Saving money by drafting Cam Erving
 

In 2013, I hated the Eric Fisher pick for multiple reasons. Worst of all was the idea of letting a pretty good LT walk for an average yearly salary for $9.400,000, which for a starting LT isn't bad as long as you're really confident in the player you acquired. Some people didn't like Albert as much as me... whatever. But our replacement for him was the #1 overall pick, whose contract was worth 4 years $22 million, or a yearly average of about 5.5 million. For the #1 overall pick, we got a worse player in the short term (small school) and possibly the long term all so we could save about $4 million per year on the cap.

The idea of drafting Cam Erving isn't quite as bad, but it's still the same philosophy. We're avoiding a much worse fate (paying 9 million/year for a C instead of a LT) than with Albert's contract situation, and our hypothetical replacement is at the #18 overall pick instead of at #1. Last year's 17th, 18th, and 19th overall picks are making somewhere around 4 years, 8-9 million, so the contract is also far better than Eric Fisher's meddling pennies we would have saved over not paying Albert. However, we're also spending a 1st on a C and a worse player than the guy who left town.

I'm fine with using a 1st to replace aging guys on the brink of retirement like in Hali's case. I'm fine using a 1st in large position groups like CB and WR, where depth is so crucial that you can never have too many good players stacked up. And I'm also fine with using a 1st to fill a hole or oust somebody who's just not any good, which is why I'm cool with La'el Collins or a true RT in the 1st.

But I can't stand using a 1st rounder just to avoid paying good starting players that the team wants to keep. It turns the 1st round pick, aka the most consistent source of finding blue chip franchise players, and it turns it into a game played by your front office salary cap guys and not your talent scouts. It's WORSE than drafting for need-- it's essentially drafting for a need that you manufactured.

This is at least a better situation than Eric Fisher. We're saving about $6.5-7 million per year on the cap for our starting C. That's better than saving a piddly $3.5-4 million per year on the cap for our starting LT. And as much as I like Kush, he's not like Branden Albert, an established veteran that we knew was good enough to not only start but play pretty well.

So do you think the money savings coupled with the poor positional value in the draft and decrease in playing ability is worth it for Cam Erving?

If Dorsey drafts Cam Erving at #18, he's dead to me.

This is one pick that would make me throw my tv out the window

When I think about our first round pick, the first thing that comes to my mind is "I hope they pick someone who can save us a few bucks against the cap."

:spock:

Cam Erving may be a fine prospect, but its unrealistic to think that he is going to start in 2015. He is very raw playing center, and Reid's playbook is very complicated. There is no way he would be able to make the line calls by the start of the season.

It would be hard to imagine that he could beat out Kush who has been in this same offense now for 2yrs. Thus, Erving wouldnt really be offering any true competition to Kush nor would he be any 'savings' in the short term.

Can't find the article right now, but I remember seeing in Andy's tenure in Philly his centers were undrafted. And then he got Jason Kelce in the 6th

I hate the idea of Erving in the first and don't see it happening

Reaching for a 2nd round CB, Maxx Williams, Jake Fisher, Bernardrick McKinney are better moves than taking a freaking center in the 1st round.

I know it's been said millions of times every year.....but we're in a spot where we need to trade down (unless a top 3 WR falls).

It's very rare to find an OL that has the feet to play LT and strength and brawn to play center.

I try not to get hung up on the position as much as the player. IMHO, at 18 if you draft a guy that becomes a pro bowler and locks down that position for the next decade it was a great pick regardless of whether it's a C, S, ILB or even G.

Agholor FTW

Letting Hudson walk proves that this regime doesn't value the position like other teams. We had one of the best in the league and let him walk to draft another in the first? This isn't the same as Abert/Fisher. Albert was damn near 30, always banged up, and got paid 11 a year. And Fisher was widely considered the best player in the draft. Hudson was 25 and one of the top at his position, and we let him walk.. Erving is far from a sure thing. Best case scenario he is as good as Hudson was in 2 years

When was Fisher widely considered to be the best player in the draft? Pretty sure that up until draft day....they had us going back and forth between Fisher and Joekel.

I think it would be worth it simply for the reaction of SNR.

That was what the Chiefs thought when they picked Eric Fisher.

They already had two starting OTs on the team and a promising 3rd round swing tackle who had already started some games. They manufactured a hole by cutting Winston, and when negotiations with Albert to pay him chump change fell through, they tagged him and drafted Fisher, preparing for next year when Albert would walk.

If they drafted Fisher because they really believed he was a good player worthy of that pick, then why tag Albert at all? Let him walk and try to recover one of the picks we lost for Alex Smith.

I've seen alot of stuff that he's going higher than people think. In a perfect world we trade back and take him?