Good stuff.

 

http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/12/nfl-power-r...?eref=sihp

 

---

My favorite is seeing the next closest division rival at 8 and the Colts and Titans at 24.

---

My favorite is seeing the Browns have a -5 GM rating.

---

My favorite is seeing the Browns have a -5 GM rating.

Haha, hilarious.  I didn't notice.

---

Do it Dave...DO IT!

---

the glass half full :yes:

---

All good until you see that the team we tied with is no other than.....the Oakland Raiders.

---

I thought we only had two forth rounders? 

---

I hope Dave Caldwell does work worthy of increasing that "2" GM Grade.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2014/2/13/5...on-jaguars

---

I thought we only had two forth rounders?

2 4th and 3 5th rounders is what we have I think. So I believe you are correct.

---

All good until you see that the team we tied with is no other than.....the Oakland Raiders.

 

Both teams have high draft picks and a ton of cap room, so they are in good positions. But they are in these positions because they have drafted poorly in recent years so they don't have to re-sign many of their own players or risk losing anyone of signifigance. They also haven't spent much on other team's players. And they have the high picks are a result of poor on field play. And I am sure a Raider fans would say the same about us.

---

I thought we only had two fourth rounders? 

 

Maybe somebody got rounds 4 and 5 mixed up. We have three fifth round picks.

 

Where did you see that mistake?

---

Lets do it Dave.

---

<b>We Believe In Victory..</b>

I like that we're number 1.  I agree with that.  However, there are a lot of mistakes in the article.  Most glaring is Oakland getting a 4 for Pending Free Agents.  They are losing like half their team to free agency.  They should get a 1 or 2 in that category... Then when you factor in a big chunk of that cap space is going to go to just fielding a team, its functional equivalent will most likely be less than ours in terms of buying power.

---

I like that we're number 1.  I agree with that.  However, there are a lot of mistakes in the article.  Most glaring is Oakland getting a 4 for Pending Free Agents.  They are losing like half their team to free agency.  They should get a 1 or 2 in that category... Then when you factor in a big chunk of that cap space is going to go to just fielding a team, its functional equivalent will most likely be less than ours in terms of buying power.

"losing" ? They have ridiculous cap space what are you talking about? They could resign anyone they feel is worth keeping and still splurg in free agency if they feel like it. They have like 4 guys I would say they Must resign and 4 or 5 that they probably will and fairly cheaply. Definatly would let Mcfadden walk tho.

---

<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" color=#ffcc00></FONT>[url=http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r74/Ratix240sx/?action=view&current=untitled5.jpg][/url]

I like that we're number 1.  I agree with that.  However, there are a lot of mistakes in the article.  Most glaring is Oakland getting a 4 for Pending Free Agents.  They are losing like half their team to free agency.  They should get a 1 or 2 in that category... Then when you factor in a big chunk of that cap space is going to go to just fielding a team, its functional equivalent will most likely be less than ours in terms of buying power.

 

Most of the free agents are veterans past their prime. The only guys of value are Lamarr Houston and Jared Veldheer.

---

"losing" ? They have ridiculous cap space what are you talking about? They could resign anyone they feel is worth keeping and still splurg in free agency if they feel like it. They have like 4 guys I would say they Must resign and 4 or 5 that they probably will and fairly cheaply. Definatly would let Mcfadden walk tho.

 

They are impending free agents.  That's what they graded that category on.  Fact is they only have about half of a team under contract for next year.  Of course they have the money to resign those players if they so choose, but then they'd have less cap than the Jaguars with the same team they had last year.  Last season they signed a ton of veteran free agents who started on their defense to one year deals.  They have a lot of starters to find/replace.  There is no way they can sign a dozen starters and add depth in one offseason.  Meanwhile, the Jaguars will have all but MJD returning in all probability.  Every dollar we spend will be spent improving the roster, not rebuilding status quo.  Oakland has a fine situation, but like I said, they more than double the amount of players they need to find as any team in the NFL.

 

Oakland doesn't have "ridiculous cap space" because they have cheap contracts.  They have it because they don't have any players.

---

Maybe somebody got rounds 4 and 5 mixed up. We have three fifth round picks.

 

Where did you see that mistake?

 

 

"and they’re in possession of 10 draft picks. Three of those selections land in Round 4, with another three in Round 5".  Looks like they just made a minor mistake in their arithmetic I guess.

---