General off-season discussion/plan thread

[757-NINER]

4 hours ago, Forge said:

Vastly, vastly different scenarios. One is paying a guy 10 million with no long term commitment in a year where we have no cap issues or concerns. The other is about giving the guy 60 million guaranteed. 

The situation with Armstead is nuanced. If we could get him back at 9-10 million, I doubt that there would be anyone here that is opposed to it. That's simply not the case. We have a lot of good players who need big money deals and we are already tight against the cap. Decisions have to be made. The free agency graveyard is littered with horrific deals of guys signing big money deals after blowing up in their contract year. 

He's a risk. Doesn't mean that he's not one he should take, but it should be understandable if it's one that we feel uncomfortable moving forward with at an inflated cost. 

It's not necessarily a misguided notion. He broke out this yea and it happened to be a free agent year and a season in which we added Nick Bosa and Dee Ford. 

I'm not sure how much you know about hockey, but there is a classification of players that people refer to as line drivers. Now, not all good players are line drivers, so that's not a requirement. But what line drivers do is that they not only capitalize on the opportunities presented to them, but they also create them. Again, there's nothing wrong with not being a line driver, doesn't mean you're not a good player, but I sort of feel like this is the type of player AA is. He's not driving this defensive front. He is capitalizing on the opportunity afforded to him from it. I would view both Bosa and Ford as superior line drivers than AA, as they create opportunities for the other members on the line to capitalize from while also capitalizing on some themselves. 

AA has always been a very solid run defender, but the pass rush was new this year.  His pass rush win rate was okay. Against double teams, Bosa still had nearly a 22% win rate in pass rushing. AA? Nearly 16% (which is still very good, mind you...top 20 in the league). But he was also just outside the top 20 in overall pass rush win rate. We all know the impact Dee Ford had on the defense when he was on the field. Those stats were quoted a lot when we were prepping for his comeback. We have already seen what Buckner can do with a lack of talent around him last year. So is AA the straw the stirs the drink? I honestly don't think so. Doesn't mean hes not a good player... I think he is very good, and part of my problem is finding a replacement plan for him should we not be able to afford him, but I think it's important to look at it from all sides. 

This should be just his guaranteed money, to be honest. If his agent isn't asking for at Trey Flowers' deal, his agent needs to be fired. AA should be grabbing about 18 million per season, 55-60 million guaranteed. That's part of the problem.

That's a pretty fair deal, especially if you're guaranteeing like 14 million of that (basically making it a 2 year deal), though I'd be curious if Ward took it. @y2lamanaki and I talked briefly about him on the podcast one episode...I said 2 years, 16. HE said 2 years 17. So we are in similar mindsets. I'm not going to push super hard for Ward, I'm content to let him find the market and see if there is anything better out there for him. 

 

 

That hockey analogy was superb....and I don't even follow the sport

Edited February 29, 2020 by 757-NINER

[Melbourne 9er]

Somebody may be able to tell me as I'm not sure on how it works. If SF gave Armstead the franchise tag, and he signed it, would he have to agree to a trade if SF decided to do that or could he say he was staying?

I am seeing a lot of tag Armstead and then trade him. If we tag him and can't/don't trade him then we will be stuck with a guaranteed $18-19m cap hit which would rule out bringing back any of our decent free agents. Is it worth the risk or do we only franchise him if we already have a trade deal in place?

[Ftn49]

14 hours ago, Melbourne 9er said:

Somebody may be able to tell me as I'm not sure on how it works. If SF gave Armstead the franchise tag, and he signed it, would he have to agree to a trade if SF decided to do that or could he say he was staying?

I am seeing a lot of tag Armstead and then trade him. If we tag him and can't/don't trade him then we will be stuck with a guaranteed $18-19m cap hit which would rule out bringing back any of our decent free agents. Is it worth the risk or do we only franchise him if we already have a trade deal in place?

There are no no trade clauses in the nfl. He could make a stink and wreck any potential trade by saying he wouldn't play there but their is no contractual agreement that says he has to agree to one.

[Forge]

1 hour ago, Ftn49 said:

There are no no trade clauses in the nfl. He could make a stink and wreck any potential trade by saying he wouldn't play there but their is no contractual agreement that says he has to agree to one.

There actually are, you just don't hear about them because they aren't prominent like they are in other sports and they almost never come up.

Kirk cousins, for example, has a no trade clause with Minnesota. Wilson with Seattle as well. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

Bengals tag Green and we tag Armstead and trade them for each other??? 

Bengals though are smart to bring Green back and give Burrow the best chance to succeed. Mixon/Green/Boyd is seriously about as good of skill positions a QB drafted in the top 10 could hope for. Now have to shore up other areas to become competitive again. 

[Forge]

36 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Bengals tag Green and we tag Armstead and trade them for each other??? 

Bengals though are smart to bring Green back and give Burrow the best chance to succeed. Mixon/Green/Boyd is seriously about as good of skill positions a QB drafted in the top 10 could hope for. Now have to shore up other areas to become competitive again. 

Oh, I just posted this in the around the NFL thread. The Bengals love their guys, I'll give them that

[N4L]

18 hours ago, Melbourne 9er said:

Somebody may be able to tell me as I'm not sure on how it works. If SF gave Armstead the franchise tag, and he signed it, would he have to agree to a trade if SF decided to do that or could he say he was staying?

I am seeing a lot of tag Armstead and then trade him. If we tag him and can't/don't trade him then we will be stuck with a guaranteed $18-19m cap hit which would rule out bringing back any of our decent free agents. Is it worth the risk or do we only franchise him if we already have a trade deal in place?

If he doesn't want to get traded he could hold off on signing the tag until the trade is worked out or he gets a contract he likes. Thats the only leverage he really has. That's what clowney did. 

Once you sign the tag you are under contract and can be traded 

I think AA will be fine playing on the tag or getting traded to wherever because 17 million is 17 million 

I still want to find a way to pay him 12 this year, and 17 down the road. 

I really don't think he's replaceable right now

[Forge]

15 minutes ago, N4L said:

If he doesn't want to get traded he could hold off on signing the tag until the trade is worked out or he gets a contract he likes. Thats the only leverage he really has. That's what clowney did. 

Once you sign the tag you are under contract and can be traded 

I think AA will be fine playing on the tag or getting traded to wherever because 17 million is 17 million 

I still want to find a way to pay him 12 this year, and 17 down the road. 

I really don't think he's replaceable right now

This is what is so damn irritating about the situation. I agree with you. I don't think he's funny replaceable, and as such, the team is worse off if he's gone. 

I also don't feel comfortable giving him 18 million a season with 55-60 guaranteed.

To his credit, he had said that he's good with the tag, so honestly that helps

[Justone2]

I don't think one-on-one Armstead is replaceable. If he goes you will get two different guys filling his role i bet. One to fill the base downs on the edge and one to rush from the inside.

 

I am fine with having him play on the tag next year and make the decision next year. Does he replicate this year i would be fine giving him the long term deal especially if the cap rises as expected with the new CBA. Doesn't he do the same he either will be much cheaper or you let him walk. 

[Ftn49]

19 hours ago, Forge said:

There actually are, you just don't hear about them because they aren't prominent like they are in other sports and they almost never come up.

Kirk cousins, for example, has a no trade clause with Minnesota. Wilson with Seattle as well. 

Ah, yes, I did hear about the Cousins one now that you mention it.

[Chrissooner49er]

On 2/28/2020 at 6:52 PM, Melbourne 9er said:

We gave Armstead the 5th year option because the coaches thought he was good enough. He then repays the coaches faith, plus more, and we talk about dumping him??? And the excuse that he is only good because he has good people around him!! How many of those are disappearing next year?? I would extend Armstead because not only is he getting sacks, he is also our best run defender. I would be looking at a 4 yr/$52-54m deal if we can get away with it.

Jimmie Ward is in exactly the same position with the same result. I'm looking at extending on a 3yr/20-22m deal. We need to keep the D together.

Let Sanders walk. Bye bye Goodwin, Coleman, Blair. Restructure McKinnon and Jimmy G.

Trade back for a 2nd and 3rd rounder. With the 2nd pick up Uche/Weaver so that we have a replacement when Ford gets injured/cut (next year)

That is debatable to the point of being doubtful. As of the end of the regular season, Bosa had the most Tackles For Loss with Armstead behind him by 3 or 4. He had 16 in the regular season and another 5 in the post season. 

Armstead is good, but he is benefiting from those around him. I would rather keep him, but I do not think he is as talented as Buckner, Bosa or Ford. Those 3 should get the most $$$$. 

Sure is nice to have Bosa on a rookie contract!

Edited March 2, 2020 by Chrissooner49er

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 hour ago, Chrissooner49er said:

That is debatable to the point of being doubtful. As of the end of the regular season, Bosa had the most Tackles For Loss with Armstead behind him by 3 or 4. He had 16 in the regular season and another 5 in the post season. 

Armstead is good, but he is benefiting from those around him. I would rather keep him, but I do not think he is as talented as Buckner, Bosa or Ford. Those 3 should get the most $$$$. 

Sure is nice to have Bosa on a rookie contract!

I don't think it is arguable. Armstead has always been a top run defender and was our best run stopper all season. Bosa is really good of course but a bit undisciplined. 

[Chrissooner49er]

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I don't think it is arguable. Armstead has always been a top run defender and was our best run stopper all season. Bosa is really good of course but a bit undisciplined. 

Okay, but Bosa leads our team not only in sacks, but in TFL as well.  That would be an argument for best run stopper. That's the nature of the stat.

[oldman9er]

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I don't think it is arguable. Armstead has always been a top run defender and was our best run stopper all season. Bosa is really good of course but a bit undisciplined. 

agree with this, but everything else u stated @Chrissooner49er is on point all the same, imo. 

[757-NINER]

21 minutes ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Okay, but Bosa leads our team not only in sacks, but in TFL as well.  That would be an argument for best run stopper. That's the nature of the stat.

I would based it more on run stopping percentage than TFLs. TFLs are not a great indicator of your overall effectiveness against the run for D-Lineman. Its more of a LB metric. Just because you make the tackle doesn't really tell the whole story. If the 3T bull-rushes the OG back and makes the RB bounce it out of the B gap towards the edge and the DE crashes down makes the TFL, it would seem the DE did all the work based on that one stat. But it was the effort and effectiveness of the DT that created the play.