Lady Talon":37z9c17i said:
look@dafilm":37z9c17i said:
That may be true, but "contemplating retirement" doesn't mean he doesn't "count" towards the 49ers draft in the same manner that Harvin does for Seattle
And how do you expect a 30+ year old with the most physical receiver in the league label to last? lol. 1 year. So how does this affect your team in the long run? If you're talking draft impact, you talk about how a pick you spent lasts you for a number of years. Even if he doesn't retire, when his contract is up, he'll likely not be resigned. Even by the most optimistic projections, he's a 1 year stopgap not a replacement for a rookie contract.
So either way why would you guys complain about saying we traded our first for a 24 year old who will impact the Hawks for 6 years, by saying you traded your 6th round pick for a one off that won't last 25% of a rookie contract?
I don't understand why this is too complicated.
Boldin was aquired for a 6th round pick.
Colt McCoy was for a 7 and a swap of picks 8 picks apart.
They were aquisitions from Draft Picks.
People here want Harvin included in the draft evaluation because he was aquired for draft picks.
Why even argue? 2 of the picks the Niners had were used on Boldin and McCoy. 2 of the picks the Seahawks had were used on Harvin. Why is this too difficult?
All I see are people saying those guys won't be around longer than a year. How do you know that? They could sign extensions just as Harvin did. Some of the rookies drafted may be around no longer than a year especially ones taken in the 6th or 7th round like the picks the Niners gave up for those players.
I see no reason not to include them in the draft class if you are going to include Harvin. It makes no sense not to.
