The Official ES 2021 Free Agency Thread / Tracker Fitzpatrick, Curtis Samuel, William Jackson, LB Mayo, C Larsen WR Humphries, CB D. Roberts, KR D. Carter , LT Charles Leno, S Bobby McCain signed

[Darth Tater]

7 hours ago, Burgold said:

It's hard to know because the rooks so often never got a chance to prove themselves. I remember one time when we had a spate of running back injuries. We kept signing street free agents who immediately jumped onto the field. At the time, I was pretty impressed that we were able to get these guys up to speed and that they were productive so quickly. I seem to remember us doing that with safety or corner, too at times.

 

Looking back though, we had young back ups who remained young back ups and never saw the field. The coaches preferred to play these known quantities even if they've only been on the team for a week instead of the pups who'd been here for the offseason, preseason, etc. 

 

In that specific case, it could be that the coaches thought their backups and draftees were bums, but on the other hand, they never really gave them a shot to prove they weren't bums.

 

Off the top of my head I can't think of too many examples where a player buried on the bench for a long, long time finally got their chance and produced. I'm sure such examples exist, but for so long... the mantra was "Someone got hurt! Who are we going to sign!"

 But the only person they did not prove themselves to was you. After the game, the guys don't go into a glass case until the next game, they have several days each week, plus had all of camp in many cases, to prove themselves.

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

 But the only person they did not prove themselves to was you. After the game, the guys don't go into a glass case until the next game, they have several days each week, plus had all of camp in many cases, to prove themselves.

Only true if you think the coaches ran a merit-based system and/or worked at developing players. 
 

Personally, I don’t think players earned field time on the basis of merit. Gruden, for example, definitely played favorites and was perfectly content to doghouse superior players. Adrian Peterson being the most egregious example. 
 

Did anyone think making Peterson inactive and starting Guice was merit-based?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Only true if you think the coaches ran a merit-based system and/or worked at developing players. 
 

Personally, I don’t think players earned field time on the basis of merit. Gruden, for example, definitely played favorites and was perfectly content to doghouse superior players. Adrian Peterson being the most egregious example. 
 

Did anyone think making Peterson inactive and starting Guice was merit-based?

I don't think that's the best example.

 

We all knew Guice was going to be "the guy" at some point.

 

The only gripe imo, is Peterson not being active.

 

 

[Burgold]

13 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

I don't think that's the best example.

 

We all knew Guice was going to be "the guy" at some point.

 

The only gripe imo, is Peterson not being active.

 

 

It was just the first that came to mind. It’s hard to say player x would have emerged without the  favoritism. Maybe Cam Simms would be an example. Certainly, some players like Ryan Grant got a really long leash while others got none. 

[KillBill26]

3 hours ago, Die Hard said:

I hope this team doesn’t overpay him like my Yankees continue to do with Brett Gardner. Kerrigan has been overpaid for a couple of years now. So if he’s welcomed back, he does so humbly and takes minimal salary to be back in a familiar environment and a competitive team. Otherwise, no thanks.

Great comparison.  As a fellow yankee fan, I hear ya, I don't understand why they keep bringing him back tbh. 

 

I think the only way RK comes back is on a team friendly deal.  He probably doesn't have a hot market to begin with, but I bet he could get a much better deal elsewhere.  He'd be returning due to the fact he wants to see this rebuild thru (my speculation).

43 minutes ago, wit33 said:

There were reports he was unhappy last season with his playing time and it seemed to put pressure on the staff to play him more. As a laymen fan i found myself bummed when he was on the field knowing Chase or Sweat were not. Just doesn’t fit the speed movement taking place, but there will always be exceptions and he still has a solid bull rush. 

I hadn't heard that, but if that's the case, then I'd only want him returning on a team friendly deal and him fully realizing we have two solid d ends in their prime who will not be pulled just to make RK happy.  If he is cool with that, let's bring him back.  

[-9-]

8 hours ago, Burgold said:

... we had young back ups who remained young back ups and never saw the field. The coaches preferred to play these known quantities even if they've only been on the team for a week instead of the pups who'd been here for the offseason, preseason, etc. 

 

6 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

... part of the reason young guys didn't get a chance to develop could be rooted in self preservation and self interest by gruden and Allen for years.

 

2 hours ago, Jericho said:

If young players were not playing, there is a good reason. They were not good.

 

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

This is how I see it as well. And the few young players we did play weren't great. Who remembers Ryan "I fall down every other snap" Grant?

 

You’re all correct.

 

The common denominator was the combination of incompetent drafting by the previous front offices ... and poor player development by the various coaching staffs ... which led to constant patchwork roster management.

 

Teams with sustained success ... ****sbugh, Baltimore, N.E., Andy Reid’s teams ... do all 3 very well.

 

We are (hopefully) starting to see this model of solid drafting/player development/roster management with Rivera’s Football Team.

Edited May 9, 2021 by 09

[Jericho]

55 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Only true if you think the coaches ran a merit-based system and/or worked at developing players. 
 

Personally, I don’t think players earned field time on the basis of merit. Gruden, for example, definitely played favorites and was perfectly content to doghouse superior players. Adrian Peterson being the most egregious example. 
 

Did anyone think making Peterson inactive and starting Guice was merit-based?

 

I think all coaches play favorites to a certain extent. They all have favorites they like more than the fans.

 

As for Guice, it's hard to tell as Guice rarely saw the field between injuries. But the few times he played, he did look good. I can buy Guice was better than a late career Peterson. Or at least close enough that you want to see what you have. That seems reasonably merit based.

[carex]

6 hours ago, Burgold said:

Only true if you think the coaches ran a merit-based system and/or worked at developing players. 
 

Personally, I don’t think players earned field time on the basis of merit. Gruden, for example, definitely played favorites and was perfectly content to doghouse superior players. Adrian Peterson being the most egregious example. 
 

Did anyone think making Peterson inactive and starting Guice was merit-based?

 

considering Guice was younger and we hoped he was the future I think I understand the logic.

 

We dressed three RBs.  The starter, the third down back and the backup.  The backup had to be able to do a little of both the starter and the third down back

[Burgold]

10 hours ago, carex said:

 

considering Guice was younger and we hoped he was the future I think I understand the logic.

 

We dressed three RBs.  The starter, the third down back and the backup.  The backup had to be able to do a little of both the starter and the third down back

It's always tough to litigate the past, but this is an example where in real time we saw how the players reacted. Jay Gruden lost his team because everyone knew it was a bad, unfair, and the wrong move based on merit. It was a spiteful, stupid decision because Gruden wanted to cut Peterson and was forced to keep him on the roster.

 

History also shows that Gruden was wrong. When after Guice's injury he was forced to activate Peterson, Jay still tried to doghouse Peterson and keep him on the bench even though in his few carries Peterson was the only effective back. It makes you wonder, at least it makes me wonder, how many backups would have outplayed their starters and never got a chance.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Burgold

[Koolblue13]

It's almost 8am monday and McCain still isn't signed? This FO sucks.

[Jericho]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

History also shows that Gruden was wrong. When after Guice's injury he was forced to activate Peterson, Jay still tried to doghouse Peterson and keep him on the bench even though in his few carries Peterson was the only effective back. It makes you wonder, at least it makes me wonder, how many backups would have outplayed their starters and never got a chance.

 

This seems like revisionist history. After Guice went down, Peterson was the clear lead back. Gruden would only coach four more games, but Peterson had the most carries in all of them. And it really wasn't that close. The team sucked and was often way behind (this passing a lot and using a passing back), but when the team did run, it was with Peterson.

[Burgold]

57 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

This seems like revisionist history. After Guice went down, Peterson was the clear lead back. Gruden would only coach four more games, but Peterson had the most carries in all of them. And it really wasn't that close. The team sucked and was often way behind (this passing a lot and using a passing back), but when the team did run, it was with Peterson.

No, it really isn’t. Peterson was made active, but Gruden almost never called a running play when he was on the field. He ran with Thompson far more than it was sane. 

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[RWJ]

13 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

This is huge!   Doing this allows for depth more than anything.  Cosmi is versatile and can play both T positions and learn OG too if he didn't already play it in CFB.    Hopefully, we get a deal done with him and McCain.  I expect a McCain deal as he was C of the Miami D and has ties with Stokes and provides depth on D if we are switching to more of a 4-2-5 D or more so are going to be using it more than last year. 

[Est.1974]

Could be an interesting couple of days. If we are seriously interested in Leno, McCain, plus in dialogue with Kerrigan still, could well see some subsequent roster/cap moves. 

[Jericho]

33 minutes ago, Burgold said:

No, it really isn’t. Peterson was made active, but Gruden almost never called a running play when he was on the field. He ran with Thompson far more than it was sane. 

 

The game logs don't really back this up. Gruden only coached 4 games after "benching" Peterson:

 

(1) Dallas - Peterson had 10 carries. All running backs (including Peterson) had 13. So Peterson got 77 % of the carries. He was the clear lead back.

(2) Chicago - Peterson had 12 carries. Thompson did get 7 carries in this one (the only other RB to get a carry). But only 1 was in the first half and the team was down 28-3 at half time. Thompson got 2 carries in the 3rd quarter and 4 in the 4th quarter. So this was mainly game script. Once the team went WAY down, it got a bit pass happy and went to passing personnel. Peterson had 4 third quarter carries (still more than Thompson), but only 1 in the 4th quarter. Peterson still had more carries and dominated the carries 11-3 through three quarters

(3) New York - Peterson had 11 carries, Thompson had 4 (no other RBs had carries). That's 73 % of the carries. Peterson was the clear lead back.

(4) Peterson had 7 carries, Wendell Smallwood had 6, and Thompson had 4. So the most diverse allotment of carries. Smallwood's carries are misleading though. He literally carried the last 4 plays of the game in complete garbage time. He also had 1 more carry the prior series in garbage time. In both cases, the team was down 33-7 and just running out the clock. Thompson had 1 first half carry (the game was 12-7 at half). He did pick up three more in the second half (2 after Washington went down 26-7 and one after going down 33-7). Again this seems to be a game script issue as Peterson did not touch the ball after Washington fell behind 26-7 and it went into a more passing oriented offense.

 

No running back touches the ball every play. Even top RBs. Derrick Henry only had 81% of the RB carries for Tennessee last year and he carried the ball all the time. One could argue Gruden got too pass happy (a common criticism), but that's about his playing calling. Not specifically about Peterson, particularly since people complained about that even before Peterson was on the team. But in the games he did coach, Peterson was the clear lead back and did dominate carries unless the team got way down, in which case Thompson would get a fair amount of snaps. Which is not unusual for any team to move into their "third down" type personnel.

 

I just don't see any evidence that Peterson was passed over as you claim.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

14 minutes ago, Jericho said:

I just don't see any evidence that Peterson was passed over as you claim.

A lot of this is just Gruden rage.  I love watching Peterson run people over like most football fans, but he limits your offense as a bell cow back.  The game has predominantly moved on from the pound it up the middle style, where now offenses want versatile backs that can catch and move around.  The Titans offense with Derrick Henry is about the only one left that subscribes to the pound it, pound it, pound it theory.  We saw what happened when Callahan took over and ran it all the time, the team still lost - just lost differently.  Among the more embarrassing takes in recent history, was I forget who it was, that made weekly threads about Callahan was instilling this hard nosed, disciplined edge to the team that was paying dividends, some even saying they wouldn't mind him taking over full time as head coach.  🤣

Edited May 10, 2021 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[mudhog]

OK, it's past noon and I need an update on our new FS and LT. I need a fix! (scratches arms) lol.

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Jericho said:

 

 

I just don't see any evidence that Peterson was passed over as you claim.

 

 

See, I see those stats and it confirms what I remember. Gruden wasn't giving Peterson touches. Ten carries in a game? Eleven? Seven? That's seriously underutilized. Thompson gets seven rushes in a game where Peterson only gets twelve? Smallwood and Thompson get eleven carries while Peterson only gets seven? That doesn't really suggest Peterson was well-used.

 

It's really not that important a point, but I don't think you can look at that season and make an argument that Peterson was being treated as the featured back. 

[terpfan]

9 minutes ago, mudhog said:

OK, it's past noon and I need an update on our new FS and LT. I need a fix! (scratches arms) lol.

I’ve been refreshing Twitter... nothing yet. Would be nice to even get confirmation that either of them are in the building. 

[Jericho]

Just now, Burgold said:

See, I see those stats and it confirms what I remember. Gruden wasn't giving Peterson touches. Ten carries in a game? Eleven? Seven? That's seriously underutilized. Thompson gets seven rushes in a game where Peterson only gets twelve? Smallwood and Thompson get eleven carries while Peterson only gets seven? That doesn't really suggest Peterson was well-used.

 

It's really not that important a point, but I don't think you can look at that season and make an argument that Peterson was being treated as the featured back. 

 

You seem to be arguing different points. One is that Washington is not running enough. The other is that Peterson is being benched for inferior backs. As for whether Washington ran enough, that could be debated. But that is not what you asserted. You asserted point two, which is that Peterson was being overlooked and benched for other RBs. And the games don't bare that out. When the games were close and competitive, Peterson dominated the carries. He didn't get literally every carry, no one does. But in the first half of games, Peterson was getting 85% of the carries. The problem was the team would often get blown out, in which case you might see them go pass happy and switch to Thompson. It's not that Thompson ran a lot either, but he would get some carries. Of you have a game where Smallwood got 6 carries, because 5 of them were in extreme garbage time. are we really complaining Peterson was not getting enough garbage time carries?

 

In 2019, Peterson did get 211 carries total, which was 19th in the entire NFL. And he was inactive for a game and really was supposed to just be the back-up for Guice. That's a healthy amount of carries

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

You seem to be arguing different points. One is that Washington is not running enough. The other is that Peterson is being benched for inferior backs.

To me, they're the same point. I'm not trying to be difficult or obtuse. It's just part and parcel of the same issue.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Burgold

[KDawg]

Just now, Burgold said:

To me, their the same point. I'm not trying to be difficult or obtuse. It's just part and parcel of the same issue.

I think there was more to the AP issue than football. Though, the team wanted Guice to be the primary ball carrier without AP standing over his shoulder does make some sense.

 

I think there was... well, people upstairs that didn’t like that AP and 71 were close and wanted to manage that situation by minimizing AP’s contributions on-field.

[terpfan]

Could indicate an addition on the way??

 

 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

1 minute ago, terpfan said:

Could indicate an addition on the way??

 

 

 

Maybe. But I think the 1-2 are pretty set in stone on the depth chart (Thomas, Bates). There's really a battle for the 3rd TE and I think a lot thin it could be Reyes. But if it isn't, it could be any of the other guys on the roster right now.