2013 BR.com Mock Draft: Restricted Free Agency

[indianstick]

I don't know how this sam shields thing is going to play out but whatever the decision is, I am working from 8am-10p tomorrow so if I have to make a decision whether to match the offer, is there anyway I get get an extension till midnight or something

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361425939' post='1363743']
There really isn't anything unclear about what it says. It is that cut and dry.

[color=#292929][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][b]Any Club that does not have available, in the upcoming Draft, the selection choice or choices[/b] ([b]its own or better choices in the applicable rounds[/b]) needed to provide Draft Choice Compensation in the event of a timely First Refusal Exercise Notice may not sign an Offer Sheet in such circumstances. [/background][/color]

[color=#292929][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that. [/background][/color]

Jenkins had 70+ tackles, 4 picks, 14 passes defended and a touchdown. He also has not missed a game injury wise (missed one for violating team rules but was healthy)

By contrast, Shields best year was 4 ints, 45 tackles, and 12 passes defended. He also has had some injury issues

Numbers dont lie. Jenkins has a small sample size but factoring shields injuries and the fact that he doesn't have that large of a sample size either and you come to my conclusion.
[/quote]

Wanna break down the post season too regarding Shields?

Again, you can quote that as many times as you want, it still is subjective and not specific enough to the event that occurred.

Thankfully, this isn't a dictatorship so while I appreciate your opinion, it comes up to a vote.

[Alexir]

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361425980' post='1363744']
I don't know how this sam shields thing is going to play out but whatever the decision is, I am working from 8am-10p tomorrow so if I have to make a decision whether to match the offer, is there anyway I get get an extension till midnight or something
[/quote]

Absolutely fine with me.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361426201' post='1363747']
Wanna break down the post season too regarding Shields?

Again, you can quote that as many times as you want, it still is subjective and not specific enough to the event that occurred.

Thankfully, this isn't a dictatorship so while I appreciate your opinion, it comes up to a vote.
[/quote]
You truly are Oakland's GM.

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361426440' post='1363750']
You truly are Oakland's GM.
[/quote]

You truly are a Troll

[gabefergy]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361425569' post='1363739']

Jenkins had a phenomenal year and while his sample size is small, when you factor in Shields durability issues, and the fact that his sample size is only slight larger you can see why I would rate him above Shields

As for Claiborne, you can make that argument I suppose but there was a point when the Cowboys were healthy that they were the number 1 pass defense and I can only assume Claiborne was a big reason why. Carr was too of course, but still.
[/quote]
Jenkins had far from a phenomenal year. Even though he made some big plays, he was below average in coverage.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1361430214' post='1363769']
Jenkins had far from a phenomenal year. Even though he made some big plays, he was [b]below average in coverage.[/b]
[/quote]
I'll give you that but it was his rookie year. He let up 5 scores, but also scored four touchdowns of his own. So at least you can say he made up for it.

[url="http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2012/12/26/3804156/rams-janoris-jenkins-interceptions-defensive-rookie-of-the-year-award"]http://www.turfshowt...-the-year-award[/url]


Most telling thing is probably this - [color=#292929][font='Mercury SSm A', 'Mercury SSm B', Georgia, Georgia, serif][size=4]Jenkins has not allowed a touchdown, according to the PFF charting stats, since his Week 10 benching in San Francisco.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#292929][font='Mercury SSm A', 'Mercury SSm B', Georgia, Georgia, serif][size=4]I believe he was benched for violating team rules in that game or something. [/size][/font][/color]

Pretty good summation. I dont agree with the defensive rookie of the year candidacy, and I dont think Keuchley should have won it either, but the article gives a pretty objective? (for lack of a better word here maybe fair) view on Jenkins year and all things considered it was a very good year.

[stm85]

Shields' teammate Casey Hayward was BY FAR the best rookie CB last year and probably should have won DROY. That man is going to be one of, if not the best, slot CBs in the league within the next year or 2. If you're gonna include Claiborne and Jenkins, what about him?

[The Oakland Cathedral]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361425939' post='1363743']

There really isn't anything unclear about what it says. It is that cut and dry.

[color=#292929][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][b]Any Club that does not have available, in the upcoming Draft, the selection choice or choices[/b] ([b]its own or better choices in the applicable rounds[/b]) needed to provide Draft Choice Compensation in the event of a timely First Refusal Exercise Notice may not sign an Offer Sheet in such circumstances. [/background][/color]

[color=#292929][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that. [/background][/color]

Jenkins had 70+ tackles, 4 picks, 14 passes defended and a touchdown. He also has not missed a game injury wise (missed one for violating team rules but was healthy)

By contrast, Shields best year was 4 ints, 45 tackles, and 12 passes defended. He also has had some injury issues

Numbers dont lie. Jenkins has a small sample size but factoring shields injuries and the fact that he doesn't have that large of a sample size either and you come to my conclusion.
[/quote]Jenkins also graded out as one of the worst cover corners in the league...

[GrimCoconut]

This talk about Shields not being a top-50 CB or whatever you want to call it is neither here nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of restricted free agency and whether or not Alexir should receive Shields. I think we should keep irrelevant material such as that out of this discussion. It doesn't matter what CBs we would take above Shields. Shields is the subject here. If Oakland wants to pay 8S we shouldn't care.

Anyway, this should be brought to a vote due to the delicate nature of the situation. As previously stated, while the NFL does clearly explain the rules, that information was not available at the time of RFA. No rule was in place explaining a situation like this. I think as such it should go through out of fairness to Alexir, personally.

This argument is getting nowhere. Let's just vote on it.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361447193' post='1363838']
This talk about Shields not being a top-50 CB or whatever you want to call it is neither here nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of restricted free agency and whether or not Alexir should receive Shields. I think we should keep irrelevant material such as that out of this discussion. It doesn't matter what CBs we would take above Shields. Shields is the subject here. If Oakland wants to pay 8S we shouldn't care.

Anyway, this should be brought to a vote due to the delicate nature of the situation. As previously stated, while the NFL does clearly explain the rules, that information was not available at the time of RFA. No rule was in place explaining a situation like this. I think as such it should go through out of fairness to Alexir, personally.

This argument is getting nowhere. Let's just vote on it.
[/quote]
Already done

[Challenge Accepted]

Is RFA officially over?

[JO_75]

[quote name='Challenge Accepted' timestamp='1361501445' post='1364525']
Is RFA officially over?
[/quote]

Yes as of 7PM it was.

[Alexir]

[quote name='JO_75' timestamp='1361501564' post='1364526']
Yes as of 7PM it was.
[/quote]

I told Indianstick that he can choose to accept the deal of Sam Shields by midnight tonight since he is at work.

[gabefergy]

So GB gets Jax 2nd and NYG gets TB 1st. Oak 2nd to GB pending.

[indianstick]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1361501890' post='1364532']
So GB gets Jax 2nd and NYG gets TB 1st. Oak 2nd to GB pending.
[/quote]

i have no idea what the voting outcome was, when sizzle opened the voting he said it will close at 1am 2/22, and no one notified me the outcome. If the bid stands I would like to match it.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361512772' post='1364610']


i have no idea what the voting outcome was, when sizzle opened the voting he said it will close at 1am 2/22, and no one notified me the outcome. If the bid stands I would like to match it.
[/quote]
I'm not the most qualified person to explain this to you but these are the facts and that's all I can comment:

1.) You had until 7pm 2/21/13 to match Shields' offer sheet.
2.) The vote about whether we should veto Oakland from acquiring Shields was until 1am. It's a separate deadline from you signing Shields to an offer sheet.

So, my humble & possibly inaccurate assessment is that the RFA deadline passed for you to match Shields' offer sheet, and then the deadline passed for Shields to be vetoed to Oakland. So as it looks to me, Oakland gets Shields and you get their 2nd round pick.

Now, I don't know if they want to do things differently because this was under veto. There's some gray area here so it's hard to really say anything definitive.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361512772' post='1364610']


i have no idea what the voting outcome was, when sizzle opened the voting he said it will close at 1am 2/22, and no one notified me the outcome. If the bid stands I would like to match it.
[/quote]
Ok. So you are matching the 8M?

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1361548367' post='1364782']

Ok. So you are matching the 8M?
[/quote]
I think he is. It sounds like he will pay Shields 8S to keep him.

[Alexir]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361548540' post='1364787']

I think he is. It sounds like he will pay Shields 8S to keep him.
[/quote]

Indian, can you officially confirm?

[stm85]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361549089' post='1364796']
Indian, can you officially confirm?
[/quote]

he already said it

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361512772' post='1364610']
i have no idea what the voting outcome was, when sizzle opened the voting he said it will close at 1am 2/22, and no one notified me the outcome. If the bid stands I would like to match it.
[/quote]

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361539675' post='1364693']
I'm not the most qualified person to explain this to you but these are the facts and that's all I can comment:

1.) You had until 7pm 2/21/13 to match Shields' offer sheet.
2.) The vote about whether we should veto Oakland from acquiring Shields was until 1am. It's a separate deadline from you signing Shields to an offer sheet.

So, my humble & possibly inaccurate assessment is that the RFA deadline passed for you to match Shields' offer sheet, and then the deadline passed for Shields to be vetoed to Oakland. So as it looks to me, Oakland gets Shields and you get their 2nd round pick.

Now, I don't know if they want to do things differently because this was under veto. There's some gray area here so it's hard to really say anything definitive.
[/quote]
I mean if we can't trade a pick thats under the veto process wouldnt the same apply to matching an offer.

What if it was vetoed? Then there would be nothing to match and theres no way indianstick could.

Just saying imo he should be able to match it

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361549938' post='1364814']

I mean if we can't trade a pick thats under the veto process wouldnt the same apply to matching an offer.

What if it was vetoed? Then there would be nothing to match and theres no way indianstick could.

Just saying imo he should be able to match it
[/quote]
No, no. Those are all valid points. It's just there's a lot of gray area here. I'm not really qualified to discuss it any further as I already highlighted the facts but there's more I am sure I do not understand about this matter. I can see this go either way, really.

I mean, you can make several arguments. We could say he could have matched it while under veto as that would indicate he wants to retain the player if the move is vetoed. We can also say that he couldn't match while it was being vetoed. I really don't know what we should do here as there's a lot of gray. More gray here than the Polamalu trade or even the original Sam Shields question about whether Oakland could acquire him or not.

I think people higher than you and I need to make a call here.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361550696' post='1364820']
No, no. Those are all valid points. It's just there's a lot of gray area here. I'm not really qualified to discuss it any further as I already highlighted the facts but there's more I am sure I do not understand about this matter. I can see this go either way, really.

I mean, you can make several arguments. We could say he could have matched it while under veto as that would indicate he wants to retain the player if the move is vetoed. We can also say that he couldn't match while it was being vetoed. I really don't know what we should do here as there's a lot of gray. More gray here than the Polamalu trade or even the original Sam Shields question about whether Oakland could acquire him or not.

[b]I think people higher than you and I need to make a call here.[/b]
[/quote]
Agreed and they need to rule on the new KC-NO trade since it was never confirmed by JohnWilson. Question is who are they or will this be another vote?

[Alexir]

Well since I'm involved and you guys aren't, I have no problem that his match came in later than projected. People have jobs and I understand. So Indian, 8 million for shields, congrats!

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361551476' post='1364826']
Well since I'm involved and you guys aren't, I have no problem that his match came in later than projected. People have jobs and I understand. So Indian, 8 million for shields, congrats!
[/quote]
Great! So nice not to have any more controversy.

I'm glad you're understanding.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361551476' post='1364826']
Well since I'm involved and you guys aren't, I have no problem that his match came in later than projected. People have jobs and I understand. So Indian, 8 million for shields, congrats!
[/quote]
[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1361501890' post='1364532']
So GB gets Jax 2nd and NYG gets TB 1st. Oak 2nd to GB pending.
[/quote]

Good update your SoF pages accordingly then when you get a chance

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361552714' post='1364843']



Good update your SoF pages accordingly then when you get a chance
[/quote]

How bout you update your depth chart

[Alexir]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361552650' post='1364841']

Great! So nice not to have any more controversy.

I'm glad you're understanding.
[/quote]

I honestly think Indian and myself could of discussed this in the first place before third parties started the controversy

[indianstick]

Wait I technically didnt confirm it and I actually changed my mind. I would actually rather not match it and that is my final official..no turning back if that's ok