Cardinals waive cornerback Jamell Fleming

[albefree69]

<a class="postlink" href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/14/cardinals-waive-cornerback-jamell-fleming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-fleming/</a>

Cardinals waive cornerback Jamell Fleming
The Cardinals are parting ways with their second selection in the 2012 NFL Draft.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported Saturday that the club is waiving cornerback Jamell Fleming, whom Arizona took in the third round last year.

Fleming appeared in 15 games as a rookie (three starts), recording 23 tackles. He did not play in the Cardinals’ 2013 season-opening loss at St. Louis.

The 24-year-old Fleming played collegiately at Oklahoma.

Teams seem to be willing to give up on high picks really early lately. What ever happened to the belief that players drafted from the college ranks need time to develop? Three starts last year too. It took us how long to give up on Justin King?

It's pretty mind boggling to me unless the Cards FO knows something about him (outside of football) that we don't.

The new CBA seems to have drastically affected a lot more about the NFL than we originally thought.

 

[RamFan503]

Good observation IMO Al. The new CBA means draft order means far less once you have been picked. Personally, I think that is a huge upside to it. It also bodes well for teams with true talent evaluators.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 added:
Good observation IMO Al. The new CBA means draft order means far less once you have been picked. Personally, I think that is a huge upside to it. It also bodes well for teams with true talent evaluators.

What interests me is what are teams thinking about the commonly held belief that it takes 3 years to really see what you have in a player. How many good players will never have a chance to develop? History has shown that many of our good players showed nothing in their first few years. I'm wondering if this is a sign of a new paradigm developing in this area.

 

[V3]

Sometimes it takes many years to develop. Sometimes it doesn't. Some players you just know you F$*@ed up the pick once you see them practice. The Rams had that reaction with Jason Smith the first time they saw him practice.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Sometimes it takes many years to develop. Sometimes it doesn't. Some players you just know you F$*@ed up the pick once you see them practice. The Rams had that reaction with Jason Smith the first time they saw him practice.

Did they really? Or is that just hyperbole?
Honest question V3. I dont recall that.

 

[Sum1]

Teams will dump the early picks because the money isn't as costly...and Arizona has all new management/coaching. They don't give a shit who was drafted when before they arrived.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

i thought from the 2nd round down the money for the rookies pretty much stayed the same as the old cba.

.

 

[jjab360]

Sometimes it takes many years to develop. Sometimes it doesn't. Some players you just know you F$*@ed up the pick once you see them practice. The Rams had that reaction with Jason Smith the first time they saw him practice.

Did they really? Or is that just hyperbole?
Honest question V3. I dont recall that.

I remember early on they were talking about how much work he needed, technique wise, sort of hedging their bets. I think they were hoping to get a completely different player once preseason started, but no such luck.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

It has more to do with the regime change, than anything else.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 liking the future:
Personally, I think that is a huge upside to it. It also bodes well for teams with true talent evaluators.

I've been thinking about your post and for the life of me I can't figure out what the upside is. I look at your second sentance above and I don't see how having good talent evaluators has changed. The only thing I can see is that teams are ridding themselves of their perceived mistakes early. Trouble with that is early on it might just be a wrong perception. Are you talking about having two sets of evaluatores? Remember, those same talent evaluators who are cutting a player after only one year are the ones that drafted the player in the first place.

Splain please.

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 liking the future:
Personally, I think that is a huge upside to it. It also bodes well for teams with true talent evaluators.

I've been thinking about your post and for the life of me I can't figure out what the upside is. I look at your second sentance above and I don't see how having good talent evaluators has changed. The only thing I can see is that teams are ridding themselves of their perceived mistakes early. Trouble with that is early on it might just be a wrong perception. Are you talking about having two sets of evaluatores? Remember, those same talent evaluators who are cutting a player after only one year are the ones that drafted the player in the first place.

Splain please.

Because it matters less in $$$ if you have one of your UDFAs showing more talent than say your second rounder early on. You are not compelled to start an early round pick and can go after projects that show big upside. The better evaluators will be able to take shots at more developmental players in early rounds because they are also picking up players and upgrading their roster with later picks and UFDAs.

Good talent scouts are going to do well regardless. I just think this allows the guys who dig deep the opportunity to do even more to churn the roster and add quality depth as their vets go up in pay scale.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 splainin:
You are not compelled to start an early round pick and can go after projects that show big upside. The better evaluators will be able to take shots at more developmental players in early rounds because they are also picking up players and upgrading their roster with later picks and UFDAs.

I get (and like) the blue stuff but the green stuff is still eluding me.
Why would the better evaluators want to draft developmental players early? Players that get drafted in the early rounds do so for a good reason, they're probably better players. Stats don't lie when they show that early round players have a better chance of success. Unless you're saying that they are successful more often because they're given more opportunities because of their draft status. That doesn't seem right though. Those same developmental players will still be available in the later rounds because they're developmental and the success rate isn't very good that they'll even have a good NFL career mush less be very good.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I like the rookie salary cap but I'm not so sure that this is a good side effect. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Of course I could easily be wrong about this having anything to do with the new CBA. :lol:

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 splainin:
You are not compelled to start an early round pick and can go after projects that show big upside. The better evaluators will be able to take shots at more developmental players in early rounds because they are also picking up players and upgrading their roster with later picks and UFDAs.

I get (and like) the blue stuff but the green stuff is still eluding me.
Why would the better evaluators want to draft developmental players early? Players that get drafted in the early rounds do so for a good reason, they're probably better players. Stats don't lie when they show that early round players have a better chance of success. Unless you're saying that they are successful more often because they're given more opportunities because of their draft status. That doesn't seem right though. Those same developmental players will still be available in the later rounds because they're developmental and the success rate isn't very good that they'll even have a good NFL career mush less be very good.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I like the rookie salary cap but I'm not so sure that this is a good side effect. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Of course I could easily be wrong about this having anything to do with the new CBA. :lol:

Yeah - none of us gets paid so we could all easily be wrong. I am also not totally sure how the new CBA affected rounds 2 - 7. I know someone mentioned that they thought rounds 2-7 weren't affected. I don't think that's the case but...

K - now allow me to pose my theory that has no basis in fact:

Let me use Quick for an example. He is a developmental player with possibly huge upside. By the accounts I read when we picked him, he was being targeted by several teams. Most likely teams that could wait until he learned and matured. So... you take a shot at him knowing that by using your high second on him, you're not crippling your franchise in the long run with a huge contract. 33rd is clearly going to garner more money than 60th but not as much as 33rd would have cost you before the new CBA (I think). So you take a less crippling risk and snag that developmental player ahead of the others. The good talent evaluators will still be able to pick up those players that are not targeted by teams that didn't do as much homework as say a Snead.

Keep in mind that I think developmental physical freaks are a gamble that already stacked teams can and do take. In my theory, teams that draft well are more likely to go after them AND are already deep due to their superior drafting. Teams like ours that lack depth have a tougher choice. Go for the "sure thing" who might not have the upside so that you can sign immediate starters, or take a risk on the freak knowing that you will likely bring in guys in the later rounds and FA that will make the 53 and likely get decent playing time while adding depth.

A few drafts down the road and you have developmental players (freaks) coming into their own while your roster has good inexpensive depth from the later rounds.

Did that make any sense at all? Cuz... you realize it is really difficult to put a hunch into specifics. And that's all I gots.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 adding his theory to the mix:
Yeah - none of us gets paid so we could all easily be wrong. I am also not totally sure how the new CBA affected rounds 2 - 7. I know someone mentioned that they thought rounds 2-7 weren't affected. I don't think that's the case but...

I don't thank that's the case either but like you, I'm not sure and much too lazy to research it.

K - now allow me to pose my theory that has no basis in fact:

Let me use Quick for an example. He is a developmental player with possibly huge upside. By the accounts I read when we picked him, he was being targeted by several teams. Most likely teams that could wait until he learned and matured. So... you take a shot at him knowing that by using your high second on him, you're not crippling your franchise in the long run with a huge contract. 33rd is clearly going to garner more money than 60th but not as much as 33rd would have cost you before the new CBA (I think). So you take a less crippling risk and snag that developmental player ahead of the others. The good talent evaluators will still be able to pick up those players that are not targeted by teams that didn't do as much homework as say a Snead.

Yeah I agree with all that except I question the bolded part. If your super talented evaluator is seeing something that the other evaluators are missing , wouldn't that player still be available in later rounds? If more evaluators besides Snead like him then he's no longer a lower ranked player and is just a normal raw high rounder like Quinn and Quick were.

Keep in mind that I think developmental physical freaks are a gamble that already stacked teams can and do take. In my theory, teams that draft well are more likely to go after them AND are already deep due to their superior drafting. Teams like ours that lack depth have a tougher choice. Go for the "sure thing" who might not have the upside so that you can sign immediate starters, or take a risk on the freak knowing that you will likely bring in guys in the later rounds and FA that will make the 53 and likely get decent playing time while adding depth.

Wouldn't all that hold true under the old CBA?

A few drafts down the road and you have developmental players (freaks) coming into their own while your roster has good inexpensive depth from the later rounds.

Did that make any sense at all? Cuz... you realize it is really difficult to put a hunch into specifics. And that's all I gots.

It all made sense to me and it is also reflective of my own drafting philosophy. I'm just not sure how this strategy is made more efficacious because of the new CBA. I would use your methods under the old CBA too.

Of course I'm in my usual condition right now so I'm going to have to revisit this thread tomorrow. :lol:

EDIT: I'm glad (and surprised) to see that I didn't say something really stupid in this thread.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah I agree with all that except I question the bolded part. If your super talented evaluator is seeing something that the other evaluators are missing , wouldn't that player still be available in later rounds? If more evaluators besides Snead like him then he's no longer a lower ranked player and is just a normal raw high rounder like Quinn and Quick were.

The players I'm referring to are players in later rounds that only the good evaluators would have on their radar. There is only one shot at the draft so other evaluators would not "like" those they don't have grades on and therefore those players would not go high in the draft. The lesser evaluators would still have several hits on first and second rounders. The good ones throughout the draft. Being able to pick up players in the lower rounds enables the good evaluators to sometimes take risks in the early rounds. That risk is a whole bunch easier to take if the player is costing your franchise $2.5 mil in guaranteed money than the same player at twice that rate under the old CBA. Under the old CBA even the good evaluators might skip on a freak and go with the "safe" pick in the early rounds because it was just too much money to risk on a player with unrealized upside. Under the new CBA a mediocre evaluator will still go for the safe pick for lack of confidence in his abilities to find talent in the later rounds. Therefore, in my whacked out world of NFL GMs, the better evaluators are benefitted most by the new CBA.

I use Quick as an example. I doubt he was pegged as #33 on many boards. But word was that he was being targeted by I believe the Yets, Bears, and GB at the time. There were other "safe" picks still on the board at the time but the Rams jumped early at the gamble in Quick. Quick may still be a miss but his contract will not cost as much for that miss as before so it's not that big of a deal. If Snead/Fisher and Co sucked at evaluating, that miss at #2 becomes a much bigger deal but the money is no longer a big consideration. The big consideration is that they made a risky move at #33 that didn't pay off on the field and the subsequent picks are gone in a year or two as well, leaving us with the continuing talent depleted roster we've seen over the past several years.

I'm not saying the new CBA alters draft strategy in any huge way but being able to take a shot at a freak in the first and second rounds becomes a bit easier if it is not going to cripple your franchise for years to come AND you know you are capable of picking up talent with later picks and signings to round out your draft.

Sheesh! Seems pretty clear to ME. :zomg1:

 

[albefree69]

LOL! :bwah:

 

[Zaphod]

Interesting take, I hadn't thought of that regarding the lack of financial commitment in a drafted player allows better scouts to take a chance on a draft pick rather than go with the "safe bet".

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 ended with:
Sheesh! Seems pretty clear to ME. :zomg1:

Just to be clear 503, that line above is what I was laughing about. The points you were making aren't without merit and it's an interesting draft strategy. But, I'm not sure the new CBA will cause anyone to take more fliers on chancy players because while you don't lose as much money if it doesn't pan out, you still have less chance of drafting a good player which I think is more harmful to your team in the long run. Going against the percentages has never been effective in the long run. Great mathematicians make the best gamblers.

 

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 ended with:
Sheesh! Seems pretty clear to ME. :zomg1:

Just to be clear 503, that line above is what I was laughing about. The points you were making aren't without merit and it's an interesting draft strategy. But, I'm not sure the new CBA will cause anyone to take more fliers on chancy players because while you don't lose as much money if it doesn't pan out, you still have less chance of drafting a good player which I think is more harmful to your team in the long run. Going against the percentages has never been effective in the long run. Great mathematicians make the best gamblers.

Well you're wrong. :7up:

Anyway, think back to all the talk in years when there was no rookie scale. The talk was all about crippling a franchise when they missed on a top pick. Think Jason Smith. We're STILL paying for that mess. That player hurt us both in the miss on evaluating talent AND in whacking us in the FA market every year since. Jason under the new CBA? Meh. Take your lump and move on. Our problem really got compounded because we couldn't identify real talent throughout the draft. With the current CBA, Jason is a forgotten problem - especially if you have decent talent scouts. With the old CBA, you could possibly move on from the Jason Smith miss if you have good evaluators but good freaking luck also picking up decent FAs if you have even one other Jason Smith to whom you're paying dead money. That's why I say that with the new CBA, if you are confident in your ability to identify talent, you can take a flyer on a feast or famine type player and it doesn't have the potential to screw you for many years.

Sooner :beating: or :beating: later :beating: you :beating: are :beating: going :beating: to :beating: scream :beating: UNCLE!!! :LOLLLL:

 

[albefree69]

UNCLE!!! :help: