This team needs a 2nd round WR/TE/RB or equivalent FA

[skibrett15]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

96% of a top 5 receiver would be great. Find me one for cheap that can contribute immediately and we'll talk.

The idea that a 2nd round pick is going to come in and beat out Allison/MVS immediately seems insane to me.

just 96% as excited as you would be when he's 1 on 1 pre-snap.  Adams is almost never 1 on 1 pre-snap.  96% of that is not even close to 96% of adams.

[skibrett15]

Wish we had... marvin Jones or Kenny Golladay.  That's what this team needs.

Go sign/trade for devante parker.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

Wish we had... marvin Jones or Kenny Golladay.  That's what this team needs.

Go sign/trade for devante parker.

How sure are we that one of ESB, MVS, or JM won't be that next year?

What tools do those two have that Moore doesn't?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

team is missing a starter at WR, maybe two.  That's my assessment.  The WR room is Adams and a bunch of fringe roster players on most teams.

I disagree.  MVS has done enough that he's one of our starting WRs next year.  Even Geronimo Allison has done enough that I feel comfortable going into 2019 with Adams/MVS/Allison.  Do I love the idea of going into 2019 with those guys?  No, but they're good enough to get the job done IMO.

Golden Tate: 132 targets, 84 receptions, 941 receiving yards, 5 TD
MVS: 65 targets, 36 receptions, 555 receiving yards, 2 TD
Allison: 96 targets, 65 receptions, 970 receiving yards, 6 TD

That's everyone's numbers over a 16 game period.  Allison is producing better than Tate, and he's getting paid a fraction of what Tate would.  MVS is getting paid less and putting up smaller numbers.

[skibrett15]

Just now, incognito_man said:

How sure are we that one of ESB, MVS, or JM won't be that next year?

What tools do those two have that Moore doesn't?

plenty of room for 3 WRs.  Unless you think TWO of those guys are gonna force the packers into full time snaps, then an outside starter makes sense to me.

[skibrett15]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I disagree.  MVS has done enough that he's one of our starting WRs next year.  Even Geronimo Allison has done enough that I feel comfortable going into 2019 with Adams/MVS/Allison.  Do I love the idea of going into 2019 with those guys?  No, but they're good enough to get the job done IMO.

Golden Tate: 132 targets, 84 receptions, 941 receiving yards, 5 TD
MVS: 65 targets, 36 receptions, 555 receiving yards, 2 TD
Allison: 96 targets, 65 receptions, 970 receiving yards, 6 TD

That's everyone's numbers over a 16 game period.  Allison is producing better than Tate, and he's getting paid a fraction of what Tate would.  MVS is getting paid less and putting up smaller numbers.

chicken, egg, stafford, rodgers

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Anyone, anyone.  Let's do a little exercise, use our money and spend it.  We have enough to go around, but we don't have enough to spend $10M+ everywhere.

I'll bite, cuz I have the time.

Spotrac says 40M.  I'll go with that.

Let's just roll $7M right away as that is kind of typical.  $34M.

Since this is about finding a way to fill holes and add a good WR, let's take Tate and assume a cap hit of 7.5M in year one.  4 years, 44 million.  Kind of what Spotrac says.  26.5M left.

I'll take Shaq Barrett.  Spotrac says, 4 years, $30M.  7.5M average.  Let's just round down to 7M as a first year cap hit.  19.5M left.

I'll go big on the safety.  Give me Earl.  Spotrac doesn't have his projection.  Let's say 3 years, $30M.  I'll go 9M for the first year cap hit.  $10.5M left.

I want a guard.  Foster.  Spotrac doesn't have his projection.  Can we think he's a 4-5M guard?  How about 4.5M?  Leaves 6M.

I'll leave it at 6M and spend that appropriately for the rookie class.

That means we still have Tramon on the roster.  I could see cutting him and replacing him with Breeland, probably with an additional hit to the cap.  Now maybe we are at $4M left.

So...we get Tate, Barrett, Thomas, Foster and Breeland.  Had to sacrifice Tramon.

I think the question becomes, is GB better off spending that money somewhere else than on Tate, which is where we are at currently.  That is the debatable point.

 

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

just 96% as excited as you would be when he's 1 on 1 pre-snap.  Adams is almost never 1 on 1 pre-snap.  96% of that is not even close to 96% of adams.

I think you're vastly overestimating the frequency that any wide receiver is shaded double coverage.

[vegas492]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

ESB has shown the ability to do so, and I think even Davante Adams is capable of doing that.  But that's $11M you're spending elsewhere that is now being used at WR.  Where are you taking $11M away from?  EDGE?  Safety?  Cornerback?

I think you aren't being fair to Tate, or being very generous to ESB to think that he would be a Tate equivalent.

I did the math for you with a couple "wish list" free agents.

Even a little room to bump that first year hit with Tate if it needed to happen.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by vegas492

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think the question becomes, is GB better off spending that money somewhere else than on Tate, which is where we are at currently.  That is the debatable point.

And that's the discussion that I was trying to get at.  Are you spending $8M/year on a guy like Barrett with his 14 career sacks (3.5 sack per season) OR would you rather spend $16M on a guy like Brandon Graham and his 25.5 career sacks (6.4 sacks per season) over the last four years?  If you're spending that kind of money on a WR, you're taking away money from another position.  And again, I'm a BIG believer in scheme winning on offense and talent winning on defense.  Tate is a nice player to have, but I'm not taking money from another position (CB/EDGE/S) and spending it on WR.  Give me some half-decent WR and spending a fraction of what we would pay for Tate.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think you aren't being fair to Tate, or being very generous to ESB to think that he would be a Tate equivalent.

I did the math for you with a couple "wish list" free agents.

No.  In a perfect world, I'd LOVE to have Tate.  But is Tate $10M+ better than ESB?  I sure don't think so.

EDIT: He doesn't have to be a Tate equivalent.  He just needs to give us better value.

[vegas492]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And that's the discussion that I was trying to get at.  Are you spending $8M/year on a guy like Barrett with his 14 career sacks (3.5 sack per season) OR would you rather spend $16M on a guy like Brandon Graham and his 25.5 career sacks (6.4 sacks per season) over the last four years?  If you're spending that kind of money on a WR, you're taking away money from another position.  And again, I'm a BIG believer in scheme winning on offense and talent winning on defense.  Tate is a nice player to have, but I'm not taking money from another position (CB/EDGE/S) and spending it on WR.  Give me some half-decent WR and spending a fraction of what we would pay for Tate.

Okay, i get that point.  You'd rather have the better statistical EDGE.  I chose Barrett because I think as a full time player, he'd put up better numbers and be a better value than Graham.

I think we are going to disagree on that point, but agree overall that the money (saved by not getting a high end WR like Tate) may be better spent on a better defensive free agent.

BTW...I looked at Graham and his 4 sacks this year at age 30.  Does that scare you at all?  Barrett is 26 and has 3 sacks this year.  I'm unsure if spending more money on Graham on the EDGE is worth it.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by vegas492

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think you're vastly overestimating the frequency that any wide receiver is shaded double coverage.

yeah I'm trying to carry the metaphor instead of making my point.  Maybe it's 1 on 1 without any deep safety help when isolated in a 3x1 set.  That kind of disrespectful coverage for a good WR.

We have Adams... then we have the rest.  For whatever reason, we see rodgers passing those guys up and holding the ball.  Call it his "lack of trust" or whatever.  I don't think that's going away.  Perhaps the better treatment is simply to get a better player.  One who is head and shoulders better than the rookies and Allison.  One who holds a candle to Adams from the offense's perspective and from the defense's perspective.

Team just needs a second/third (depending on how high you are on ESB/MVS/Moore) WR.  

 

Adams is top 5 WR because Rodgers.  Thielen is top 5 WR and also has Cousins.  Tyreek Hill is top 5 WR because Mahomes.  Calvin Johnson was top 5 WR despite Stafford.  

This is still a WR friendly offense with a QB who makes big things happen.  MVS has a few plays this year you can count on your hand as very impressive promising signs, ESB had 1-2, and Moore has 0.  The rest of their stats are byproducts of playing in a good passing offense with Aaron Rodgers and playing snaps because of injuries to allison and cobb.

 

I'd say MVS hit a hard plateau this year after the NE week.  He was improving every week, and then he just stopped.

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Okay, i get that point.  You'd rather have the better statistical EDGE.  I chose Barrett because I think as a full time player, he'd put up better numbers and be a better value than Graham.

I think we are going to disagree on that point, but agree overall that the money (saved by not getting a high end WR like Tate) may be better spent on a better defensive free agent.

 

I really think that 1 WR/TE is the difference between the 7th or 8th ranked offense and the 1st or 2nd.  I think a better edge is the difference between the 26th ranked D and the 19th.  

I think being elite on Offense and below average on Defense is a better recipe than being above average and average

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Okay, i get that point.  You'd rather have the better statistical EDGE.  I chose Barrett because I think as a full time player, he'd put up better numbers and be a better value than Graham.

I think we are going to disagree on that point, but agree overall that the money (saved by not getting a high end WR like Tate) may be better spent on a better defensive free agent.

It kind of brings a red flag to me if your team is actively looking to upgrade upon you.  The Broncos had a HUGE need at QB this past offseason, and they opted to pass on Josh Allen AND Josh Rosen in order to take Bradley Chubb.  Now maybe the Broncos actually stuck to BPA, but the fact of the matter is they took another pass rusher when they already invested FRPs in Shane Ray and Bradley Chubb.  Even look at DEN's snap percentages.  Von Miller has played in 78% of the defensive snaps and Bradley Chubb has played in 78% of the defensive snaps.  Meanwhile, Barrett is 4th behind those two and Shane Ray.  Maybe @Broncofan can expound on this one, but spending any kind of significant amount of money on Barrett seems unwise.