• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Romberjo

  • Rank
    The Field Goal Team
  • Birthday 12/18/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Location
    Jersey City, NJ
  • Occupation
    Ne'er do well
  1. Romberjo

    2019 Comprehensive Draft Thread

    No question--1st next year. The standard trade conversion is to bump this year's pick up a round for the following year: pick in Round X this year = pick in Round X-1 next year. And i think that is perfectly reasonable for the lower rounds. E.g., there's not much marginal difference in value b/w a 6th and 7th round pick. But the value of a 1st round pick is much higher than that of a 2d round pick (depending somewhat, of course, where in the 1st round, given the steep drop-off in value for picks near the top of the round). And a pair of 1sts can be converted into a high 1st to draft a qb, which is something we, in particular, might well want to do. Think of the general question this way: Which would you rather have over the next 10 years: nineteen 1st round picks and no 2d round picks (and another extra 1st waiting for the following year), or ten in the 1st and ten in the 2d? (I.e., the first option is what what would happen if you traded your 2d each year for a 1st in the following year.) Because the first option is, IMO, plainly much better, this extrapolation is helpful to see that a 1st next year is worth more than a 2d this year. I think this is plainly true in the abstract--i.e., making the decision before you know who is available. The only basis to trade to take someone this year in the 2d and give up a 1st the following year is if: 1) it's a high 2d and you will likely have a late 1st the following year (not so likely for us), and/or 2) in the course of the draft there is someone available in the 2d that you have graded very highly, fits your system, and meets an immediate need that you don't think you can otherwise fill.
  2. Romberjo

    2019 Comprehensive Draft Thread

    Other than his 40 time, Hockenson's combine numbers/athleticism were excellent: TE numbers at the combine Fant's numbers were incredible (though I take it his tape isn't as good, particularly as to blocking). But Hockenson was second best, with Kahale, Warring and Moreau overall a shade behind, and Smith a fair ways back. I like Hockenson at 15 (but i don't think he'll be there).
  3. Romberjo

    Next Day Thread: Redskins vs. Packers

    I was watching on a tiny screen so couldn't really tell--but I was stunned we didn't have more problems with Bergstrom at center. I suppose the fall-off from Lauvao (or at least an injured Lauvou) can't be all that significant, even if we put Paul Richardson in at LG. And Roullier seems strong at C or G. Maybe the Wilkerson injury in the 1st quarter helped. So did Bergstrom play well enough that we have a workable solution to one injury on the interior of the OL? (That doesn't require putting Trent at G and Morgan and Nsekhe at T?)
  4. Romberjo

    Cut-Down Day

    Sports Illustrated explanation of PUP and football/non-football IR
  5. I think you're right. (Maybe also crazy.) We do need to spend $6.5 million on rookies. But those signings bumps the 7 lowest-paid players off the bottom of our salary cap, at 480K apiece, so the marginal extra cost of signing the rookies (as opposed to the minimum salary players they replace on the salary cap) is $3.2 million, rather than what we'll actually spend on rookies, which is $6.5 million.
  6. He was fired for some intriguingly opaque personal shortcoming involving treating Americans like Irishmen, not for football incompetence. Football Outsiders may hire belligerent drunks, but not idiots. Ok--a drop of 2014 praise isn't much to go on. But it's at least something, for those of us trying to maintain hope that he (like Richardson) blossoms post-injury, and he isn't just another recycled cowboys scrub.
  7. A ray of hope about Scandrick: