2015 NFL Free Agent Signings Thread

Yeah, the Patriots approach to team building is clearly better than the rest of the AFC East. Smart measured moves versus impulsive, big ticket spends.

Clay just turned 25 in February. His contract is going to be extremely team friendly in years 3-5. In 2013, in a 16 game season, he had 759 yards receiving on 69 receptions, and averaged about 11 yards per reception.

In short, he's got the ability to at least roughly approximate Aaron Hernandez (who's best season was 79 catches 910 yards), who had signed a 5 year, $40m extension with the Patriots, and that contract was done years ago.

There's an awful lot of stone throwing coming from some Patriots fans glass houses, yet again.

Nothin like deus comin to bash the pats, bb, and their fans to go against the grain on every argument.

Also deus, I thought it was 605 last year in yards received

Deus Irae said:

Clay just turned 25 in February. His contract is going to be extremely team friendly in years 3-5. Last year, in a 16 game season, he had 759 yards receiving on 69 receptions, and averaged about 11 yards per reception.

In short, he's got the ability to at least roughly approximate Aaron Hernandez (who's best season was 79 catches 910 yards), who had signed a 5 year, $40m extension with the Patriots, and that contract was done years ago.

There's an awful lot of stone throwing coming from some Patriots fans glass houses, yet again.

Click to expand...

Your numbers are off.

JackBauer said:

Your numbers are off.

Click to expand...

I think he needs to be drug tested [emoji12]

JackBauer said:

Your numbers are off.

Click to expand...

I took the numbers from NFL.com.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...aron-hernandezs-new-england-patriots-contract

Deus Irae said:

I took the numbers from NFL.com.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...aron-hernandezs-new-england-patriots-contract

Click to expand...

Talking about Clay. The stats you cited are from 2013.

JackBauer said:

Talking about Clay. The stats you cited are from 2013.

Click to expand...

Yes... From his 16 games last season, as mentioned, as opposed to his 14 games this past season. I see your confusion though. I worded things poorly terribly. I'll tidy it up by changing it to the numerical year.

Ross12 said:

You are probably correct, after I looked up his previous contract I saw he was not making nearly as much as this. I would've still anticipated somewhere around $4-5m a year for him, but I can sometimes overestimate that type of thing - I thought I overestimated on Clay, but turns out I underestimated If indeed he's making less than $4m per year I would say that's a good value considering the state of the TE market.

Click to expand...

One thing to consider--and I hate to even bring it up, but it's also possible that we could be overestimating Chandler himself; just the same that we've done with most of the other TEs that have come and gone in the past few years. Understanding that I'm not meaning to be overly pessimistic, but we've all talked about how good the pairing of Gronk would be with a number of TEs lately: Jake Ballard, Vincent Schiancoe, Daniel Fells, Kellen Winslow, etc. Unfortunately, none of them really panned out.

Some of those names brought much more than a 1.95m dollar per year contract, with a 250,000 roster bonus, so it would appear that the excitement has seen this level before several times in the past few years. I suppose the only reasonable explanation for Rex Ryan cutting Chandler over a measly 250k roster bonus was that he didn't see a need with the expected signing of Charles Clay, but that would seem kind of short-sighted, especially for depth or 2 TE sets. Luckily, Rex has lived up to that billing in the past

I don't think it's such a huge overpay considering his potential and versatility. I mean, damn near all the contracts are high this offseason. It's the new normal.

supafly said:

One thing to consider--and I hate to even bring it up, but it's also possible that we could be overestimating Chandler himself; just the same that we've done with most of the other TEs that have come and gone in the past few years. Understanding that I'm not meaning to be overly pessimistic, but we've all talked about how good the pairing of Gronk would be with a number of TEs lately: Jake Ballard, Vincent Schiancoe, Daniel Fells, Kellen Winslow, etc. Unfortunately, none of them really panned out.

Some of those names brought much more than a 1.95m dollar per year contract, with a 250,000 roster bonus, so it would appear that the excitement has seen this level before several times in the past few years. I suppose the only reasonable explanation for Rex Ryan cutting Chandler over a measly 250k roster bonus was that he didn't see a need with the expected signing of Charles Clay, but that would seem kind of short-sighted, especially for depth or 2 TE sets. Luckily, Rex has lived up to that billing in the past

Click to expand...

I do think Chandler is somewhat overestimated by some, he's no Gronkowski or Hernandez. If Gronk went down and he became the new #1, it would definitely be a downgrade. However, as a #2 TE I would say he is above average, which is all you should reasonably expect from your second tight end.

He should also be several steps above Hoomanawanui.

Deus Irae said:

Clay just turned 25 in February. His contract is going to be extremely team friendly in years 3-5. In 2013, in a 16 game season, he had 759 yards receiving on 69 receptions, and averaged about 11 yards per reception.

In short, he's got the ability to at least roughly approximate Aaron Hernandez (who's best season was 79 catches 910 yards), who had signed a 5 year, $40m extension with the Patriots, and that contract was done years ago.

There's an awful lot of stone throwing coming from some Patriots fans glass houses, yet again.

Click to expand...

You know what happens when you front-load the contracts of professional athletes and then expect them to play for less than half of what they were making the previous year?

Nothing good.

Plus, come on...in four years, Clay is averaging just over 450 receiving yards a year that's in 58 games).

Hernandez in 38 games, three years, had more total receiving yards, and 4 more touchdowns.

Clay's got 5 million more guaranteed than Hernandez AND he's getting more than 24 of his 38 in the first 2 years - like I said, bad move. This is a ridiculous contract, and I'd say the same (only I'd be mad instead of laughing) if the Pats had done it.

Heck, compare him to Scott Chandler in the last four years - are you ready for this?

Here's Clay's 4 year tag line, followed by Chandler's in the same time frame:

Receptions 161, Yards 1809, YPC 11.2, TD 14 (he also got one rushing)
Receptions 181, Yards 2112, YPC 11.6, TD 17

Did the Pats pay anything near this for Scott Chandler? I certainly hope not!

Ross12 said:

I do think Chandler is somewhat overestimated by some, he's no Gronkowski or Hernandez. If Gronk went down and he became the new #1, it would definitely be a downgrade. However, as a #2 TE I would say he is above average, which is all you should reasonably expect from your second tight end.

He should also be several steps above Hoomanawanui.

Click to expand...

Well said. I think there's plenty of reason to be optimistic about Chandler here.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Hooman and Wright, although one would have to think that Wright's red zone ability alone may justify keeping him another year. Hooman may not be so lucky.

50-yard-line said:

You know what happens when you front-load the contracts of professional athletes and then expect them to play for less than half of what they were making the previous year?

Nothing good.

Plus, come on...in four years, Clay is averaging just over 450 receiving yards a year that's in 58 games).

Hernandez in 38 games, three years, had more total receiving yards, and 4 more touchdowns.

Clay's got 5 million more guaranteed than Hernandez AND he's getting more than 24 of his 38 in the first 2 years - like I said, bad move. This is a ridiculous contract, and I'd say the same (only I'd be mad instead of laughing) if the Pats had done it.

Heck, compare him to Scott Chandler in the last four years - are you ready for this?

Here's Clay's 4 year tag line, followed by Chandler's in the same time frame:

Receptions 161, Yards 1809, YPC 11.2, TD 14 (he also got one rushing)
Receptions 181, Yards 2112, YPC 11.6, TD 17

Did the Pats pay anything near this for Scott Chandler? I certainly hope not!

Click to expand...

Keep tossing those stones. If this had been a Patriots signing, you'd be singing its praises.


And being deliberately misleading by using Clay's first two seasons and ignoring the obvious jump from 18 catches to 69 catches? Don't be that guy. Chandler's was drafted in 2007, caught his first pass in 2010, and didn't register his second pass reception until 2011.

Deus Irae said:

Keep tossing those stones. If this had been a Patriots signing, you'd be singing its praises.

Click to expand...

Not at that money, I wouldn't. I'd be screaming because they could have landed Wisnewski, Rubin, Chandler and Sheard for the same cap hit for the next two years.

supafly said:

One thing to consider--and I hate to even bring it up, but it's also possible that we could be overestimating Chandler himself; just the same that we've done with most of the other TEs that have come and gone in the past few years. Understanding that I'm not meaning to be overly pessimistic, but we've all talked about how good the pairing of Gronk would be with a number of TEs lately: Jake Ballard, Vincent Schiancoe, Daniel Fells, Kellen Winslow, etc. Unfortunately, none of them really panned out.

Some of those names brought much more than a 1.95m dollar per year contract, with a 250,000 roster bonus, so it would appear that the excitement has seen this level before several times in the past few years. I suppose the only reasonable explanation for Rex Ryan cutting Chandler over a measly 250k roster bonus was that he didn't see a need with the expected signing of Charles Clay, but that would seem kind of short-sighted, especially for depth or 2 TE sets. Luckily, Rex has lived up to that billing in the past

Click to expand...

Last four years:
Receptions 161, Yards 1809, YPC 11.2, TD 14 (he also got one rushing)
Receptions 181, Yards 2112, YPC 11.6, TD 17

Which is Clay, which is Chandler?

50-yard-line said:

Not at that money, I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Yes, you would. Without question or hesitation. The fact that you're being deliberately misleading about the comparisons to Chandler says it all.

50-yard-line said:

Last four years:
Receptions 161, Yards 1809, YPC 11.2, TD 14 (he also got one rushing)
Receptions 181, Yards 2112, YPC 11.6, TD 17

Which is Clay, which is Chandler?

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem a bit odd to you that the same coach who is bringing in the top line guy at 7.6m dollars AAV, just released the bottom line guy for 1.95m over a 250,000 roster bonus? To each his own, I suppose.

I think there's more to it than just looking at the stats.

Deus Irae said:

Yes, you would. Without question or hesitation. The fact that you're being deliberately misleading about the comparisons to Chandler says it all.

Click to expand...

Okay, wrap your head around this: the Pats got Revis for less than the Bills will pay Clay this year or next - and the Pats got to spread it over two years of cap.

And please spare me the passive-aggressive crap. Those are the last four years for both guys. Sorry if it doesn't fit your argument.

50-yard-line said:

Okay, wrap your head around this: the Pats got Revis for less than the Bills will pay Clay this year or next - and the Pats got to spread it over two years of cap.

And please spare me the passive-aggressive crap. Those are the last four years for both guys. Sorry if it doesn't fit your argument.

Click to expand...

There's nothing passive-aggressive about what I posted. You're being deliberately misleading on Clay, , and I flat out said so. You're being a ridiculous homer, and you're clowning yourself by going back to Clay's first two years.

Your argument sucks. The shame of it is that you could have just used the last two seasons, which would have been completely appropriate, and just argued that the number differences aren't enough to justify a big contractual difference. That, at least, would have been an honest argument.