AU-panther

Fair deal to an elite player, at an important position, that is hard to replace.

Then don’t jump in the thread. Here again it’s a fan forum, people like to play armchair GM. Not to mention it’s a really slow time of the year.

Then why are you on a football forum? There is nothing wrong with fans having an opinion of what they would have done differently. Are you truly happy with how we addressed LT this year? It’s ok to have an opinion. Would you have drafted Horn? From reading your post I’m guessing no. My money is on you wanting Slater, but it’s like you are afraid to go out on a limb. I probably would have took Fields in the first and Rudinez in the second, that might look really stupid in a year, so what.

So what is RT salary? Do we know for sure he is asking for LT salary? Do we know for sure the team hasn't discussed the idea of him playing LT? Ramczyk just got 19m, maybe that is what he asking for. Either way, OTs are important and expensive. Also this idea of the LTs being extremely more important and valuable is a bit dated. RT salaries seem to be getting closer every year. OT, left and right are both valuable positions in today's NFL. Elite OTs, left and right, are hard to find. Elite OTs, even if you find them are expensive in free agency. If you are fortunate to have one pay them market, and be happy. You are correct that you can't pay top contracts to everyone on your team, but if you have a elite player at an important, hard to replace position, you pay them. How many elite players do you really think we have? Paying elite players isn't what hurts teams. Most teams really don't have that many elite players. Its overpaying the average or below average players that adds up. What you hope, if you have one tackle on a big contract, you find a way to fill the other spot cheaply, best case you draft one and have a cheap fixed rookie deal for 4 years. Personally I think a team should be drafting OTs at least once every few years. That way you constantly have one on a rookie deal.

A lot of us were not that high on Little, especially with a trade up involved, but I can appreciate the fact we did try to draft one. Fact is most LTs in the draft don't work out, outside of QB its probably the most difficult spot on the field to find quality. Good ones don't really hit free agency that often. You either over pay for someone like Kalil, hoping he becomes better than he has shown or you go cheap and hope to get lucky with someone like Bell. Everyone hated that experiment but looking back it hurt us less than the Kalil contract. Oher and Okung were actually good signings relative to cost, just injury issues. Your best chance is to invest early draft picks, give them 2-3 years to develop, and even then you might have to throw multiple "darts". 2020 draft is a perfect example of part of the problem, hard to pass on someone that feels like a sure thing (Brown) to draft a LT that might have a bit lower of a chance of succeeding. Same thing this year, outside of Sewell we probably felt a lot better about Horn than any of the LT prospects in the first. You almost have to commit to finding LTs, even if it means passing on better prospects.

If a QB throws a bad pass that hits the CB in the hands but the CB drops the interception that is a turnover worthy play. Doesn't show up in the stat sheet but still a bad play. QB throws perfect pass to WR that goes through his hands and the CB gets an interception. This is not a turnover worthy play even though it shows up in interception in a box score and therefore would hurt the QBs rating with some traditional grading systems.

You would expect a high school kid to continue to improve, especially with better coaching. Once a player in in the pros for a few years you have a pretty good idea of what they are, usually. Lets hope we get lucky with a few exceptions.

How many teams have really good back up QBs? There aren't 32 good starting QBs. Lets be honest, our starter by most accounts wasn't a quality starter last year, and now everyone is worried about our back up? Maybe everyone would feel better if we had some established vet with a name that everyone recognizes, but in reality he probably isn't that good anyway, hence the reason he is available.

Exactly^ We downgraded in some really important spots based on last years performances. People need to remember a lot of these type of list are based on last year. You can't base them off of what you hope happens this year, every team is hoping things get better. If Sam plays better in our system we will be better. If Erving or anyone plays better at LT than he has in the past we will be better. If Elflein plays better we will be better. If our rookies last year make the normal jump their second year we will be better. If a rookie CB plays great his first year we will be better. Lots of Ifs going on...

I totally agree, I think this staff believes they can get more out of player than other coaches. That's a risky gamble. I said it years ago after the Matt Kalil deal, and several times since. Expecting a player to become something he hasn't recently proven to be is a losing proposition over time. You might get lucky occasionally but overall you don't. Its one thing if it is a one year cheap deal, but when start throwing serious money at it the risk/reward ration starts to work against you. We lost that gamble with Kalil, we lost it with TB, im sure there have been others. I'm worried about Erving, Elflien, and Darnold. Also I think you are spot on with the assessment of them placing high value on measurables, which is somewhat different than Hurny, and we all use to complain about the Gaulden picks. There is a difference between valuing measurables out of college and guys who have already struggled at the pro level. Erving has some ideal measurables for LT, I'm just afraid we overpaid. With Elflein i can see some of the thinking. He had a decent rookie year, had some injuries, here again we just seem to overpay for reclamation projects. Also i keep going back to the fact he was a pretty highly regarded center prospect coming out of college. You always need a back up center on your team, also Paradis is in the last year of his deal. There might be some other thinking there, here again bit of an expensive gamble, not saying I would have done it but I see the thinking. I like Rhule, I think he has potential to be a really good head coach in the NFL, I think our drafting will be above average over time, but I'm not a big fan of most of our free agent moves. Lets be honest, last years class was a failure, time will tell about this one.

Versatility is coach speak a lot of times, trying to sell a player to fans. I don’t disagree with you, I’m not overly excited with our additions. Based on history we gave out some decent contracts to guys who aren’t that regarded. This idea though that the staff is purposely passing on better players at single positions for more versatile players that are worse at all the positions is a bit overplayed . Im sure they had an actual position in mind for Erving and Elfin when they signed them. I’m not sold on the idea they will be good but that is a different conversation. I will say though that Elflein was a pretty regarded center prospect coming out of college and I’m curious to see how that plays out, I think this is Paradis last year if I’m not mistaken. Also on game days a lot of teams only have 8 offensive lineman active so you do need versatility. With only 3 back ups for 5 starting spots the math works that way. Every team has versatile lineman for this reason, Rhule is just making it a talking point and fans are running with it. I think in reality it’s far more likely that they just signed bad players than some stupid methodology of them only chasing versatility.

That might be a bit overplayed around here. Here is an article where Rhule talks about versatility. Basically he says your top 5-6 lineman need to do what they do best. After that you have to look for some versatility. Honestly that is fairly standard. Even if a team keeps 9-10 lineman on the roster they might only have 8 active for games days. After your starting 5 you probably want a swing tackle, a guy that can play T/G and a guy that can play G/C. Players 9 and 10 might be a guy that you don't expect to have active on game day but you don't want to expose on the practice squad. For example, lets say our starting 5 is Erving, Elflein, Paradis, Miller, and Moton. (best guess at this point). Scott as swing tackle. Christensen at G/T. Honestly I'm not sure who can fill in at center, but I find it a bit curious that Elflein was drafted as a center so maybe he moves over and someone else fills in at guard. Also could he possible move to Center if Paradis isn't resigned?

If they are different in the locker room or more or less coachable then they really aren’t equal. My only point was there are some cap savings to releasing him where others misread the cap sites and think there is not. Also saving a million here and a few million there adds up. It can be the difference between resigning a Shaq instead of a Bradberry. Also I wouldn’t get your hopes up too much for waiver help. Decent OT help is rare to find and we have some bodies at guard especially if Christensen gets some reps there.

If two guys are equally bad wouldn't you cut the one that saves you the most cap? My point in my earlier msg was that this idea you keep him for depth because there is no savings in cutting him was not entirely true.

Moore was an UDFA. 32 teams passed on him for 7 rounds. Every year every fan bases freak out over their guys getting poached. For another team to poach him they have to release some guy their fan base is hoping doesn't get poached. I'm not saying it won't happen, the chances are just a lot less than a lot of people think. Also I think there are some new rules about protecting practice squad guys that were put in place with covid. Too lazy to look it up atm.

We save about $1.1m if we cut him this year. That is a decent amount, at that point he better be good depth, if not you can find cheaper bad depth. Greg Little Contract Details, Salary Cap Charges, Bonus Money, and Contract History | Over The Cap If he plays this year his cap hit is about $2.1m, if we cut him his dead cap hit is about $1.9m, we only save about $200k. This is why people think it doesn't save us much by keeping him but that is the wrong way to look at. That dead hit of $1.9m includes next years dead money also. If he plays this year and you cut him next, $2.1m (cap hit this year) + 900k (dead money next) = $3m. If you cut him this year it cost $1.9m and nothing next year.

could happen, I could also see Moore going to PS. Sometimes when trying to figure this out it helps to look at contracts and draft positions. Right or wrong teams do sometimes feel invested in draft picks, especially higher ones. Locks: Moton (because he is good) Erving (larger contract) Elflein (larger contract) Paradis (larger contract) Christensen (higher draft pick by this staff) Really good chance of making it: Scott ($730k signing bonus for this year, tells me someone like him) That leaves Little, Moore, Brown, Daley, and Miller for 3-4 spots. Little - Has some measurables, I think this staff likes measurables that might help him. He was a higher draft pick, but I think he was a Hurney pick, that might hurt him. Sometimes new GMS and coaches like to distance themselves from other picks made by earlier people. Moore - UDFA, seems like a PS candidate. Would love for him to be our next Norwell, history just tells us that isn't likely. Brown - Draft pick by current staff, could help, but it was a lower pick. I think there is a lot of potential there, especially if he gets into shape. If he does play well in training camp and preseason might be more afraid to put him on practice squad, might get poached. Daley - Limited snaps last year, showed some potential. Easy contract to cut. Miller - Saw a lot of snaps last year. Easy contract to cut but with all of the new guys and young guys the fact he saw a lot of action last year should help him. Right now if I had to guess which they keep, I would probably go with Miller, Brown, and Daley. Moore to PS and Little cut. Honestly though none of them have a huge commitment tied to them so it really will come down to how they play in training camp and preseason. Also I wouldn't get to strict with the 4G and 4T split. I could see a couple of the guys listed as either.

I would agree with this. The Erving makes some sense also with Sewell. Maybe Sewell starts later in the year, even great OT prospects seem to struggle first year. Even if Sewell takes the job day one maybe you don't mind over paying Erving to be a backup. There was considerable chatter that some teams viewed Slater as more of a guard prospect. Maybe they though Christensen was similar to that and they could get him later. Best guess Sewell was 1st on the board and then Horn was 2nd, with 3rd being a bit of a drop off, hence the reason we seemed hesitant to trade down.

its a cheap FA LT contract when you compare it to other starters and that is my point, the contract is indicative of someone expecting to start. Maybe if he is a really good swing tackle you can justify it, maybe. If he doesn't start I would guess he will be one of the highest paid backups in the league at OT.

Can Erving has the 13th highest cap hit on the team. He wasn’t brought in to be a back up. https://overthecap.com/player/cameron-erving/3867/ Somebody might out play him and earn the starting spot but I think he was signed with the intention of being a starter.

A lot easier to replace? Maybe not as important but I don’t know if I would say harder to find. Every year quality edge seem to hit free agency, albeit very expensive. Sometimes you can’t find quality OTs, left or right, even if you are willing to pay for it. Nobody is saying to pay him and not Burns. You pay your elite players, that play important positions, that are hard to replace and Moton at RT qualifies for that. What you don’t do is overpay average or below average players that you can replace with cheap rookies or vet on cheap deals.

Then you really never have elite players on your roster (outside of those on rookie contracts). Fans never really want to pay top money, they are hoping to sign a lot of above average players for 60% of what the top guys make. It doesn't really work that way. The next top tier player to become a free agent, at whatever position, is going to make top money. The contracts just keep going up. Using OTs as an example, the next top tier OT is going to get a top of the market contract. Nobody is going to say "Moton is the 10th best RT so he should get paid as the 10th highest RT." Players don't' get slotted based on all of the contracts including older ones. Top tier players get paid as much if not more than the last top tier player got paid. There is almost a gap in contracts these days. You either pay top guys top dollar or you give out smaller contracts to average and below average guys. Sometimes I think GMs fall into this same line of thinking, they are almost scared to pay the elite guys, because if they don't live up to the contract it looks bad on the GM. Easier to pay a LB $9m a year then to risk paying the CB $16m a year. Most teams are going to have a few high dollar contracts, that $15m+ range. You better make sure the player is truly elite and at a high value position that isn't easy to replace.

People need to give up the idea of it being anywhere close to 15-16m. I would put $18m as the low end of what he will get, it’s $20m being more realistic.

Don’t you know that name recognition is he single most important attribute for a player being able to help us or not?

With what we invested in Teddy, and now Darnold, I'm afraid we might get to the point of being pot committed so to speak. Not that it matters at this point,but the when everyone was trying to argue Sam or a rookie, people lost track of that fact with a rookie you had 4 years to decide if they were the guy. With Sam that decision is going to have to come rather quick. Also I'm thinking Teddy might have been Hurney's guy so it was easy for Rhule to move on, with Sam there might more of a interest for it to work.