2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

[Voice_of_Reason]

15 minutes ago, carex said:

you have to give time for drafted people to develop or you may as well just trade all of them.

Sure you do, but you also have to draft well, have coaches that can develop players, and see progress from those players.  

 

I would argue that with a few exceptions, we haven't developed players particularly, well, and some higher round draft picks have been complete busts. (See, Jones, Matt)

 

15 minutes ago, carex said:

The DL is one of the few places we didn't start someone from the streets.  We have Allen, Ionaddis, Lanier came on once he started getting playing and Stacy .McGee is decent.  Considering we only dress five DL, someone like Ziggy Hood,  AJ Francis, Ondre Pimkins, or Montori Hughes  can be our sixth.  That leaves space for one guy

With the DL, with Allen back, they are ok, but could use another impact starter.  My issue with your post wasn't with the DL.  I think we agree there. 

 

15 minutes ago, carex said:

I think Doctson will turn out alright and I haven't turned on Crowder.  I also like Grant as a backup.  Harris and Davis can get some more time to develop.  Again, space for one guy.

What have you seen out of Doctson makes you believe he'll turn out alright?  He was hurt his entire first year, and dropped as many catches as he caught his second. His catch percentage was in the bottom part of the league, and his route running is "eh" at best.  I'll give him a pass and say that this might as well be his rookie year, but even still there is NOTHING that leads me to believe that we can COUNT on him being a starter in 2018, and being any better than he is now.  I'm not suggesting trading him or cutting him, just not going into the season with him penciled in as a starter.  Which also would remove some pressure from him, which might help.  

 

Crowder is find for 40 snaps a game as a slot guy.  That's all he is, all he should be counted on to do.  Asking him to do more is going to sub-optimize everything.  As long as you're good with that, fine.  (I am, I think he's really good in that role.

 

Grant is a backup.  And shouldn't be anything more than competing for a 4 or 5.  When Gruden said, "We will do everything we can do to bring him back" my skin crawled.  Because that sounds to me like they haven't learned what Grant is.  Grant could not crack the roster of 10 of the 12 playoff teams as a 5th WR.  

 

There are 2 openings for starters.  Grant can't be a starter, and Doctson shouldn't be counted on as a starter. 

 

15 minutes ago, carex said:

At TE, it depends on if we give up on Reed.  If he stays we're not gunning for a top guy, we could use a blocker so we're going to give Sprinkle another chance.  We might resign Paul, we might let him go

Reed can't stay healthy and can't run block.  He didn't even get through the off-season healthy, he started with a toe injury which came out of nowhere and never healed.  Davis is 98 years old.  And can't run block.  

 

We need to find a durable Run/Catch TE.  Maybe not as good as Reed as a receiver, but somebody who can do both.  I advocate moving on from Reed, Davis and Paul.  The other guy (I'm forgetting his name, rookie) showed real promise in run-blocking.  

 

15 minutes ago, carex said:

At RB, I think we need a starter.  Kelley and Perine can compete for the second spot and Bibbs or Marshall might stick as a backup to Thompson

Here you and I agree.

 

We need 2 starting WRs, 2/3 new TEs (including a starter) and a starting RB.  

 

That's a lot.  We're not a piece or two away. We were in 2016, but we let 2 pieces walk out the door (rightly or wrongly can be debated) and we didn't replace them.  The guy who we tried to replace one of them was a dud. (Pryor).  

 

Can't make the same mistake again.  If they let Kirk go, and run with Doctson, Grant, Crowder, Reed, unless CT has 2000 all purpose yards and stays healthy (which he doesn't do either), that's a bottom 5 offense.  And a 2-3 win team unless the defense improves to Jax levels.  

 

 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

11 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

We need 2 starting WRs, 2/3 new TEs (including a starter) and a starting RB. 

 

 

Jeremy Sprinkle.

Like Thompson is a diff. type of RB than Perine, I think the same is true for TE.

 

I view Reed as TE1 and Vernon Davis as TE3 as the back-up to Reed as that pass-catching TE. Sprinkle should develop into your TE2, which is a blocking TE who can catch. I think with TE1-TE3 solidified, you may keep a 4th TE and that could be Paul, who's a ST player ... or another mid-to-late round draft pick. But I don't see it being 2-3 TE needs as you do. More like 1 ... MAYBE 2

 

The problem is this past year, with Reed's injury, you had Davis and Paul, two pass-catching TEs playing in 2 TE sets.

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Jeremy Sprinkle.

Like Thompson is a diff. type of RB than Perine, I think the same is true for TE.

 

I view Reed as TE1 and Vernon Davis as TE3 as the back-up to Reed as that pass-catching TE. Sprinkle should develop into your TE2, which is a blocking TE who can catch. I think with TE1-TE3 solidified, you may keep a 4th TE and that could be Paul, who's a ST player ... or another mid-to-late round draft pick. But I don't see it being 2-3 TE needs as you do. More like 1 ... MAYBE 2

 

The problem is this past year, with Reed's injury, you had Davis and Paul, two pass-catching TEs playing in 2 TE sets.

Right.  Sprinkle.  Good blocker.  He should be the TE2.  

 

I am just done with Reed, Davis and Paul.  All for different reasons.  

 

Reed: Maybe not his fault, but he can't stay healthy, and can't be counted on.  He also just can't block at all.  

Davis: He avoids contact, can't block, and really is more of a receiver than a TE at this point.  

Paul: If he's healthy, he's fine to stick around for ST duty, but honestly, they should be able to replace him with a younger, more talented version of, well, him. 

 

Cooley loves that TE from Wisconsin.  Cooley knows TEs.  Draft the guy from Wisconsin (I know, you can't target a guy a guy in the draft as part of the plan unless you have the #1 overall pick.  But, if you want him, you can probably get him.).  Let Reed/Davis go, rock with Wisconsin guy/Sprinkle as your 1/2, and find a 3rd ST guy if you need to.  I believe that also helps clear up some cap space. 

[SemperFi Skins]

15 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Right.  Sprinkle.  Good blocker.  He should be the TE2.  

 

I am just done with Reed, Davis and Paul.  All for different reasons.  

 

Reed: Maybe not his fault, but he can't stay healthy, and can't be counted on.  He also just can't block at all.  

Davis: He avoids contact, can't block, and really is more of a receiver than a TE at this point.  

Paul: If he's healthy, he's fine to stick around for ST duty, but honestly, they should be able to replace him with a younger, more talented version of, well, him. 

 

Cooley loves that TE from Wisconsin.  Cooley knows TEs.  Draft the guy from Wisconsin (I know, you can't target a guy a guy in the draft as part of the plan unless you have the #1 overall pick.  But, if you want him, you can probably get him.).  Let Reed/Davis go, rock with Wisconsin guy/Sprinkle as your 1/2, and find a 3rd ST guy if you need to.  I believe that also helps clear up some cap space. 

 

Switch Fumagilli (Wisconsin TE) with Goedert (SDSU TE) and I'm fine with it.

[Thinking Skins]

Some interesting stuff on our defense:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/06/29/two-ways-the-redskins-can-fix-their-running-game/?utm_term=.b96ebfc32e93

 

“[The Cowboys] had great movement up front; we didn’t handle their movement very good,” Gruden explained. “They were stunting and pirating and all of that stuff, we didn’t handle it very well. Robert ran it extremely hard, I mean he ran hard and his stats do him injustice for as hard as he ran, so I’m happy the way he ran the ball.”

The stunt inside by the defensive tackle messes up the Redskins’ blocking targets. Center Spencer Long is meant to work up to the second level and pick up Lee, but instead is surprised by the defensive tackle and has to pick him up instead. Left guard Shawn Lauvao is also surprised by the stunt and initially attempts to block the tackle inside, but he then realizes he has to switch responsibilities with Long because Long can no longer reach the linebacker. That flash of hesitation is enough for an athletic linebacker such as Lee to beat Lauvao to the hole and make the tackle.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/09/12/redskins-mailbag-whats-wrong-with-the-run-game-plus-josh-doctsons-lack-of-a-role/?utm_term=.458122bde110

 

I don’t have a problem with a coach opting for a different style. Aside from Trent Williams, who can shine in any scheme, the offensive linemen have all changed since the Shanahan era, so it’s not like Gruden is running a power scheme with Shanahan’s handpicked players. But the Redskins need to have better execution. As mentioned above, on multiple plays offensive linemen did indeed do their jobs, but tight ends missed blocks and Kelley or Chris Thompson were tackled behind the line for no gain even though a lane had opened. The unblocked guy off the edge got to the back before he could get to that opening. There definitely have been times where the tight ends make their blocks and then there’s something wrong up the middle.

Callahan isn’t strictly a power guy, though. There are times that they sprinkle in some stretch plays. Those plays did better on Sunday than the power plays. Why didn’t they use them more? I have no idea. But perhaps it’s something that should receive consideration, because as you said, success in the run game leads to play-action pass opportunities and more big plays.

 

[carex]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Sure you do, but you also have to draft well, have coaches that can develop players, and see progress from those players.  

 

I would argue that with a few exceptions, we haven't developed players particularly, well, and some higher round draft picks have been complete busts. (See, Jones, Matt)

 

With the DL, with Allen back, they are ok, but could use another impact starter.  My issue with your post wasn't with the DL.  I think we agree there. 

 

What have you seen out of Doctson makes you believe he'll turn out alright?  He was hurt his entire first year, and dropped as many catches as he caught his second. His catch percentage was in the bottom part of the league, and his route running is "eh" at best.  I'll give him a pass and say that this might as well be his rookie year, but even still there is NOTHING that leads me to believe that we can COUNT on him being a starter in 2018, and being any better than he is now.  I'm not suggesting trading him or cutting him, just not going into the season with him penciled in as a starter.  Which also would remove some pressure from him, which might help.  

 

Crowder is find for 40 snaps a game as a slot guy.  That's all he is, all he should be counted on to do.  Asking him to do more is going to sub-optimize everything.  As long as you're good with that, fine.  (I am, I think he's really good in that role.

 

Grant is a backup.  And shouldn't be anything more than competing for a 4 or 5.  When Gruden said, "We will do everything we can do to bring him back" my skin crawled.  Because that sounds to me like they haven't learned what Grant is.  Grant could not crack the roster of 10 of the 12 playoff teams as a 5th WR.  

 

There are 2 openings for starters.  Grant can't be a starter, and Doctson shouldn't be counted on as a starter. 

 

Reed can't stay healthy and can't run block.  He didn't even get through the off-season healthy, he started with a toe injury which came out of nowhere and never healed.  Davis is 98 years old.  And can't run block.  

 

We need to find a durable Run/Catch TE.  Maybe not as good as Reed as a receiver, but somebody who can do both.  I advocate moving on from Reed, Davis and Paul.  The other guy (I'm forgetting his name, rookie) showed real promise in run-blocking.  

 

Here you and I agree.

 

We need 2 starting WRs, 2/3 new TEs (including a starter) and a starting RB.  

 

That's a lot.  We're not a piece or two away. We were in 2016, but we let 2 pieces walk out the door (rightly or wrongly can be debated) and we didn't replace them.  The guy who we tried to replace one of them was a dud. (Pryor).  

 

Can't make the same mistake again.  If they let Kirk go, and run with Doctson, Grant, Crowder, Reed, unless CT has 2000 all purpose yards and stays healthy (which he doesn't do either), that's a bottom 5 offense.  And a 2-3 win team unless the defense improves to Jax levels.  

 

 

 

Sprinkle, is name is Jeremy Sprinkle.  How many quality team move on from a first round draft pick after two years, one lost to injury.  We can't afford to carry three starting WR and we can't afford to dump a first rounder this quickly. 

 

ANd honestly, if we're as many pieces as you say?  How can you blame them for letting Garcon and Jackson go?  At most we would have been able to afford one of them, which leave's us needing 1 WR, 2/3 TE and a RB.  A difference of one player.

[RemoveSnyder]

 

[skinny21]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Right.  Sprinkle.  Good blocker.  He should be the TE2.  

 

I am just done with Reed, Davis and Paul.  All for different reasons.  

 

Reed: Maybe not his fault, but he can't stay healthy, and can't be counted on.  He also just can't block at all.  

Davis: He avoids contact, can't block, and really is more of a receiver than a TE at this point.  

Paul: If he's healthy, he's fine to stick around for ST duty, but honestly, they should be able to replace him with a younger, more talented version of, well, him. 

 

Cooley loves that TE from Wisconsin.  Cooley knows TEs.  Draft the guy from Wisconsin (I know, you can't target a guy a guy in the draft as part of the plan unless you have the #1 overall pick.  But, if you want him, you can probably get him.).  Let Reed/Davis go, rock with Wisconsin guy/Sprinkle as your 1/2, and find a 3rd ST guy if you need to.  I believe that also helps clear up some cap space. 

I would definitely draft one of the better TEs, but there’s no way I’d then get rid of Reed and Davis this offseason.  If the rook earns the #1 spot, then find other ways to use Reed and Davis.  Reed can take off some of the pressure to find more pass catchers, for instance by treating him more as a receiver.  

 

I get that you’re done with them - the health and lack of blocking is really frustrating (even more so if that’s a big reason for our run game struggles) - but wait to see how this next year goes before making the decision.  Also, as I’ve said before, if Reed is healthier and more productive this year, we’ve got a better chance at trading him.  

 

My one one caveat is if there is a FA (or two) that the team believes will genuinely make a difference, but we need more money to sign them.  Even then, I wouldn’t cut/trade both.  

 

Regarding the TEs, the big thing for me (beyond drafting a good one) is the coaches need to recognize their limitations and plan around that.  That’s a micromanagement thing that Gruden might not appreciate as much as someone like McVay, but someone needs to figure it out and act on it.  

 

 

Edit:  I’m with Semper Fi- I’ll take Goedert over Fumagalli as of now, but there are others that can offer what we’re lacking.  None of them are as fast as Davis or sudden as Reed, but they offer more as blockers and are positive pass catchers - Goedert, Fumagalli, Schultz, and maybe guys like Ryan Izzo, Mike Gesicki, Adam Breneman and Ian Thomas.  I’d be happy to get Goedert in the 2nd, but most of those guys will be around in the 4th.  

[fordranger76]

Reed isnt going anywhere with that contract. Would be a dead cap of 5,400,000 and a cap savings of 4,743,750 if cut this year. Next year it would be 3,600,000 and a cap savings of 6,121,000. Too much dead cap moving forward. He will be a Skin for two more years at least. Better get used to him being injured and not being able to play. Vernon Davis is locked in for next year too. Dead cap of 4,166,667 and a cap savings of 1,166,666. With the looming Cousins contract I don't see either one of these fellows being anything but a Washington Redskin. 

[skinny21]

2 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Reed isnt going anywhere with that contract. Would be a dead cap of 5,400,000 and a cap savings of 4,743,750 if cut this year. Next year it would be 3,600,000 and a cap savings of 6,121,000. Too much dead cap moving forward. He will be a Skin for two more years at least. Better get used to him being injured and not being able to play. Vernon Davis is locked in for next year too. Dead cap of 4,166,667 and a cap savings of 1,166,666. With the looming Cousins contract I don't see either one of these fellows being anything but a Washington Redskin. 

I could see Reed as a June 1 cut next year... maybe.  

 

More generally... looking at our receiving weapons, one thing to factor in is defensive attention.  Doctson will draw far less attention if Reed, Thompson, Crowder and a new #1 receiver are on the field.  The drops are a major concern, but 1) he doesn’t have a history of it, 2) he often was targeted on lower percentage plays, and 3) as he gets more comfortable in the offense and is thinking less, his catching should improve as well.  Doesn’t mean we just hand him the job regardless, but I’m fine with having him compete with Grant, Harris and whoever rises to the top among the UDFA crop (have a hunch we’ll draft a receiver too), and Practice Squad/futures guys.  There are a few receivers in the draft that I think might be able to start from the get go, but I’m hopeful we land a viable starter in FA.  

[fordranger76]

20 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I could see Reed as a June 1 cut next year... maybe.  

Is it possible? Yes I think. But the 3rd year is massive. 1,800,000 dead cap and 8,500,000 cap savings. Just holding onto him for 2 years and cutting on the third swings the cap dramatically. almost 10 mil in cap savings is nothing to sneeze at.

[carex]

42 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Reed isnt going anywhere with that contract. Would be a dead cap of 5,400,000 and a cap savings of 4,743,750 if cut this year. Next year it would be 3,600,000 and a cap savings of 6,121,000. Too much dead cap moving forward. He will be a Skin for two more years at least. Better get used to him being injured and not being able to play. Vernon Davis is locked in for next year too. Dead cap of 4,166,667 and a cap savings of 1,166,666. With the looming Cousins contract I don't see either one of these fellows being anything but a Washington Redskin. 

 

I'm never quite clear what happens to contracts if someone gets traded

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Is it possible? Yes I think. But the 3rd year is massive. 1,800,000 dead cap and 8,500,000 cap savings. Just holding onto him for 2 years and cutting on the third swings the cap dramatically. almost 10 mil in cap savings is nothing to sneeze at.

If he’s never available and stalls the run game you cut him after June 1 this year and take your lumps.  

 

It’s like my HS chemistry teacher said: if you have a glass stopper stuck in a glass beaker (or whatever it’s called) you get it un stuck with a pair of pliers and a hammer.  If it breaks, so what? It was useless anyway.

Just now, carex said:

 

I'm never quite clear what happens to contracts if someone gets traded

Signing bonus escalates to current year  for the old team, new team takes over all other yearly costs.

[fordranger76]

1 minute ago, carex said:

 

I'm never quite clear what happens to contracts if someone gets traded

I found this from russellstreetreport.com 

 

For the team trading the player, a trade is pretty much treated the same as the release of a player – the team is relieved of paying all future base salaries, but still must account for the bonus money that has already been paid to the player.  Just like with the release of a player, the remaining unaccounted-for bonus pro-rations will accelerate and count against the team’s Salary Cap.

For the team acquiring the player, a trade means that the new team acquires the player’s remaining contract, but does not have any liability for any bonus money previously paid to the player.

[RemoveSnyder]

8 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

PFF has him (Norwell) listed as the 3rd best guard. 

 

That's cool, PFF likes him. I don't read PFF, not signed up for their site, don't pay them money.

It's pretty easy to like Norwell if you watch him. I would say that eyesight and a pulse are prerequisites for analysis, determining that he's good. He excels in both run blocking and pass protection. 

 

Scherff is ranked 8th.

 

That's cool, they like him too. 

 

All that equals is money.

 

Well, you're somewhat projecting there aren't you? As if an NFL organization is going to use PFF's boards and (perhaps) valuation models to make their decisions. I think it goes without saying that all NFL orgs will have their own proprietary grading system, their own board, and their own valuation system. 

 

Clearly an NFL team is going to pay Norwell because they (theoretically) have come to their own conclusion to pay him, not because PFF says so.

Your argument above says he'll be paid because PFF says so.

 

So, I'm just being an asshole here and pointing out semantics. 

 

I do not see them signing Norwell if Cousins resigns due to the upping of Scherff soon.

 

Yep, that's a classic ditty here on ES. Heard it many times. Although I generally associate it with posts from yesteryear, back from between 2007 to 2010. It was a standard response. Memory lane classic argument. 

 

 

[fordranger76]

7 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Well, you're somewhat projecting there aren't you? As if an NFL organization is going to use PFF's boards and (perhaps) valuation models to make their decisions. I think it goes without saying that all NFL orgs will have their own proprietary grading system, their own board, and their own valuation system. 

 

Clearly an NFL team is going to pay Norwell because they (theoretically) have come to their own conclusion to pay him, not because PFF says so.

Your argument above says he'll be paid because PFF says so.

 

So, I'm just being an asshole here and pointing out semantics. 

 

 

 

 

Yep, that's a classic ditty here on ES. Heard it many times. Although I generally associate it with posts from yesteryear, back from between 2007 to 2010. It was a standard response. Memory lane classic argument. 

 

 

What I am saying is if a grading site which is believe it or not gaining traction in NFL circles is high on him chances are so are other NFL teams. No you do not need to pay to check out this information I gave up. And this is in regards to him getting paid substantially. He is a good player and will be paid accordingly. Never once did I say PFF is the end all be all to everything created football nor was it implied. It does however add more eyes to the pot to garner some info on pending free agents especially at a position like guard where its not as easy to see.  Not sure what that hurts.

 

And regarding the Cousins contract, Sherff, and Norwell. No the Redskins are not going to be giving out two top 5 contracts to guards nor should they. If Cousins takes up say 27 million or so are you seriously suggesting we should give a guard in upwards of 10 million with another one right behind him?  Because that is a very likely scenario that could happen. We would have roughly 14 million left and that has'nt even touched our own free agents we might want to sign like Brown. We have no idea what the contracts may look like towards guards but they are going to grow leaps and bounds what they are now. Kevin Zeitler signed a 60 million dollar contract as a top guard just last year. Sherff and Norwell might match or top that. No way a team invests that much in two guards.

[RemoveSnyder]

9 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

More than likely that would be a two highest paid guards in the league scenario and they aren't going to do that as much as I wish they would.

 

So Bitonio re-up'ed for basically 8.5 AAV prior to the 2017 season. 

 

I already gave my "valuation" (which is basically kentucky windage) on Norwell. I said somewhere between 7.5 to 9.5. Being it's 2018 instead of 2017, accounting for inflation, I guess I can see 9.5 being more realistic than 7.5 or even 8.5. 

 

I'm sure someone here is going to reply "ZOMG, It haZ to be a minimum of 15 millionz!!!" 

 

It's always a one-ups-manship with twitter writers on what value a guy can get. Somebody starts at 7, the next guy goes to 9, then someone goes to 10, but wait, why not 12.5, reset the market. I'm not going to get caught up in that rat race. 

 

 

Uh, for Scherff, I was going to say sure to 10 AAV since he was a former 1st rounder and already has actual Pro Bowls to his name. I'm not actually arguing that those things mean he's any bit better than a guy like Norwell. In fact, in some ways Norwell is better than Scherff.

 

Still, there could be an argument for 11 AAV, I guess. 

 

Basically, I don't think Scherff has a case to reset the Guard market. There are still negatives present in his game that were there when he came out of college, at least as I see them from the tape. I'm sure his agent will think otherwise though.

 

With Norwell, (and the only reason I argue this is because I've seen over the years how the NFL operates, they use distinctions like the Pro Bowl, and also stat achievements to correlate to actual money plateaus) I think since he was an undrafted rookie FA and because he hasn't actually received any Pro Bowls, despite all the reasons why I call him a "pro bowl level" guy based upon his film, I still think he's not going to receive the "highest" contract AAV. 

 

Nonetheless, pulling back out to the macro, Oakland I think has the distinction of having the two highest paid Guards, right? Both at above 11 AAV. 

Cleveland is up there too.

 

I actually don't think it's predestined that (theoretically) Scherff's and Norwell's combined AAVs make for the "highest paid" duo. Maybe that's just me. 

It certainly wouldn't if both or either were below 11 AAV. 

[RemoveSnyder]

10 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

He is a good player and will be paid accordingly.

 

Yeah thanks, but I already knew that. 

That's my point. 

 

If you have a post on Norwell, presumably praising him, from September, or October, or November, or any goddamn time from before now, I'd love to see it. 

 

I'm about watching tape and seeing attributes and pointing out who's good. I let the egghead nerds debate why the Redskins spend more money on Bruce's suits than actual linemen who can win at the POA.

 

I love this organization and fanbase, we always set our eyes low. 

[skinny21]

@fordranger76

Right, so cutting him a year earlier means more dead cap and more cap savings (and we get that space earlier).  We could take our lumps and pay the all of the dead cap in 2019 after cutting him, or make him a June 1 cut and spread the hit over two years.  

 

So I believe cutting him in 2019 looks like this:

2019 - cap savings of 6.1, dead cap 1.8

2020 - cap savings 8.5, 1.8 dead cap

 

So, in reality it’s 14.6 cap space and 3.6 dead cap versus 10.whatever and 1.8 dead cap.  So more space and more dead cap.  

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Basically, cutting Reed this year would save us about 25 mil in cap over the next three years. June 1 just spreads it, but with how you can structure contracts and with rollovers, the difference doesn't mean much really.

[carex]

no one is even talking about Reed's health currently?  Was there any update before we put him on IR, basically just cause we need the roster space?

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, carex said:

no one is even talking about Reed currently?  Was there any update before we put him on IR, basically just cause we need the roster space?

The cap space and the idea of paying that much for a guy that is often injured and maybe a liability (certainly not a benefit) in the run game.  We tend to do that when someone is unavailable for a time (this situation has a bit more to it of course).  

 

Me, I think you solve the blocking issue separately and utilize his abilities as a major threat in the pass game.  I mean, I get the cap space issue, but we have enough trouble with our lack of receivers/weapons.  See how this year shakes out and make a decision from there.  

 

Edit:  I’ll add that I think Reed is somewhat similar to DJax - unique and dangerous receiving talents that are liabilities to an extent in the run game.  Both with availability issues, both in danger of falling off in a hurry (health/age respectively), and both just became a lot more expensive.  Not apples to apples, but worth considering when we think of ditching him, I think. 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

We aren't moving on from Reed. Frustrating that he is always injured? 100% yes. But like @Skinny21 said ... it isn't like we have a plethora of options. And we don't have a replacement in house that offers what he does when healthy. I think you hope Sprinkle comes along and solidifies the #2 blocking TE roll so that shores up the run-game a bit and maybe you look to spend a mid-round pick on a pass-catching/H-back type threat. The guy #36 from Oklahoma ... not sure where he's projected, but he could be someone we bring in via the draft who is a pass-catching TE to placate Reed eventually.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Dmitri Flowers, FB/HBack from Oklahoma is who I was thinking of. He's a projected 4th-6th round pick. 6'2 239 may be undersized, but not far off from Reed if you're looking for a long-term replacement as pass-catcher. Being a FB, presumably he can do some blocking as well.

[clskinsfan]

Re Sign:

Brown

Foster

Cousins

Murphy (reasonable contract)

Galette (Reasonable contract)

Phil Taylor (Reasonable contract)

 

Let walk/Cut/Trade:

Breeland

Lauvao

Compton

Reed

 

Sign:

Jarvis Landry

Carlos Hyde or draft a RB round one.

Darius Butler (cheap and can still play)

Don Barkley (T/G can play at any position on the line)

Matt Prater. We need to fix the kicking position for good!

 

Add 7 or 8 good young guys from the draft/udfa and you have yourself a functional team. Of course this whole scenario gets blown up if Kirk leaves. Then you are drafting a guy and signing a stop gap for a couple of seasons IMO.