AU-panther

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.

If you watch tape is can be easy to get excited about some of the tools that Sam does have. He definitely can make some throws and he is more athletic than some think. I'll be honest though, some of this stats from clean pockets is a bit concerning, at that point you lose the bad o-line excuse. You give a really good QB a clean pocket, and I don't care who the play caller is I'm guessing they are going to make good things happen also. With Brady calling plays and our skill positions players I expect him to play better. Only question is will he play good enough to warrant a franchise contract. The worst thing that can happen is for him to play just good enough for us to overpay.

Best case, Cameron Erving has a career year at tackle, Moton continues to play well, Christensen excels at one of the guard spots, and the other two spots play decent. Realistically: Outside of Moton we have a line full of guys that we are hoping play considerable better than recent history would suggest. Same thing we hoped for when we signed Kalil. More times than not that is a losing proposition. One posititive though is I think Brady's system can be somewhat friendly to O-lines.

And this is why you don’t believe every report you read....

People read headlines like this and complain about their rankings but they don't even take the time to read the article. It wasn't a ranking based on their grading system. It was a subjective piece by one of their writers looking at WR/TE groups as a WHOLE. Most of the time when someone complains about PFF its due to the fact they didn't really understand what they are commenting on.

fair point, I should have said "added" not replaced. We still have the TE (Thomas) that really didn't do much at all last year in the passing game. Either way it was a opinion piece based on the WR and TE groups as a whole, so honestly i can see us being middle third based on past history. Maybe Arnold gets more opportunity, maybe Tremble plays great as a rookie, maybe Marshall plays great as a rookie, maybe all of that happens and we are top-5 or 10. Honestly I think there is a decent chance we use CMC a good bit in the passing game, and therefore some of our WR and TE numbers might appear disappointing to some of our fans.

Before getting so upset people might want to actually try reading the article. Its not a ranking based on last years grades. Its an opinion piece by one of their writers that is looking at WR/TE groups as a whole, and he even states that depth is a huge factor in his rankings. He even states that based on grade we had the 8th ranked unit last year. Also states that with Moore and Anderson we have one of the better one-two punches in the league. Also sates that we have some pieces to be one of the better units this year. With all that being said the fact is we lost our WR3 last year who we replaced with a 2nd rounder and a cheaper vet (Moore) and we didn't really get much out of the TE position last year, which we replaced with a 3rd rounder who isn't really known for his pass catching and cheaper vet (Arnold).

Unless something crazy happens Moton and Erving are going to be your tackles this year. Just look at the contracts. I would love for Christenson to become one of the best LTs in the league but you have to be realistic. How many good LTs are there actually in the league? 10-12 How old are some of them? late 30s How many have of them have been drafted in the last 10-15 years? 100-200 The fact is the odds are against him. Honestly the team knows that and that is why they just didn't chase need at LT. They probably felt really good about Sewell and after that not so much. That is why you didn't see a Slater or Darrisaw pick. Even if he becomes a good LT, I could see him staring as a back up or guard. Honestly if he becomes an above average guard its a good pick. If he becomes a decent swing tackle its a good pick. 3rd round picks are cheap. I'm just not convinced he is going to fulfill everyone's wish for that elite LT. Next to QB LT is probably the hardest position to fill. Even if you want to spend a high pick or big money in free agency there is no guarantee you are going to find one. Even positions like edge and WR there are usually some sure things in free agency if you are willing to spend. The same really can't be said about LTs, there just isn't many of them considered elite.

When reports start getting specific about the amount of trade capital (1st rounder) and expected time (next week) it sometimes can be the team looking to trade the player trying to create interest. I’m not saying that is the case all of the time but definitely sometime. I’m thinking a second, but as others have said maybe a first from a really good team who expects to be picking late in the round.

People get caught up talking about starting and contributing. Depending on your current players a bad player can come in and start or play a decent amount of snaps. A rookie that is playing at a replacement level isn't helping your team much more than a vet playing at the same level on a cheap contract. As KB_fan pointed out very few rookies truly play better than an average player and to expect otherwise is unrealistic. Just because he plays a lot of snaps doesn't mean he played well. The best way to really evaluate a draft class is to wait two years and ask yourself honestly how many of the players you drafted are really playing above replacement level.