The 2017 FA Thread - OP Updated with Signings (Sundberg, Galette, VD, Hood re-signed) *** Terrell McClain, Stacy McGee, DJ Swearinger, Terrelle Pryor, Chris Carter, Brian Quick, ZACH BROWN(!!)***

[Morneblade]

13 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Clearing up a few things....

 

1)  I don't believe SM misjudged our weaknesses.....he's signed D-Lineman and Safeties the past two years...that's the good news....you know the bad news.

 

2)  I believe in addressing your needs in FA and drafting BPA...that's the ideal world....when you don't properly address your needs in FA, I would maneuver in the draft to get the players you need..if possible....

 

3)  As an example....If we're picking 21st and we have a D-Lineman ranked 15th and the next best is 30th....I'm either trading up or trading down....If I have to take a bit less in value, I do it......the Broncos wanted to trade up for Lynch....we could have gotten the 32nd pick plus a 3rd rounder for pick #22

 

The issue with the DL he went after is that none of them were either NT or big DT's.  Paea, Hood, Reyes and Francois are all DE's and he let the only real NT on the squad go. Now, I'm not saying letting Pot Roast go was a bad move in and of itself, but letting him go and not getting some beef in the middle was bad. Personally, I want the 4-3 back but if that is not going to happen, we need a real NT. I actually like a rotation of Baker/Hood/Francois and maybe move Murphy (back, again) at DE. NT is an issue. And I'm sorry, I don't care if we're in our nickle 70% of the time, we need a fat boy in the middle at least 30% of the time.

 

Just ask Smoot.

[RemoveSnyder]

Do we have a "the future Defensive Coordinator is..." thread? 

[squatch66]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

DC9

 

I am with you -- it's very logical to go BPA.    The 3 most common critiques I see of Scot are:

 

1.  People suggesting that he should draft based on need.

2.  He missed on so and so FA -- the dude makes mistakes

3.  Whatever weaknesses the team has is on him -- he should have either fixed them all or he thought he fixed every leak in the ship but he incompetently failed at it. 

 

IMO all three hits are wildly off.  Good Gms generally go BPA in the draft.  Every GM misses on picks and FA signings and that goes double when you bargain hunt FAs.    And as I mentioned it was clear as day to me that Scot was very aware of what still needs to be fixed -- not that I was surprised by that.

 

The dude isn't perfect but I am pretty jazzed to see what transpires this off season.  As for the apprentice stuff -- funny thing for me is I usually study up on the draft after the season but I boned up early for this meeting so I didn't sound like a fool.  I pulled it off I think but barely. 

 

 

I can't figure out how to format the quote blocks anymore so I can make this easier to read so I will try to keep this as uncluttered as possible.

 

1.  People suggesting that he should draft based on need.

 

Wow this article has the quote I was looking for and also applies to how McC wanted to build the dline.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2016/05/04/scot-mccloughan-will-always-draft-the-best-player-available-even-if-you-dont-agree/?utm_term=.f0acb6baddf0

 

“In my personal opinion, if you draft for need, that’s when you get in trouble,” McCloughan said on Monday. “All of a sudden you’re like, ‘Son of a gun, we had these three guys higher and they’re going to the Pro Bowl, but we forced the issue to take that guy.’ I wanted to address it early. I wanted to address it [in the] first five picks, but I’m taking the best football player. I have to. For me to do my job and make this organization as strong as it can be, I’ve got to take the best football players.”

 

2.  He missed on so and so FA -- the dude makes mistakes - Yes but those mistakes don't hamstring our cap and leave us with a **** ton of dead money. Did we even feel the bite when they sent Paea, Reyes, Jeron Johnson, et. al (Lauvao next year?) on their way?  Hell, even Gallette hasn't cost us much money for the two years he's been hurt.  IMO these are the types of moves that turn your team into a monster.  Low risk, high reward.

 

3.  Whatever weaknesses the team has is on him -- he should have either fixed them all or he thought he fixed every leak in the ship but he incompetently failed at it. - Again, reference the quote above. McC wanted to get some players for the line. He knew it was an issue, but he isn't about to take a lineman over a player that he thinks is going to be better just because he needs a lineman.  I also found this one in the same article:

 

“We’ve got a lot of good football players on the defensive line,” McCloughan said. “I would have loved to add a younger guy, younger guys, but it didn’t work that way. We went into it and if you had told me the night before I’m taking a receiver in the first round, I would have laughed at you and said you’re crazy. But he was the best player. I don’t want to force the issue, but I understand where our depth is at. I understand who can and can’t play. We’re okay upfront. We’re okay.”

 

Aside: I can already see the rebuttals coming about the we're okay comment. That to me is GM speak. He isn't going to come out to the media and be like "Yeah we suck pretty hard up front. If there's a lineman with a pulse at 21, hes mine"

 

4) Every GM misses on picks - 

 

“At a time when your roster is really strong and you’re a really good team, then you can start worrying about things on the back end,” McCloughan said. “Right now, we’re going forward. We’re taking the best player and throwing them in there. We’re not always going to be 100 percent accurate. It’s not an exact science, but we’re going to keep going and going and keep adding players.”

 

Thats why Scot wants as many picks as possible. He knows that it is impossible to hit on every pick and knows that the more picks you have the better chance of taking a good player.

 

Sorry for the discombobulated post.

[DC9]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

Oh, it is.

Last year was supposed to be really deep for DL so, lets make it a bit more realiistic

 

You need a safety and a DT.  Here's what the board looks like:

 

1. Chris Samuels, T

2. David Butz, DT

3. London Fletcher, ILB

4. Sean Taylor, S

5. Kirk Cousins, QB

 

You pass on Butz and draft Taylor but play him at LB

 

 

Who was Dave Butz and who was Sean Taylor in this draft?

 

Mine was not that extreme... you are obviously missing the point if this is what you are trotting out as a response.

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

 

I think that's an extreme example

 

Was it?  Look right below your post!

You need ****ing legos for these kids.... I'm telling you

[DC9]

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Clearing up a few things....

 

3)  As an example....If we're picking 21st and we have a D-Lineman ranked 15th and the next best is 30th....I'm either trading up or trading down....If I have to take a bit less in value, I do it......the Broncos wanted to trade up for Lynch....we could have gotten the 32nd pick plus a 3rd rounder for pick #22

 

 

Moving down 10 in the first round should cost you more than a 3rd and if that's all they offered I would've said no, too.  Moving down 10 in any other round, sure, but moving down 10 in the first you're going from a Blue player to a red player in most places. 

 

So if you're costing me a blue player, I better get two red players.

 

[Morneblade]

3 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

That had to be an awesome experience.

 

I'm more just floored by the amount of impatience that's taken place after one year of success in a down division (that we still won, but looking big picture we weren't, as Czaban says "Really in the playoffs.").

 

The best example I can give is this completely made up but totally relevant to the conversation scenario:

 

You need a safety and a DT.  Here's what the board looks like:

 

Best Players Available:

1. Chris Samuels, T

2. London Fletcher, ILB

3. Kirk Cousins, QB

4. Clinton Portis, RB

 

Best Safeties Available:

34. Chris Horton

45. Old Ryan Clark

 

Best DTs Available:

28. Cornelius Griffin

99. Anthony Montgomery

 

Who do you pick?  It's pretty easy...

 

If I was able to have a lunch with Scot I probably would've embarrassed myself and asked if he wanted an apprentice. 

 

10 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Who was Dave Butz and who was Sean Taylor in this draft?

 

Mine was not that extreme... you are obviously missing the point if this is what you are trotting out as a response.

 

Was it?  Look right below your post!

You need ****ing legos for these kids.... I'm telling you

 

Ok, suppose I'm completely missing the point. Lets start with: Who was

1. Chris Samuels, T

2. London Fletcher, ILB

3. Kirk Cousins, QB

4. Clinton Portis, RB

In this draft?

 

And why is this you're supposed best?

Best Safeties Available:

34. Chris Horton

45. Old Ryan Clark

 

Best DTs Available:

28. Cornelius Griffin

99. Anthony Montgomery

 

When you had:

7 DL go in the 1st?

10 DL go in the 2nd?

9 DL go in the 3rd?

 

So, yeah, it was ridiculous

.

[DC9]

36 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Do we have a "the future Defensive Coordinator is..." thread? 

 

3 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Ok, suppose I'm completely missing the point. Lets start with: Who was

1. Chris Samuels, T

2. London Fletcher, ILB

3. Kirk Cousins, QB

4. Clinton Portis, RB

In this draft?.

 

Before I go full in... Let me ask you.  Are you legitimately comparing Su'a Cravens to Sean Taylor on a talent and draft grade level?

 

Cause my response is going to be based on your answer.  And be honest, I'm here to help!

[DC9]

7 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

When you had:

7 DL go in the 1st?

10 DL go in the 2nd?

9 DL go in the 3rd?

 

So, yeah, it was ridiculous

.

 

My point is just cause that many were taken doesn't mean that HE rated any of them.  Others could've rated them highly and they could've wanted to snatch them up, he didn't and he didn't want to.

 

So the point of my draft was to show that you shouldn't draft a player based off of need and you should stick to your board.

 

Believe me, I'll be seated right next to you if we don't get it sorted out this year somehow, but he obviously didn't see it this year in this draft.

 

[PartyPosse]

I think because we have a dire need on all three levels of the defense (DL, LB, S, CB), we can go BPA on the defensive side of the ball. I'm hoping we address at least 2 of those needs in FA but we should be able to plug up at least two of those in the first two rounds of the draft. 

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

My point is just cause that many were taken doesn't mean that HE rated any of them.  Others could've rated them highly and they could've wanted to snatch them up, he didn't and he didn't want to.

 

So the point of my draft was to show that you shouldn't draft a player based off of need and you should stick to your board.

 

Believe me, I'll be seated right next to you if we don't get it sorted out this year somehow, but he obviously didn't see it this year in this draft.

 

Agreed, but it doesn't mean his 2 best were the 28th and 99th either. In a draft that had a lot of good DL's.

 

And then

34. Chris Horton

45. Old Ryan Clark

 

So, that's you're top guys. Really.

 

I get what you are saying, in theory, but the example was so extreme it was laughable. Lets put 4 redskin greats as top on your board BPA, and then a bunch of has-beens and no-nothings as need.

[Skinsinparadise]

I know Scot didn't think he solved the D line problem by signing cheap FAs like Reyes and Hood.   It wasn't heck that guy from SD who struggled that I gave a lifeline to and see if we get lucky and he rebounds along with that guy discarded by the Jags will turn our defense around -- and then he's shocked when it doesn't go down that way.  

 

As for moving around the draft to grab need -- you need two to tango to make a deal.  But more importantly, I didn't get the sense that this season was the go for broke approach.  

 

I also think we can solve a lot of problems on defense much more quickly and with less players than some think. The Giants are used here as an example of how to turnaround a defense fast.    All they did is add 3 marquee players, that's it.  They still have weaknesses IMO on that defense.  Their linebackers stink, their depth is questionable.  

 

If we add 2 impact DTs and an impact safety IMO it would have a ripple effect that would help the whole defense.   You get pressure up the middle, it would help the OLBs and secondary.

[kost203]

26 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know Scot didn't think he solved the D line problem by signing cheap FAs like Reyes and Hood.   It wasn't heck that guy from SD who struggled that I gave a lifeline to and see if we get lucky and he rebounds along with that guy discarded by the Jags will turn our defense around -- and then he's shocked when it doesn't go down that way.  

 

As for moving around the draft to grab need -- you need two to tango to make a deal.  But more importantly, I didn't get the sense that this season was the go for broke approach.  

 

I also think we can solve a lot of problems on defense much more quickly and with less players than some think. The Giants are used here as an example of how to turnaround a defense fast.    All they did is add 3 marquee players, that's it.  They still have weaknesses IMO on that defense.  Their linebackers stink, their depth is questionable.  

 

If we add 2 impact DTs and an impact safety IMO it would have a ripple effect that would help the whole defense.   You get pressure up the middle, it would help the OLBs and secondary.

i love the two dt's! go after short and hankins but also draft a dt.

[KDawg]

Drafting BPA doesn't mean that you don't factor in need. That's been a trend here forever.

 

The way I'd determine BPA:

 

1) Rate each player on a scale of subjective and objective data

 

2) Assign a positional weight to each player (none of these would be astronomical, but they would account for the difference between a QB and Punter)

 

3) Assign a need weight to each player (again, likely not much that's astronomical, barring a need for a quarterback)

 

4) Sort your list.

 

Its more BPA than anything else, but it also allows you to at least consider the possibility of trading back or picking a guy based on values on your specific board.

[DC9]

7 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Agreed, but it doesn't mean his 2 best were the 28th and 99th either. In a draft that had a lot of good DL's.

 

And then

34. Chris Horton

45. Old Ryan Clark

 

So, that's you're top guys. Really.

 

I get what you are saying, in theory, but the example was so extreme it was laughable. Lets put 4 redskin greats as top on your board BPA, and then a bunch of has-beens and no-nothings as need.

 

How many of those d-linemen are making an impact this year though?  We don't know cause most of the early ones are on IR just like Docston is.

 

That's been one of my points this whole time.  And many of those injuries were pre-draft.  We won't know for a couple of years.

 

You either trust the process and trust his evaluation or you don't.  If you don't then you don't.

 

EDIT:  Bare in mind that a lot of our FAs that are on low risk "show me" deals have been early round draft picks that have not panned out elsewhere (Ziggy Hood - 1st round pick in 2009/ Stephen Paea - 2nd round pick in 2011) and some pan out and some don't.

 

You want to build your team through the draft, but that also means you want to use your picks on guys that will most impact your team.  If he doesn't feel there is a DT that will impact he isn't going to take him.

 

And you're correct, it doesn't mean they were 45 and 99... that is where it could be extreme as you said.  But I think it was a lot more accurate that they were 45 and 99 than 4 and 5.  If they were 4 and 5 they would've been picked as KDawg said.  You weigh your need against BPA... he obviously didn't like them at all.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

Drafting BPA doesn't mean that you don't factor in need. That's been a trend here forever.

 

The way I'd determine BPA:

 

1) Rate each player on a scale of subjective and objective data

 

2) Assign a positional weight to each player (none of these would be astronomical, but they would account for the difference between a QB and Punter)

 

3) Assign a need weight to each player (again, likely not much that's astronomical, barring a need for a quarterback)

 

4) Sort your list.

 

Its more BPA than anything else, but it also allows you to at least consider the possibility of trading back or picking a guy based on values on your specific board.

 

Good point and I'd assume what you are saying is in play.   

 

IMO unless we are in the draft room, its really impossible to critique the process because there are so many potential machinations.  Lets say you got A. Robinson as your #1 target in the 2nd round -- your pick comes up and he's now gone.  The best player on your board is Su'a Cravens who you think is a stud and you feel he will help because the defense needs more than just D line help.  Do you pass on the player (if you buy what the press said, the Patriots then would have taken him that round) trade down (assuming there is a trading partner) and just hope that your next highly rated DT is still there?  What if he's not.  What if your next rated DT isn't rated that high?   More likely, he sticks to BPA approach and doesn't zero in on DT per se but what if your board shows its unlikely you will get an impact player as good as Cravens if you traded down?    There are IMO so many moving parts. 

 

Again, sticking to the I'll keep my word to Scot about things staying in the room when I had lunch with him -- I'll say this much I know directly from him that the draft in a specific round played differently than he expected so he played the card that was dealt.  Not that I found that a big revelation because IMO its very intuitive.   Scot alluded to it himself in an interview about Doctson unexpectedly dropping into his lap in the first round.

 

IMO the fact that Scot traded out of the 4th round for two 5th rounders IMO indicated he likely didn't love any player with that pick where he saw much of a difference from the 4th to the 5th round and or looking forward he thinks the 2017 draft will be really good.

 

[KDawg]

 

 

Good point and I'd assume what you are saying is in play.   

 

IMO unless we are in the draft room, its really impossible to critique the process because there are so many potential machinations.  Lets say you got A. Robinson as your #1 target in the 2nd round -- your pick comes up and he's now gone.  The best player on your board is Su'a Cravens who you think is a stud and you feel he will help because the defense needs more than just D line help.  Do you pass on the player (if you buy what the press said, the Patriots then would have taken him that round) trade down (assuming there is a trading partner) and just hope that your next highly rated DT is still there?  What if he's not.  What if your next rated DT isn't rated that high?   More likely, he sticks to BPA approach and doesn't zero in on DT per se but what if your board shows its unlikely you will get an impact player as good as Cravens if you traded down?    There are IMO so many moving parts. 

 

Again, sticking to the I'll keep my word to Scot about things staying in the room when I had lunch with him -- I'll say this much I know directly from him that the draft in a specific round played differently than he expected so he played the card that was dealt.  Not that I found that a big revelation because IMO its very intuitive.   Scot alluded to it himself in an interview about Doctson unexpectedly dropping into his lap in the first round.

 

IMO the fact that Scot traded out of the 4th round for two 5th rounders IMO indicated he likely didn't love any player with that pick where he saw much of a difference from the 4th to the 5th round and or looking forward he thinks the 2017 draft will be really good.

 

I'd actually assume it wasn't necessarily a case of Doctson falling in his lap (whether he worded it that way or not) but more of a "our targets were gone and Doctson was the highest rated guy on our board".

 

which even if weighted the way I suggested makes total sense if they had his fit/skill set grades high enough.

 

McCloughan is no moron. I heard a TON of stuff while in the press box this weekend as he and the scouting department were right in front of me. Nothing crazy or overly secretive. And not a word of it will be reported by me. Not because I'm under some obligation not to, or that it was even all that interesting, rather out of respect for a group of guys that were just trying to do their job...But I heard enough to know that our assumptions about his abilities are on point. He and his staff know what they are doing and are constantly looking to make improvements.

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I'd actually assume it wasn't necessarily a case of Doctson falling in his lap (whether he worded it that way or not) but more of a "our targets were gone and Doctson was the highest rated guy on our board".

 

which even if weighted the way I suggested makes total sense if they had his fit/skill set grades high enough.

 

McCloughan is no moron. I heard a TON of stuff while in the press box this weekend as he and the scouting department were right in front of me. Nothing crazy or overly secretive. And not a word of it will be reported by me. Not because I'm under some obligation not to, or that it was even all that interesting, rather out of respect for a group of guys that were just trying to do their job...But I heard enough to know that our assumptions about his abilities are on point. He and his staff know what they are doing and are constantly looking to make improvements.

 

Yeah it was cool you got a dose of it, too.  The best way for me to explain it on my end, is Scot is determined to fix this defense and he is mega intense about it.  The argument for example that some make that Scot thought he fixed the D line because he brought in Reyes and Hood and the dude was banking on it.  But to Scot's chagrin, the 2 low cost FA DTs didn't meet his big expectations-- would presume Scot is a moron. And clearly Scot is no dummie.   The other thing that was super clear to me is the dude isn't a pollyanna about the roster.  

 

On my end I didn't talk to him about Doctson outside of him telling me on tape this guy is Dez Bryant and he loves his prospects regardless of injury.  That was one of the players he without prompting played up. 

 

One thing that's relevant now that I am sure he wouldn't mind me sharing is he thinks highly of Spaight and that he might be an impact guy.  I guess we are about to see if so.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2016/05/02/scot-mccloughan-calls-josh-doctson-a-slam-dunk/?utm_term=.bee1878a4ede

 

What McCloughan likes about Doctson, the walk-on turned standout at Texas Christian, goes beyond his 6-foot-2, 202-pound size, which, combined with his athleticism and leaping ability, make him an appealing red-zone target. “He’s very, very talented,” McCloughan conceded, “but also the [quality] person. It was a slam dunk.”

McCloughan said that as Thursday night’s first-round proceedings unfolded, he couldn’t believe that Doctson was still available. “If you had talked to me before the draft, I would never though that would happen,” said McCloughan, who traded back one spot and still got Doctson with the 22nd pick. “I thought he’d be gone.”

[Bobby Peppers]

USA Today has reported teams were notified the salary cap will increase  $10M to $15M in 2017. What does that mean for us? I know Scot has indicated he likes to build through the draft but we will have so much room even after resigning Cousins, Baker and Garcon/Jackson. 

[markmills67]

I think we are about $55m under at the moment, add the lowest increase in cap and release Lauvao and Hall you then have $75m. Wow

[Koolblue13]

13 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

I think we are about $55m under at the moment, add the lowest increase in cap and release Lauvao and Hall you then have $75m. Wow

Yeah, we're stacked for this offseason. Our 4rth rounder is looking like a 3rd rounder too.

[skinny21]

Are the Giants up against the cap next year?  Just curious about the reason for the big jump in cap (and Mara's the first ******* I look at).

[skinny21]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:12 PM, Monk4thaHALL said:

Do we have a "the future Defensive Coordinator is..." thread? 

Sorry to say, but I'd bet Barry sticks.  

 

I'm never happy about injuries, but I was happy we (and the coaches) got to see Everett and Spaight play a bit.  Not that I think either of them should alter the team's FA plans, but it's good to have a better sense of what they can do going forward.  

 

I liked Gruden's quote about Everett - essentially, he's fast, can hit and can cover.  Not sure if Blackmon returns this week, but even if he does, I'd like to see Everett come in as the 3rd safety over either Whitney or Ihenacho.

 

 

[Koolblue13]

51 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Sorry to say, but I'd bet Barry sticks.  

 

I'm never happy about injuries, but I was happy we (and the coaches) got to see Everett and Spaight play a bit.  Not that I think either of them should alter the team's FA plans, but it's good to have a better sense of what they can do going forward.  

 

I liked Gruden's quote about Everett - essentially, he's fast, can hit and can cover.  Not sure if Blackmon returns this week, but even if he does, I'd like to see Everett come in as the 3rd safety over either Whitney or Ihenacho.

 

 

Iaonnidis too. He played a little more. Wasn't great, but late round nose tackles rarely are at first.

 

Pretty much what I watch now. Our young guys and the other teams potential free agents.

[kost203]

4 hours ago, Bobby Peppers said:

USA Today has reported teams were notified the salary cap will increase  $10M to $15M in 2017. What does that mean for us? I know Scot has indicated he likes to build through the draft but we will have so much room even after resigning Cousins, Baker and Garcon/Jackson. 

we also gotta look at extending our own good players, morgan moses and long as well. good deals but team friendly before the price rises!

[kost203]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

Are the Giants up against the cap next year?  Just curious about the reason for the big jump in cap (and Mara's the first ******* I look at).

looking @ overthecap.com website and it states they have alittle over 28.5 mill next year also factor in losing jpp and other free agents that's why they have so much at the moment.