Jump to content
jrry32

Jrry32's First Mock Off-Season of the Year

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NVRamsFan said:

So people would love Shelton and hate Brockers. Hate Brockers because he only had one sack last year. Yet we want Shelton who in 4 years has 1.5 sacks total? There is a hell of a lot more to the position than sacks. 

Im done having that conversation, because the analysis of what Brockers was doing this year shows me its not worth it.

 

So lets look at it this way, in their thinking, Brockers isnt worth paying one more season (potentially over fair market value; a 28 y/o long big bodied clogger who has been a main cog of some of the best defenses since entering the league says other wise) , but we should shell out the cash for 32 y/o Suh, who halfassed it all season long, in the hope he can turn it on for the playoffs again? HARD pass. Especially how much that attitude seemed to penetrate even more of that defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Im done having that conversation, because the analysis of what Brockers was doing this year shows me its not worth it.

 

So lets look at it this way, in their thinking, Brockers isnt worth paying one more season (potentially over fair market value; a 28 y/o long big bodied clogger who has been a main cog of some of the best defenses since entering the league says other wise) , but we should shell out the cash for 32 y/o Suh, who halfassed it all season long, in the hope he can turn it on for the playoffs again? HARD pass. Especially how much that attitude seemed to penetrate even more of that defense.

I'd argue the defense started to gel the second half of the season after Talib came back. I think he was key as Peters was asked to do A LOT that he isn't normally asked to do. 

 

Don't bring either of them back. Look elsewhere if you don't trust Suh producing more than Brockers (which is an asinine thought but that's a whole different story).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LARams91 said:

I'd argue the defense started to gel the second half of the season after Talib came back. I think he was key as Peters was asked to do A LOT that he isn't normally asked to do. 

 

Don't bring either of them back. Look elsewhere if you don't trust Suh producing more than Brockers (which is an asinine thought but that's a whole different story).

Except that that's a substantial amount of turnover for an offseason where we have no 2nd round pick, even once comp picks get awarded we'll be without one of our 3rd's be it the natural or the comp pick.  And if we're counting on getting a high comp pick for Suh and LMJ signing elsewhere, we can't be legitimate players in the FA market - save for guys who are released/cut from existing contracts.

When we already have 1 ILB, 1 safety, and 1 DL spot to fill among the existing starters, adding another starting DL spot (plus having to flesh out the depth more too as Westbrooks is an FA and Smart hasn't looked ready for more than a rotational depth role at best).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LARams91 said:

It has nothing to do with sacks (to me, can't speak for others). It's how they play the game. Brockers is easily single manned and can't beat that man to get pressures. Shelton can eat blockers, or if singled can beat his man more often than Brockers. Would also cost less (I assume) than Brockers.

How many of those plays was Brockers playing to penetrate versus contain.  Speaking just on Wade from his time when he was DC in San Diego - which I got to see a lot of - he doesn't send all three DL most plays, particularly when the ILB's aren't strong against the run.  Brockers was the guy charged with contain quite a bit, by my recollection last season.  If Shelton is the guy charged on that interior contain then Brockers is sent, in this scenario.

But let's not dismiss the fact that when Brockers was finding a good amount of his success rushing from the 5-Tech, he had Connor Barwin who is an outstanding run-defender and contain-guy playing off his outside shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The LBC said:

Except that that's a substantial amount of turnover for an offseason where we have no 2nd round pick, even once comp picks get awarded we'll be without one of our 3rd's be it the natural or the comp pick.  And if we're counting on getting a high comp pick for Suh and LMJ signing elsewhere, we can't be legitimate players in the FA market - save for guys who are released/cut from existing contracts.

When we already have 1 ILB, 1 safety, and 1 DL spot to fill among the existing starters, adding another starting DL spot (plus having to flesh out the depth more too as Westbrooks is an FA and Smart hasn't looked ready for more than a rotational depth role at best).

JFM can play the dline, I'm very confident in that. So still at 1 DL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The LBC said:

How many of those plays was Brockers playing to penetrate versus contain.  Speaking just on Wade from his time when he was DC in San Diego - which I got to see a lot of - he doesn't send all three DL most plays, particularly when the ILB's aren't strong against the run.  Brockers was the guy charged with contain quite a bit, by my recollection last season.  If Shelton is the guy charged on that interior contain then Brockers is sent, in this scenario.

But let's not dismiss the fact that when Brockers was finding a good amount of his success rushing from the 5-Tech, he had Connor Barwin who is an outstanding run-defender and contain-guy playing off his outside shoulder.

Well then even better, let's get a cheaper guy to contain.....If they're just going to be sitting at the line of scrimmage adding no pressures....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LARams91 said:

JFM can play the dline, I'm very confident in that. So still at 1 DL.

I believe in JFM, but I think it would be smart to give him another year. Brockers has one year remaining. It makes sense to use JFM as our top rotational guy in 2019 behind AD and Brock. And if JFM plays like I think he will, he starts in 2020. I think it would be a huge mistake to get rid of Brock AND Suh. We need to retain one. IMO, it makes sense to retain Brock because he's already under contract and is only under contract for one more year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LARams91 said:

Well then even better, let's get a cheaper guy to contain.....If they're just going to be sitting at the line of scrimmage adding no pressures....

I feel like you're ignoring the point in order to frame your own argument.  Brockers played contain last season because we were sending Suh and Donald... because Suh and Donald were better pure pass-rushers (and because sending Suh and giving him opportunities to pad his counting stats to bolster his contract efforts was a sound strategy).  Brockers can and has effectively rushed the passer from the 5-Tech; he did it in 2017 when we were using Westbrooks as the guy playing contain.  If we get rid of both Suh and Brockers we have to bring in a contain guy and a pass-rushing guy (because JFM really needs another year - he wasn't getting his penetration as much this past season on the interior so much as lined up almost as a 6- or 7-tech, over the outside shoulder or directly over the OT rather than in the B-Gap or splitting guards and tackles).

Moreover, Brockers' bonus is structured to where it doesn't even kick in until after the legal tampering period of free agency, so we'll have a clearer picture of how things will shake out (in terms of whether there is any hope of players who would be a long-term upgrade that might stretch to us in the 1st or whether there may be guys released to make cap-room to accommodate new signings that could bolster our roster.  There's no reason to cut him just for the sake of cutting him or for cap room that we might use.  Honestly, if we get in someone who provides us a better option as in the pass-rushing role, we'd be better set trying to extend and restructure Brockers to play that contain role (which he does just fine) to keep him to his age-30 season at a more team-friendly contract (he got his big pay-day, he may be amenable to take less to chase a ring now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a fundamental disagreement. If we can trade him for a 4th or a 5th, I do it without thinking.

Edited by LARams91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LARams91 said:

Just a fundamental disagreement. If we can trade him for a 4th or a 5th, I do it without thinking.

Seems to be the root of the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Seems to be the root of the issue

Enjoy paying a guy an $11 million cap number to do something a lot of cheaper interior dlinemen can do at the same level. Makes no sense. But I wouldn't expect you think about how much better that money could be allocated.

Edited by LARams91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LARams91 said:

Enjoy paying a guy an $11 million cap number to do something a lot of cheaper interior dlinemen can do at the same level. Makes no sense. But I wouldn't expect you think about how much better that money could be allocated.

Man you are getting desperate. Your argument has completely fallen apart, and now you just tried to call out me, one of the people who talks about the cap most around here, about not knowing about how money on this roster is allocated? Just quit while youre behind man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StLunatic88 said:

Man you are getting desperate. Your argument has completely fallen apart, and now you just tried to call out me, one of the people who talks about the cap most around here, about not knowing about how money on this roster is allocated? Just quit while youre behind man.

I fail to recognize how it's falling apart. I said from the get-go that I wouldn't keep Brockers around because he hasn't lived up to the billing and think he can be replaced by someone at a cheaper salary. I then said if you could trade him for a 4th or 5th I would. I don't see the need to hold on to him for a comp pick, largely because I don't think he gets a big deal to get us a 3rd round comp pick.

 

We obviously have a fundamental difference in how we perceive Brockers' talent and ability to make an impact on this team. No need to try and take cheap shots regarding ones intelligence or calling someone desperate. I could just as easily say you must not be able to assess talent if you think Brockers is playing up to his contract and we couldn't find a cheaper, better replacement. But I haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 6:12 AM, BStanRamFan said:

Pretty solid. It doesn't wow me, but that's what I want coming off of a Superbowl Loss. No need for drastic changes to WOW someone.

In a perfect world, I'd like to keep Suh and Fowler, but I realize it's not likely. Suh truly looked the happiest he's ever been with a team in his entire career. Mostly because they were winning, but him and Donald really seemed to get along and play off of each other. Could he be willing to take less on a 2-3 year deal to stay in LA. There's a market for him in commercials if he stays in the area and becomes one of the more recognizable faces of the team.  Or go chase millions in Cleveland, what do I know?

Fowler seems more valuable than Suh at this point. They were both coming on at the end, but Fowler was finally showing flashes of his draft stock. I'd hold on and tag him for another year to see what a full offseason can do for him under Wade Phillips. I think we could see elite production.

Would love Bush in the 1st and I liked your two flyers in Rodney Anderson and Jalen Hurd.

 

I also think we could get a 3rd for Josh Reynolds and replace his production with Desean Jackson on the cheap if we wanted to.

I wouldn’t tag Fowler. If he wants a lot of money, then let him walk and sign Clay Matthews to a one year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rocky_rams said:

I wouldn’t tag Fowler. If he wants a lot of money, then let him walk and sign Clay Matthews to a one year 

Wouldn't give a wet rag for Clay Matthews.

Fowler is 24, we've invested two mid round picks on him, and he showed up in the playoffs. I agree we should wait to give him a long term deal, but he would be foolish to sign a one year prove it when someone with cap space will throw money at him. Especially since Clowney, Dee Ford, and Frank Clark will likely all be tagged leaving few available rushers. Tag him.

2019 total cap projected to be $190MM

DE Franchise Tag $17.143MM

LB Franchise Tag $14.961MM

I wonder if we could get away with tagging him as a LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×