2018 NFL Free Agents Thread

[John232]

In Fairness to Buckner.. I don't know if I've ever seen a guy lose more sacks due to either someone else getting the play, or some weird funky recovery by a QB or some other BS. Pretty sure Buckner's balls looked like genetically modified plums after games. 

[big9erfan]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

Sure, but that's also assuming that he's the same guy that he was in his first three years. I don't know that he is. That's like saying if we traded for Dez Bryant we'd be getting a guy who's averaged 77 receptions, 1100 yards, and nearly 11 touchdowns a season over the last 5.5 seasons. That is factually accurate...but I'm definitely not sure that Dez is the same guy that he was between 2012 - 2014. He really hasn't been the same guy since the lisfranc injury, so if we were to acquire him, that's not the baseline that I'm expecting from him. It's a little different for Ziggy, because on the surface, he actually had an impressive season with his 12 sacks,  which Dez really hasn't done recently, but given context, I don't think Ziggy's season was good, and when I've watched him (again, this is very limited - I think I watched 3 lions game this year) I haven't been impressed with what I have seen. 

I get all this. I have no idea what his health is.  Whatever injury he had last year and whether it carried over to this year, or whether he had some other injury, he still notched 12 sacks - which we haven't seen from one of our guys in a while. Sure I[m worried about his health, but I'm very interested if our management thinks injuries are not a problem.  But I respect your analysis of players' skills and if you've seen him enough to think he's not special that's good with me. Still a guy doesn't have to be special to be an upgrade over the likes of Tank, or Eli, Lynch or even the aging Dumervil.

[big9erfan]

8 minutes ago, John232 said:

In Fairness to Buckner.. I don't know if I've ever seen a guy lose more sacks due to either someone else getting the play, or some weird funky recovery by a QB or some other BS. Pretty sure Buckner's balls looked like genetically modified plums after games. 

It sure seemed that way this year, didn't it!

[rudyZ]

28 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

I don't get that. As an o-line you focus on the guy most likely to get to  your QB.  Thomas had 3; Buckner had three. In his worst non-injury year Ansah had more than the two of tehm combined. In his best year, and even this year which wasn't his best he had twice or more as many as the two of them combined. When he's getting double digit sacks and the rest of our d-line is getting like 3 they are going to focus on him. If they focus on him then by definition that will make things easier for the other guys. What we need is not just a warm body to take advantage of Thomas and Buckner. What we need is a great pass rusher that can make Thomas and Buckner even more effective. 

If you're thinking that Buckner and Thomas are young and they are going to turn into great pass rushers, then OK.  But right now pass rush is a HUGE problem for this team.  Maybe our worst problem  to deal with.  I don't think we needd a warm body to "take advantage" of Buckner and Thomas. What we need is a great pass rusher that other teams constantly need to keep track of and worry about. That will allow a little more freedom for Thomas and Buckner to shake free and get a few more than 3 sacks.

You're using sack totals to analyze how an OL is going to block the opposing DL? Sure, maybe you will go into a game paying attention to that guy who has double digit sack seasons, but by the end of the second quarter, the inside rush will have you thrown off your game. You simply can't pay more attention to Ansah than Buckner, for instance. The reason why he had only three sacks is probably because we had literally no pass rush whatsoever, so opponents had the luxury of paying extra attention to him. Buckner is not in the Watt/Donald class, where it doesn't matter if they're double-teamed, they'll find a way to break free and get to the QB. And Thomas only had three sacks, in my opinion, because he was a rookie and a little miscast. But I'm not ready to write him off. He has potential. And I'm not going to evaluate his success by the number of sacks he gets, same with Buckner. Justin Smith never had double digit sacks, but he was arguably a top 3 defensive player in the NFL in 2011-12. These two guys' impacts will be seen in the other guys around them getting sacks. It's ridiculously tragic that for all the attention Buckner has been getting all year, no one has been able to come clean up with a few sacks. It talks to how bad our outside pass rush has been. 

I don't think Ansah is a great pass rusher. I think he's a good pass rusher. And playing with Buckner and Thomas should be good for him, and in turn, he should be good for Buck and Solly. My point is that he doesn't need to be great to be a significant free agent piece. If he is great, then it's even better! But he doesn't have to be in order to be worth his paycheck. If he's great, then great. If we sign him, and he's just good, then it also improves our defense tremendously, from having zero outside pass rush, to at least having some, or at least having someone who can clean up after our inside rushers have collapsed the pocket. And maybe we somehow find a gem in the draft who turns into a great pass rusher, in which case I will be so happy I won't even be disappointed we signed him anyway. In 2012, do you think Seahawks fans were pissed about signing Matt Flynn, or were they really just happy they found Russell Wilson? So, I say overpay for a guy like Ansah, even if he's not great. We can and should do it. We have the money. We have the need. And I think he's a good fit.

[rudyZ]

29 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

I get all this. I have no idea what his health is.  Whatever injury he had last year and whether it carried over to this year, or whether he had some other injury, he still notched 12 sacks - which we haven't seen from one of our guys in a while. Sure I[m worried about his health, but I'm very interested if our management thinks injuries are not a problem.  But I respect your analysis of players' skills and if you've seen him enough to think he's not special that's good with me. Still a guy doesn't have to be special to be an upgrade over the likes of Tank, or Eli, Lynch or even the aging Dumervil.

Totally agree with this.

[y2lamanaki]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

OK. Looked up the two of them.  Lynch has had 15 sacks in four seasons. Brooks was amazingly consistent.  In his five last years for us  he had 6.5, 8.5, 6, 6.5, 6 for a total of 33.5.  One thing that helped was that during those 5 years he played almost every single game, and I don't recall a serious injury.  Durability does count for something!

Brooks eventually became a bit underrated over his time here. He was never great, but at his best - he was really good. At his worst he was a starter you'd hope to replace, but can live with on the right squad. And he'll jump offsides once a game. 

 

[y2lamanaki]

3 hours ago, 48 1/2ers said:

This back and forth makes no sense, only Demarcus Lawrence would be a better free agent pass rusher. And in a year where there are not any clear options for us in the draft, why wouldnt we go all in on Ansah?

I have never once considered the possibility of Lawrence becoming available (though would be interested if he did). And the reasons not for Ansah would be medical or overspending. Spending above value just to spend is never a wise decision. He's not great, he's really good. 

I think people see $100M available and completely forget that there are plenty of young players who will need new contracts in the next year or two. Always spend wisely. 

I (with medical concern) would be interested in a one-year prove-it deal. More than Alshon got because of position, but similar conceptually. See how he plays for a year, and make the call to franchise or go long-term year two.

Short of that, I'm okay with a bigger, longer deal, as long as it's in reason. I'm not interested in giving him an Olivier Vernon-type contract.

[big9erfan]

45 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

Brooks eventually became a bit underrated over his time here. He was never great, but at his best - he was really good. At his worst he was a starter you'd hope to replace, but can live with on the right squad. And he'll jump offsides once a game. 

 

I agree. I'd love any of our guys to consistently get 6 to 8 sacks a year. But that was the kind of obvious part of Brooks' game. I think what was really under-valued was how strongly he set the edge and how effective he was against the run. I think your description of level of play is right on.

[48 1/2ers]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

I have never once considered the possibility of Lawrence becoming available (though would be interested if he did). And the reasons not for Ansah would be medical or overspending. Spending above value just to spend is never a wise decision. He's not great, he's really good. 

I think people see $100M available and completely forget that there are plenty of young players who will need new contracts in the next year or two. Always spend wisely. 

I (with medical concern) would be interested in a one-year prove-it deal. More than Alshon got because of position, but similar conceptually. See how he plays for a year, and make the call to franchise or go long-term year two.

Short of that, I'm okay with a bigger, longer deal, as long as it's in reason. I'm not interested in giving him an Olivier Vernon-type contract.

How else are we going to spend that 100 million? Not everyone will get an extension (maybe Buckner, Tartt, Jimmie G, Brown)  and I don’t think we can roll 100% of what’s left over to next years cap. 

[rudyZ]

31 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

How else are we going to spend that 100 million? Not everyone will get an extension (maybe Buckner, Tartt, Jimmie G, Brown)  and I don’t think we can roll 100% of what’s left over to next years cap. 

Whoever we sign, we should front load their contracts as much as possible. I don't mind overpaying for a couple of bigger names, especially if we front load the contracts. This way, if they don't pan out, they'll be easier to cut in a couple of years.

[48 1/2ers]

4 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

Whoever we sign, we should front load their contracts as much as possible. I don't mind overpaying for a couple of bigger names, especially if we front load the contracts. This way, if they don't pan out, they'll be easier to cut in a couple of years.

I wouldn’t mind spending 90% or more of what cap we do have assuming Jimmy G and Buckner are among that. Go big on Fuller, Ansah, Robinson and Norwell and we’ll still have plenty of cap. 

[John232]

Also worth noting that despite having a ton of cap room, we will have possibly another 30 million freeing up in the next two years depending on who we let go.

 

Per sportsrac we have 15 million in dead cap. I think that's second highest in the NFL.

 

Our big salary guys currently on our roster (the few that we have) could all be gone after the 2018-19 season anyways, and frankly I expect most of them to be.

Garcon at 9.5 -Could be gone after this next year if his neck isn't right, also is an easy contract to get out of after this next year

Jimmy Ward-8.5

Joe Staley 7.6

Malcom Smith-4.5-Could basically be gone after this next year too.

Zane Beadles-4

Earl Mitchell-3.8

AA-3,1

Celek-2.6

Garnett-2.5

Aldrick Robinson 2.2

Kuwann Williams 2.2

 

This is kind of crazy to look at, but as cheap as our roster currently is there is still plenty of fat to be trimmed. 

[y2lamanaki]

21 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

I wouldn’t mind spending 90% or more of what cap we do have assuming Jimmy G and Buckner are among that. Go big on Fuller, Ansah, Robinson and Norwell and we’ll still have plenty of cap. 

Buckner cannot be a part of that (2019 is the soonest he can sign). You spend 90% of the cap and you likely do not have enough to sign him to an extension. Especially after going big on four top free agents. 

Hence, people are not remotely considering how far this money is actually going to go. I think maybe you can fit two of those guys, Jimmy, Tartt, Brown, and have space for Buckner and Goodwin the following year. But you might not be able to add free agents in 2019 given that you opted to spend big on guys that didn't deserve it in 2018 just to spend money.

[John232]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

Buckner cannot be a part of that (2019 is the soonest he can sign). You spend 90% of the cap and you likely do not have enough to sign him to an extension. Especially after going big on four top free agents. 

Hence, people are not remotely considering how far this money is actually going to go. I think maybe you can fit two of those guys, Jimmy, Tartt, Brown, and have space for Buckner and Goodwin the following year. But you might not be able to add free agents in 2019 given that you opted to spend big on guys that didn't deserve it in 2018 just to spend money.

One thing people also need to consider is that that we have this much cap because we drafted like total chumps. This appears to long be a thing, so it's safe to say that in 4 years, we're going to be needing to dole out plenty of contracts.

In my eyes after jimmy G (who i'm going to safely put at 30m a year, just for buffer) that's going to take us down to 90 million (using estimated cap space on sportsrac, 

 

We can safely sign 2 high priced guys and two mid tier guys without mortgaging too much of the future down the line.  Again, assuming the structuring of the deal is favorable and the guys I listed above leaving plus low accumulation of dead money occurs

 

For AR 15 -14

Lets go with -15 for Ziggy Ansah

Ryan Jensen at -8

Norwell at -10

 

Now we're sitting at 43/42 million give or take some .5's. Factor in dead money wearing off and some very obvious cuts, but the way I see it is if Jimmy G and 4 other guys, that we gotta people really choosy with who we go after in free agency from here on out. I mean, we already will be, but after dead cap, you'd be sitting at 58 million, but count on probably 15-20 million of that going to Buckner, then as yuo said, Tartt, Brown, Foster, Thomas, Colbert and Akhello will all be lookin to get paid too. That 58 and change will evaporate, even with guys like Garcon, Smith, Beadles and Staley coming off the books in the next two years. 

[big9erfan]

15 hours ago, 48 1/2ers said:

How else are we going to spend that 100 million? Not everyone will get an extension (maybe Buckner, Tartt, Jimmie G, Brown)  and I don’t think we can roll 100% of what’s left over to next years cap. 

Well, a whole bunch of it is going to go to Jimmy!