NFL Free Agency Thread

[RobertWeathers]

Yeah it doesn't even matter how good you are, has a big money no guarantee contract ever worked out for a player? Even Revis got cut after one year when he had one.

I don't recall any. Life is not about chasing the last buck but you can't sell yourself short and need to ensure that you have financial security. A non-guaranteed contract does not accomplish that objective. With that said I'm sure he has some kind of insurance policy that pays him a ton in case he has a career ending injury.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fine, but try and show me where we can fit in some more offensive lineman on the 53? Solder, Kline, Mason, Jackson, Stork, Andrews, Cooper aren't going anywhere. Vollmer likely not going anywhere either, and we just signed Waddle to a 2 year deal. There is likely an opening for another tackle through the draft but that is it. I understand you want to improve the O-line - I'm just saying it doesn't look liklet they will do much more, aside from maybe a Cannon cut.

There are 2 obvious moves that don't involve drafted players or Cooper:

Kline's cap hit is only $500k, if he's cut
Waddle's cap hit is only $250k, if he's cut

And, as you point out, there's Cannon.

If Scar and BB think they can turn the current group into chicken salad, the group will likely stay as is, or pretty much so. If they think changes need to be made, there is nothing stopping them from making moves.

 

[Ring 6]

Probably because we only drafted Jackson and Mason last year ands its far too early to give up on them. Probably because we only just signed Kline to a 2 year extension. Probably because we just traded for Cooper. I'm not saying we can't improve on them, I'm saying the front office isn't bringing in more guards anytime soon.

I disagree. We won't not bring in players because we are loaded with mediocrity.

 

[captain stone]

Correct. You might see them keep 10 OLs this year with Cannon and perhaps Kline being swapped out for draft picks....maybe.

T Cannon (?)
T Waddle
T Solder
T Vollmer
C/G Stork
C Andrews
G Shaq
G Jackson
G Kline
G Cooper

If it remains unchanged, that is the depth chart of the worst OL in football.

 

[supafly]

Just read Volin's piece on the offseason (can't stand the guy, but his take on Okung's contract is worth reading).

Denver took advantage of the guy, big time. I hate seeing this and I hope it will make any other FAs going in to meet with Elway and his renowned "charm" toward players realize what a snake he really is.

I don't know enough of the history of Ryan Harris' play (LT for DEN), but seeing him sign with Pittsburgh on a 2 year deal worth 3.9m dollars made me stop and wonder why we didn't at least pursue him as a swing tackle. Drafted in the 3rd round and an 8 yr vet, he seemed to at least be something of an upgrade over Waddle/Cannon, especially on a reasonable deal.

Perhaps I am overvaluing him, but it's something that I've thought about a couple of times since the signing.

 

[VectorPrime]

If it remains unchanged, that is the depth chart of the worst OL in football.

It's not good.

 

[supafly]

Because he's smart enough to realize that it won't help matters.

I honestly don't think GRONK is particularly angry; after all, he's said that he hasn't spent a dime of the money the Pats have given him. Yes, he'd like more money, but I highly doubt he's going to hold out.

You know the specs of Gronk's pact much better than I do, @ctpatsfan77. Aside from next season (2017), isn't he still pulling down pretty nice paychecks? I thought I read that his pay increases to 11m dollars in 2018 and 12m dollars in 2019. Considering the fact that they just picked up a 10m dollar option for 2016, that would only leave 2017 (7m dollars) as the "odd year out" where he isn't making what he should.

Is this really as much of an issue as some are making it out to be? I would expect a guy like Edelman to be complaining about his salary much more than I would Gronkowski.

 

[supafly]

Correct. You might see them keep 10 OLs this year with Cannon and perhaps Kline being swapped out for draft picks....maybe.

T Cannon (?)
T Waddle
T Solder
T Vollmer
C/G Stork
C Andrews
G Shaq
G Jackson
G Kline
G Cooper

I would also think that Waddle and possibly even Andrews could be added to that list. IIRC, I believe that Deus posted some numbers on what it would cost dead money wise, to move on from Waddle, Cannon, and Kline, and I don't believe that any of them really hurts that much.

 

[captain stone]

I don't know enough of the history of Ryan Harris' play (LT for DEN), but seeing him sign with Pittsburgh on a 2 year deal worth 3.9m dollars made me stop and wonder why we didn't at least pursue him as a swing tackle. Drafted in the 3rd round and an 8 yr vet, he seemed to at least be something of an upgrade over Waddle/Cannon, especially on a reasonable deal.

Perhaps I am overvaluing him, but it's something that I've thought about a couple of times since the signing.

Time after time this off-season, Bill has failed to sign even one vet OLman when there were many of
them available who eventually signed reasonable deals that could have fit under our current salary cap.
I really, really don't understand the lack of activity here. The rest of Brady's career is at stake, and Bill
has chosen to ignore this obvious need at his (and Brady's) peril.

 

[DaBruinz]

Agent Drew Rosenhaus refused to address Rob Gronkowski's contract Sunday at the NFL Owner's Meetings.

That's because Gronk is fine with his contract and that tweet he sent out was dripping with Gronk Sarcasm..

 

[DaBruinz]

If it remains unchanged, that is the depth chart of the worst OL in football.

Coming from you, that means they'll allow the least number of sacks in Brady's career..

 

[supafly]

Time after time this off-season, Bill has failed to sign even one vet OLman when there were many of
them available who eventually signed reasonable deals that could have fit under our current salary cap.
I really, really don't understand the lack of activity here. The rest of Brady's career is at stake, and Bill
has chosen to ignore this obvious need at his (and Brady's) peril.

I'd have to guess that out of what I consider our four "higher round" picks (1-3), at least one will definitely be used on an OT, and I don't think any of us would complain about doubling down at the position.

I just think that it will be very difficult to have 11 draft picks and only 4-5-6 players who you can definitely assume will make the team. I think Belichick trades at least a third rounder, if not one of our second rounders ahead to next year, which is actually fine with me, and makes a lot of sense. No use wasting more than a few/handful of picks.

I suppose that he felt that he could get away with saving money while also re-stocking the cupboard at OT via the draft, but yes--it can sometimes be a bit frustrating watching some of the other players at the position snatched up, particularly when they are on reasonable deals.

 

[Deus Irae]

Time after time this off-season, Bill has failed to sign even one vet OLman when there were many of
them available who eventually signed reasonable deals that could have fit under our current salary cap.
I really, really don't understand the lack of activity here. The rest of Brady's career is at stake, and Bill
has chosen to ignore this obvious need at his (and Brady's) peril.

I doubt he's ignored it. It's more likely that he's either comfortable with what's already there now that Scar's back, planning to address it in the draft, or just striking out with the FAs he's gone after.

My guess is that BB is thinking Scar will make a big difference. And, for whatever faults they have, both Jackson and Mason showed flashes of why they were drafted (Mason looked much better overall, IMO), so you'd have to think that better coaching, combined with a year of NFL seasoning, will lead to better results.

Assuming no major changes are made, time will tell if coaching and experience are enough to improve off of the Hindenburgian 2015 OL.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'd have to guess that out of what I consider our four "higher round" picks (1-3), at least one will definitely be used on an OT, and I don't think any of us would complain about doubling down at the position.

I just think that it will be very difficult to have 11 draft picks and only 4-5-6 players who you can definitely assume will make the team. I think Belichick trades at least a third rounder, if not one of our second rounders ahead to next year, which is actually fine with me, and makes a lot of sense. No use wasting more than a few/handful of picks.

I suppose that he felt that he could get away with saving money while also re-stocking the cupboard at OT via the draft, but yes--it can sometimes be a bit frustrating watching some of the other players at the position snatched up, particularly when they are on reasonable deals.

Don't be surprises to see him trade up. As for trading to next year, he's got to find a team willing to do that. There haven't been as many takers of those sorts of trades since Bill had that nice run back in the 00's..

With no 4th or 5th round pick, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats try and move up with their 2 - 6s..

1 - 0
2 - 2 (60,61)
3 - 2 (91,96)
4 - 0
5 - 0
6 - 5 (196, 206, 208,214,221)
7 - 2 (243,250)

BOLD = Tradeable picks

 

[supafly]

Don't be surprises to see him trade up. As for trading to next year, he's got to find a team willing to do that. There haven't been as many takers of those sorts of trades since Bill had that nice run back in the 00's..

With no 4th or 5th round pick, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats try and move up with their 2 - 6s..

1 - 0
2 - 2
3 - 2
4 - 0
5 - 0
6 - 5
7 - 2 (?)

Yes, good point. The possibility exists of trading up just as well, and I'm sure you're right that at some point they do, particularly with the holes in rounds 4 and 5, as well as FIVE sixth rounders. It makes a ton of sense.

I still wouldn't be surprised to see one of the higher round picks traded into next year. Of course, as you said, he has to find a trading partner who will be itching for someone this spring and trying to get back into round two or three.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, good point. The possibility exists of trading up just as well, and I'm sure you're right that at some point they do, particularly with the holes in rounds 4 and 5, as well as FIVE sixth rounders. It makes a ton of sense.

I still wouldn't be surprised to see one of the higher round picks traded into next year. Of course, as you said, he has to find a trading partner who will be itching for someone this spring and trying to get back into round two or three.

Right now, from what I can see, only Philly and Arizona do not have 2nd round picks. Detroit doesn't pick in the 3rd round until their comp at #95.

 

[Danger Zone]

Off topic, but are the conditions of us losing a 1st round pick normal? So losing a 1st isnt bad enough, its got to be no picks in the 1st period?

 

[Ivan]

If it remains unchanged, that is the depth chart of the worst OL in football.

At what point do the moderators here get tired of your troll act and ban you?

 

[supafly]

Off topic, but are the conditions of us losing a 1st round pick normal? So losing a 1st isnt bad enough, its got to be no picks in the 1st period?

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not, DZ, but the team could in theory, trade into the first round with any other trading partner.

The problem would be that even if they'd trade with say, Dallas (4th overall pick), the highest the Pats could pick would be #29, where they were originally slated due to record. The 4th overall pick (not that it would happen) would be forfeited, but Goodell cannot stop us from making trades. He simply included a new clause so that a repeat of 2008 didn't happen, when we had the 7th overall pick from SF and lost "our" 31st pick. This time, if a trade should occur, we'd lose the higher pick and it would revert to #29.

Sneaky bastard, that Goodell.

 

[Off The Grid]

As for trading to next year, he's got to find a team willing to do that. There haven't been as many takers of those sorts of trades since Bill had that nice run back in the 00's..

I still wouldn't be surprised to see one of the higher round picks traded into next year. Of course, as you said, he has to find a trading partner who will be itching for someone this spring and trying to get back into round two or three.

Right now, from what I can see, only Philly and Arizona do not have 2nd round picks. Detroit doesn't pick in the 3rd round until their comp at #95.

Doesn't matter.

The Teams that we've fleeced for Deferred Picks previously weren't usually replacing a lost Pick.

They were usually Double Dipping.

2003 ~ Ravens ~ Kyle Boller
2003 ~ Fish ~ Wade Smith
2005 ~ Ravens ~ Adam Terry
2007 ~ Miners ~ Joe Staley
2007 ~ Raiders ~ Mario Henderson

You get the Idea...