1983 Indy is lock 1st, right?

Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, and Rodgers of course. (Oh, and Matt Flynn and Don Majkowski threw a few in there.)

Yeah, my point is that helping him would necessitate some sort of exception being made and not a rule change. There's no reason to make changes to the CBA to account for a problem that affects someone like 1% of the time and will fix itself anyway.

I think that table for KC is incredibly funny. Not only did KC get nothing out of any of the QB's they drafted for 30 years but no one else did either if they traded for a KC backup, got one in free agency, or pulled him off the scrap heap.

Looking at kc's qb draft picks, they never took one in round 1 in 30 years. Crazy.

I had to look it up. Here are the QBs the Chefs have drafted since 1984:

1987: Doug Hudson, Nicholls St. Round 7, pick 186. 0/1 lifetime passing.
1988: Danny McManus, Florida St. Round 11, pick 282. Never saw the field.
1989: Mike Elkins, Wake Forest. Round 2, pick 32. 1/2, 5 yards, 1 INT.
1992: Matt Blundin, Virginia. Round 2, pick 40. 2/9, 15 yards, 2 INT.
1994: Steve Matthews, Memphis. Round 7, pick 199. 28/43 for 299 yards over 3 games, none of them for Kansas City. One start for Jacksonville in 1997 accounts for one of the two wins on this list. Career AV of 1 is highest so far.
1995: Steve Stenstrom, Stanford. Round 4, pick 134. 314 pass attempts, but 4 TD to 12 INT. Started 10 career games; going 1-6 with Chicago in 1998 accounts for the other win on this list. Career AV of 6 is by far the highest of any KC draftees.
1997: Pat Barnes, California. Round 4, pick 110. Never threw a pass (did appear in one game).
2005: James Kilian, Tulsa. Round 7, pick 229. Never appeared in a game.
2006: Brodie Croyle, Alabama. Round 3, pick 85. Started 10 games in the Herm Edwards / Todd Haley garbage-fire eras. Lost them all. Career AV of 2 is second-highest on the list.
2011: Ricky Stanzi, Iowa. Round 5, pick 135. Still hasn't seen the field.

I just thought KC never even tried to find a franchise QB in the draft (which is kinda true, as D104 points out regarding their lack of first-rounders used on the position), but they did use two high second-rounders on QBs a few years apart. Those guys combined for as many INTs as completions (3).

Meanwhile Green Bay had Favre for 15 years or so where they didn't need to draft a QB yet got QB's who were productive starters for other teams several times.

I got it:

Luck > RG3(if guaranteed as healthy as rookie year) > Wilson = Cam > RG3(with no further guarantees)> Kaep

I would be interested in betting on any of the Redskins lines:

Washington +2.5(@Houston) in week 1
Washington -2(vs NY Giants) in week 4
Washington +6(vs Seattle) in week 5
Washington +4(@Dallas) in week 8
Washington +7.5(@SF) in week 12
Washington +1.5(vs Philly) in week 16

Willing to go up to $1000 per bet or as little as $100, only interested in betting with trusted regs or people who will escrow.

Was gonna accept week 8 and 12, but I actually like your side on both. Lines seem bad.

False. Luck and Cam are the best.

Also...that gurantees stuff for RG3 is silly. Aren't you a poker player? Just use his EV instead of two separate entities.

I'd bet a good amount of money on Wilson > Cam going forward

Its false that I have it that way?

"His EV" is the 2nd entity. Also providing the 1st entity only makes for a more interesting discussion imo, but you can feel free to completely ignore it and only discuss the rest of my list.

RG3=Vick

Basically without including the "if healthy" RG3 stipulation then I think its pretty clear that the tiers go:

Tier #1: Luck
Tier #2: Cam, Wilson
Tier #3: RG3, Kaep

Ranking RG3 vs Kaep just depends on how risk adverse you want to be(with RG3's injury history). Cam vs Wilson is just impossible for me to decide upon because they've had such drastically different surrounding casts/coaches.


How many non-homers would disagree with those tiers? Seems to me like thats the consensus, and it only gets challenged by homers.

i'd be more inclined to put cam in his own tier between luck and rustler