MKnight82 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 So we've signed 14 free agents so far, and we have 9 draft picks. We might be looking at a 50% roster overhaul in one offseason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 37 minutes ago, offbyone said: So basically trade for a qb on a 1 year deal who we know will cost a fortune if he performs? You are going to pass on picking an affordable qb of the future in the draft who we can build around and instead trade draft capital for a qb you hope is the guy, but who you won't have under contract at end of the year. You are going to take that risk in an atmosphere where qbs cost a minimum of 40M/year (see daniel jones). So then I guess that makes the rest of free agency easy because we better not spend any more of that salary cap space and save it for resigning Fields. IMO, two thirds (one thats future) and 6M for a guy that has started and shown he can win games (albeit more as a runner than a passer), adding a top tier talent at left tackle (our biggest need), and adding two future 1sts is a much safer bet. With the current plan of drafting a QB at 2, you first hope that the player can play and succeed at this level, but also have to either draft (the 8th-10th) best tackle available in the 2nd or sign someone like Tyron Smith (who will most likely be a 1 year rental). Again, I don't expect ANYONE to agree with me as many have been very vocal against my way of thinking, but it is the more logical route IMO. Also, to the last statement of not spending any more money. Fields would cost us 6M this year. What they do with the rest of their cap this year has no bearing on what he will cost next year. And that is assuming that Fields performs well enough to earn said cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 9 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: So we've signed 14 free agents so far, and we have 9 draft picks. We might be looking at a 50% roster overhaul in one offseason. Overthecap says 44% is average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, offbyone said: Overthecap says 44% is average. Tell that to Ron Rivera lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 6 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: IMO, two thirds (one thats future) and 6M for a guy that has started and shown he can win games (albeit more as a runner than a passer), adding a top tier talent at left tackle (our biggest need), and adding two future 1sts is a much safer bet. With the current plan of drafting a QB at 2, you first hope that the player can play and succeed at this level, but also have to either draft (the 8th-10th) best tackle available in the 2nd or sign someone like Tyron Smith (who will most likely be a 1 year rental). Again, I don't expect ANYONE to agree with me as many have been very vocal against my way of thinking, but it is the more logical route IMO. Also, to the last statement of not spending any more money. Fields would cost us 6M this year. What they do with the rest of their cap this year has no bearing on what he will cost next year. And that is assuming that Fields performs well enough to earn said cost. He hasn't shown he can win. He is 10-28. I mean no more than Howell has shown. 6M this year, sure. But my point is this is a 1 year plan. Slappy the GM needs to think more years in advance. 40M next year or a waste of an entire year and the chance at a top pick. Losing a year is a big deal. Remember the Bears could have drafted Stroud, you think they are happy they waited? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 26 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: IMO, two thirds (one thats future) and 6M for a guy that has started and shown he can win games (albeit more as a runner than a passer), adding a top tier talent at left tackle (our biggest need), and adding two future 1sts is a much safer bet. Slight exaggeration as for every game he's won, he lost two in addition. 26 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: Again, I don't expect ANYONE to agree with me as many have been very vocal against my way of thinking, but it is the more logical route IMO. Both paths have found success in truth. 26 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: Also, to the last statement of not spending any more money. Fields would cost us 6M this year. What they do with the rest of their cap this year has no bearing on what he will cost next year. And that is assuming that Fields performs well enough to earn said cost. Cap space is really still of no consequence this year or next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 11 minutes ago, offbyone said: He hasn't shown he can win. He is 10-28. I mean no more than Howell has shown. 6M this year, sure. But my point is this is a 1 year plan. Slappy the GM needs to think more years in advance. 40M next year or a waste of an entire year and the chance at a top pick. Losing a year is a big deal. Remember the Bears could have drafted Stroud, you think they are happy they waited? This is where we still disagree. IMO, you have just as much chance of Howell or Fields showing they can be the QBotF as any of these rookies (aside from Caleb Williams). I would honestly give the nod to either of the guys who have experience under their belt to be successful sooner. The trade of is that you have far less years on their rookie deals, so yes this would be a make or break year for Fields. I know that people are down on the QB class from next year because they are so high on this year's class, but it will be the same song and dance next year of players being catapulted up draft boards because of the position they play and the allure of getting a QBotF. Not only that but you have a plethora of QBs that will hit the FA market next year and you have the ammo you need to trade for one if you so desire. The problem I am having isn't that I'm being short-sided in my long term thinking, it's that everyone thinks drafting one of these QBs solves all of our problems. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would not draft any of the QBs at 2, including Caleb Williams, who I think will be the most successful. I would also like to note that for every Stroud, there are 5 Zach Wilson's. I am far more receptive to a rookie QB now than I was last week. I think the overhaul that has begun bodes well for any QB on the roster, whether it be Howell, Fields, a rookie, etc. Shortsided thinking, IMO, is thinking that one of these QBs turns us into a SB contender. Everyone wants their savior, but plenty of teams swing and miss and are right back where they started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 1 minute ago, Slappy Mc said: This is where we still disagree. IMO, you have just as much chance of Howell or Fields showing they can be the QBotF as any of these rookies (aside from Caleb Williams). I would honestly give the nod to either of the guys who have experience under their belt to be successful sooner. The trade of is that you have far less years on their rookie deals, so yes this would be a make or break year for Fields. I know that people are down on the QB class from next year because they are so high on this year's class, but it will be the same song and dance next year of players being catapulted up draft boards because of the position they play and the allure of getting a QBotF. Not only that but you have a plethora of QBs that will hit the FA market next year and you have the ammo you need to trade for one if you so desire. The problem I am having isn't that I'm being short-sided in my long term thinking, it's that everyone thinks drafting one of these QBs solves all of our problems. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would not draft any of the QBs at 2, including Caleb Williams, who I think will be the most successful. I would also like to note that for every Stroud, there are 5 Zach Wilson's. I am far more receptive to a rookie QB now than I was last week. I think the overhaul that has begun bodes well for any QB on the roster, whether it be Howell, Fields, a rookie, etc. Shortsided thinking, IMO, is thinking that one of these QBs turns us into a SB contender. Everyone wants their savior, but plenty of teams swing and miss and are right back where they started. It's not short-sided to take a guy at the most important position on the field if you think he truly is a game changing QB that you can win with. I am not sure I understand why you keep saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 4 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: Slight exaggeration as for every game he's won, he lost two in addition. I didn't say he was a winning QB, also wins and losses is a terrible stat that shouldn't be given to a singular player, I said he has won games as in, he has led game winning drives (3). 6 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: Both paths have found success in truth. As they say, more than one way to skin a cat. 6 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: Cap space is really still of no consequence this year or next. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, MikeT14 said: It's not short-sided to take a guy at the most important position on the field if you think he truly is a game changing QB that you can win with. I am not sure I understand why you keep saying that. The biggest distinction between me and everyone else is this. You all do, I don't. That is why we talk circles around each other and no one will ever see from my perspective. It's all good. I don't expect you guys or "draft experts" to agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said: This is where we still disagree. IMO, you have just as much chance of Howell or Fields showing they can be the QBotF as any of these rookies (aside from Caleb Williams). I would honestly give the nod to either of the guys who have experience under their belt to be successful sooner. The trade of is that you have far less years on their rookie deals, so yes this would be a make or break year for Fields. I know that people are down on the QB class from next year because they are so high on this year's class, but it will be the same song and dance next year of players being catapulted up draft boards because of the position they play and the allure of getting a QBotF. Not only that but you have a plethora of QBs that will hit the FA market next year and you have the ammo you need to trade for one if you so desire. The problem I am having isn't that I'm being short-sided in my long term thinking, it's that everyone thinks drafting one of these QBs solves all of our problems. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would not draft any of the QBs at 2, including Caleb Williams, who I think will be the most successful. I would also like to note that for every Stroud, there are 5 Zach Wilson's. I am far more receptive to a rookie QB now than I was last week. I think the overhaul that has begun bodes well for any QB on the roster, whether it be Howell, Fields, a rookie, etc. Shortsided thinking, IMO, is thinking that one of these QBs turns us into a SB contender. Everyone wants their savior, but plenty of teams swing and miss and are right back where they started. I understand it is a dice roll that is more likely to fail than succeed. The difference is with these rookies you at least have 5 years to play with. With fields you have 1. And with Fields you know he has a floor as a backup, but clearly his ceiling is limited. Either way, don't let me convince you. The league has spoken. No one wants Fields for a reason. We know he is a good solid lockerroom guy, so that reason is his skills on game day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 4 hours ago, MikeT14 said: Well... based on how this FA has started, I am moving my "We're drafting a Qb at 2" percentage from 98% to like 90%. 99.9999999% now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 17 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: 99.9999999% now you shorted me .000000099999999% 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I honestly could see us doing what Shanny did in 2012, now that Howell is gone, and draft a QB at 2 and another guy in later rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 19 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said: I honestly could see us doing what Shanny did in 2012, now that Howell is gone, and draft a QB at 2 and another guy in later rounds. That’s what I’m thinking too. A guy that Peters & Kingsbury want as a future back up in the late rounds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts