The Official ES (or E...C) 2022 Free Agency Thread Signed G Andrew Norwell, Obada, Trai Turner...Goodbye Scherff, Kyle Allen, Tim Settle

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

When we are in base 4-3-4 I hope the linebackers look like:

 

WLB-Davis | MLB-Holcomb | SLB-Toney

I really doubt that's going to happen.  They did re-sign Mayo, and I think it's more likely they stick Mayo in the middle and pair him with Davis and Holcomb in 4-3 base in the 10% they run it.

 

But who knows.  

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

But overall, he went from my #1 daily listen to about #8.  I get that he's a legend in the market, but his dishonesty has really taken away from his entertainment value.  At least in my opinion.

 

So, I listen to Galdi, Bram (certain segments), Keim, Standig, JP's podcast (not the radio show) and that seems to be good enough for my Commanders coverage. And fill in with Sheehan every now and then.  It's unfortunate.  He's very talented.  And has been entertaining. Shrug.

 

I still listen to him #1.  And I share with him his distaste for Snyder and how he's ruined this franchise.  So I feel his angst on that front.

 

But he seems to have a hard time comparmentalizing that hate.  The Wentz stuff is off putting to me because he typically fits exactly the type of QB he likes -- high upside.  And considering he's been off lately with his takes on QBs aside from Stafford you'd think he'd have some humility as for his takes on that spot. 

 

And he's as biased with skewering information to serve his opinion as are the people he claims are deluding themselves by doing the same thing according to him.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I still listen to him #1.  And I share with him his distaste for Snyder and how he's ruined this franchise.  So I feel his angst on that front.

 

But he seems to have a hard time comparmentalizing that hate.  The Wentz stuff is off putting to me because he typically fits exactly the type of QB he likes -- high upside.  And considering he's been off lately with his takes on QBs aside from Stafford you'd think he'd have some humility as for his takes on that spot. 

The blatant lies about the radio rights were the final straw for me.  

 

To each their own, obviously.  I also feel him on how Snyder has ruined the franchise.  But if that's literally the only thing that you can talk about, then it gets monotonous to me.  

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

To each their own, obviously.  I also feel him on how Snyder has ruined the franchise.  But if that's literally the only thing that you can talk about, then it gets monotonous to me.  

 

Monotonous is a good way to put it.  There were some other media members who didn't like the Wentz deal, but no one bashes it nonstop like Sheehan.  Maybe your boy, Chris Russell would be the runner up but even he's not as bad on this. 😀  The only nice thing Sheehan says about Wentz is that he's better than Heinicke. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[skinsfan93]

22 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I really doubt that's going to happen.  They did re-sign Mayo, and I think it's more likely they stick Mayo in the middle and pair him with Davis and Holcomb in 4-3 base in the 10% they run it.

 

But who knows.  

Agreed. Toney is a hands in the dirt DE. No way he can play linebacker. 
 

And if Mayo gets any significant playing time, that would suck. We really do need to sign a linebacker but don’t think it will happen till the beginning of camp when teams start to make some cuts. 

[Hooper]

41 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The way the franchise agreement works, and the revenue sharing, the commanders receive plenty of cash through the league to do anything they want to do.  The teams do not rely on the personal wealth of the owners in order to make payments.  All of the money comes in from the league.  

 

If the team needed to write a $75M check tomorrow to Terry, they could do it, and not even lose a step.  The money is there because it's guaranteed to be there through revenue sharing.

 

Also, Dan's money vs. the Team's revenue are not exactly the same. They are related, as he's the owner of the franchise.  But "Dan" doesn't pay players.  The franchise does.  

 

The Franchise pulls in money from Revenue sharing, and also from other things like merchandise and sponsorships. 

 

Now CLEARLY, the non-revenue sharing component of the revenue is down.  There's no question about that.

 

But the buying out of Dan's partners falls on the "personal wealth" side of the balance sheet and not the team side.

 

I get that it's interrelated.

 

But I don't think Dan has liquidity issues when it comes to paying for players.  Or paying for anything.  Now, could he be cheap and not want to spend money on certain things?  Sure.  But that's a different topic.  

You could very well understand this better than me.

 

I do know the owners HATED the massive fully guaranteed contract the Browns gave Watson. The Ravens owner made it pretty he doesn't want to have to put 150 million plus cash in an escrow account in order to pay market value -- the fully guaranteed part -- for Lamar Jackson. Cash in escrow earns you nothing. That's a lot of money to have sitting around doing nothing.

 

Be will an interesting thing to follow with the Commanders and Snyder. I think our draft was very telling.

 

 

[Forever A Redskin]

20 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

Agreed. Toney is a hands in the dirt DE. No way he can play linebacker. 
 

And if Mayo gets any significant playing time, that would suck. We really do need to sign a linebacker but don’t think it will happen till the beginning of camp when teams start to make some cuts. 

 

I disagree. He played as a LB in the senior bowl and Del Rio said he would get play at LB after the draft in his interview with Julie last year. He covered TEs like glue and he could be very effective as a Bruce Irvin Edge/Sam hybrid. He profiles better there than where his is currently... Which is undersized for a DE.

[Voice_of_Reason]

25 minutes ago, Hooper said:

You could very well understand this better than me.

 

I do know the owners HATED the massive fully guaranteed contract the Browns gave Watson. The Ravens owner made it pretty he doesn't want to have to put 150 million plus cash in an escrow account in order to pay market value -- the fully guaranteed part -- for Lamar Jackson. Cash in escrow earns you nothing. That's a lot of money to have sitting around doing nothing.

 

Be will an interesting thing to follow with the Commanders and Snyder. I think our draft was very telling.

Yeah, the thing is, what the cap forces you to do is ONLY spend a certain amount of money.  You CAN'T spend more than the cap.  Now, cap math is weird, in that you can account for things in out-years that you pay this year.  You can pro-rate a signing bonus over the course of a contract to spread out the cap hit, even though you pay all the money this year. 

 

BUT, if you do that, it almost by necessity means you CAN'T pay that money in the out year, because you've already spent it.

 

So, let's say the Cap is $200M for 2022 and 2023 (let's assume it just sits there for explanation purposes) That basically means the team is "given" $200M by the NFL to cover the cost of the cap.  (This is very simplistic, it's much more complicated, but let's just go with it.)

 

Now, let's say you choose to front-load a contract this year, for Terry, and pay him $50M cash RIGHT NOW, but you're going to spread that amount of money over the next several years, $10M per year for the next 5 years. 

 

Well, sure the cash is going out the door now, but next year, your available amount of money to spend is lower by the amount you pushed from this year to next year, so the total you can spend is now $190M.  Because you've spent the $10M.  So, when the NFL sends you the check, it covers part of what you already paid.  

 

No team is running "year to year" on cash.  They all have plenty of reserves.  And they know that in the long-term, they can't over-spend the cap, they can just move money around in the cap.

 

I agree with other owners hating the Watson deal, because they want the flexibility of cutting the player, and moving on.  The thing is, no matter what, the amount you paid the player WILL hit the cap, and you can't "double spend" it.

 

But unlike in Baseball, the wealth or liquidity of the owners is kindof irrelevant.

 

Now what the owners CAN do is essentially choose to be cheap, and spend to the floor instead of the ceiling, and then somehow transfer the remaining money from the franchise to themselves.  The Bengals ownership was long accused of being cheap and doing that, the Cardinals also.  Amazingly, that's one thing Dan has never been accused of.  (Doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Just mean that hasn't been reported.)

54 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Monotonous is a good way to put it.  There were some other media members who didn't like the Wentz deal, but no one bashes it nonstop like Sheehan.  Maybe your boy, Chris Russell would be the runner up but even he's not as bad on this. 😀  The only nice thing Sheehan says about Wentz is that he's better than Heinicke. 

See, and I solve the Russell problem by not listening to the no-nothing gas bag with a funny speech pattern. 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

43 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

Agreed. Toney is a hands in the dirt DE. No way he can play linebacker. 
 

And if Mayo gets any significant playing time, that would suck. We really do need to sign a linebacker but don’t think it will happen till the beginning of camp when teams start to make some cuts. 

Eh, I really don't think they think LB is a big deal because I think they really see the "big nickel" as their base, with 3 safeties on the field.  

 

They just haven't been even remotely interested in doing anything about it, so who knows...

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Playing meaningful games in December is such a low bar.

 

[CommDownMan]

Bradbury makes sense if the coaching staff thinks Fuller dedicated in the slot makes sense.  I don't know the reasons for the struggles last year, but everyone struggled initially on defense last year.  

 

There are several good reasons to not sign Bradbury.  I do see value if Fuller can revert back to his historic slot abilities.  I just don't know the reasons for regression and if they are fixable.  Maybe an entire offseason knowing he will play inside, that focus can make the change.  Having pre-trade level Fuller in slot, with Bradbury and WJIII on outside make a lot of sense to me (depending on the $$ involved). 

[FootballZombie]

45 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Playing meaningful games in December is such a low bar.

 

We gotta be better than that. If we cap out there, there are gonna be bills to pay.

[skinsfan93]

2 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I disagree. He played as a LB in the senior bowl and Del Rio said he would get play at LB after the draft in his interview with Julie last year. He covered TEs like glue and he could be very effective as a Bruce Irvin Edge/Sam hybrid. He profiles better there than where his is currently... Which is undersized for a DE.

I hope you’re right as he has the body type and speed to play linebacker. He didn’t play there much last year granted it was his rookie year. He mainly played end at Penn State don’t recall him ever going out in coverage but hopefully he can and it would really help our linebacker position. 
 

Of his top 35 plays only once did he drop back in coverage, never lined up at linebacker. Not saying it can’t be done but a difficult transition to move from end to outside backer. 
 

https://youtu.be/Xjwk78oIv88

Edited May 10, 2022 by skinsfan93

[Est.1974]

2 hours ago, Hooper said:

You could very well understand this better than me.

 

I do know the owners HATED the massive fully guaranteed contract the Browns gave Watson. The Ravens owner made it pretty he doesn't want to have to put 150 million plus cash in an escrow account in order to pay market value -- the fully guaranteed part -- for Lamar Jackson. Cash in escrow earns you nothing. That's a lot of money to have sitting around doing nothing.

 

Be will an interesting thing to follow with the Commanders and Snyder. I think our draft was very telling.

 

 

Got to agree. Mclaurin, Payne, Wentz, I’d add Kam Curl may well end up earning himself a very big deal some time soon.

 

We draft WR, interior DL, S, QB

29 minutes ago, CommDownMan said:

Bradbury makes sense if the coaching staff thinks Fuller dedicated in the slot makes sense.  I don't know the reasons for the struggles last year, but everyone struggled initially on defense last year.  

 

There are several good reasons to not sign Bradbury.  I do see value if Fuller can revert back to his historic slot abilities.  I just don't know the reasons for regression and if they are fixable.  Maybe an entire offseason knowing he will play inside, that focus can make the change.  Having pre-trade level Fuller in slot, with Bradbury and WJIII on outside make a lot of sense to me (depending on the $$ involved). 

Bradberry makes sense if he’s better than WJ3 and/or Fuller. You move one of those on in 2023.

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Eh, I really don't think they think LB is a big deal because I think they really see the "big nickel" as their base, with 3 safeties on the field.  

 

They just haven't been even remotely interested in doing anything about it, so who knows...

Sounded to me like they were hot on Harris from Alabama but he went before our 3rd round pick.

[Forever A Redskin]

23 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

I hope you’re right as he has the body type and speed to play linebacker. He didn’t play there much last year granted it was his rookie year. He mainly played end at Penn State don’t recall him ever going out in coverage but hopefully he can and it would really help our linebacker position. 
 

Of his top 35 plays only once did he drop back in coverage, never lined up at linebacker. Not saying it can’t be done but a difficult transition to move from end to outside backer. 
 

https://youtu.be/Xjwk78oIv88

 

 

When you put his measureables in at Linebacker he grades in the top 0.08 percent in history of the position. We would be foolish to not try him out at SAM

 

That's him covering John Bates like glue at the senior bowl.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Forever A Redskin

[skinsfan93]

Like I said I hope he can play backer because we need the depth. I just seen too many examples of guys who moved from a 4-3 to 3-4 and couldn’t make the transition. Andre Carter, Kerrigan were athletic guys but looked lost out in coverage even after an entire offseason practicing the position. 

[MartinC]

3 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

When we are in base 4-3-4 I hope the linebackers look like:

 

 

It's worth noting that we had 3 linebackers on the field for just over 60 snaps total the whole of last season.

[CommDownMan]

18 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Bradberry makes sense if he’s better than WJ3 and/or Fuller. You move one of those on in 2023.

 

I think 2022 you ride all 3 if Fuller if belief he can thrive again in the slot, I don't sign Bradbury if that isn't a belief.  I agree 2023 it'd be likely that one of Fuller/WJIII is gone.  

[duffy]

I don't think there's any chance of getting Bradberry. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Playing meaningful games in December is such a low bar.

 

I mean, sure, but it's step 1.  

 

Every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  Or some such motivational bull****.  

 

Let's get step 1, then we can take step 2, then global conquest.  

[Burgold]

10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

It's worth noting that we had 3 linebackers on the field for just over 60 snaps total the whole of last season.

I sometimes wonder though if that's a chicken and the egg thing. Did we so rarely have three linebackers on the field because we didn't have three linebackers we wanted on the field or because scheme and the modern NFL makes having three linebackers on the field problematic? 

[Voice_of_Reason]

13 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

It's worth noting that we had 3 linebackers on the field for just over 60 snaps total the whole of last season.

I read that at first and thought it said 60%.  

 

And I said, "no, that's not right."

 

Then I read it again.  And again, and again.

 

Then I was like, "Oh, TOTAL SNAPS!!!! Yeah, that's right."  

 

This post brought to you by the poster with dyslexia and low reading comprehension scores on the SATs.  (Though pretty high reasoning ability.)

3 minutes ago, duffy said:

I don't think there's any chance of getting Bradberry. 

I don't think they really are going to go after him, so I'm not sure there will be a chance of getting him.  

 

Though, I'm sure Ron or one of the other coaches who coached him in Carolina has his cell number, and will hit him up and say, "WHAAAAZZZZZUUUUUPPPPPP?  What you doing?  Thoughts?"

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I sometimes wonder though if that's a chicken and the egg thing. Did we so rarely have three linebackers on the field because we didn't have three linebackers we wanted on the field or because scheme and the modern NFL makes having three linebackers on the field problematic? 

 

I think in our case it's a bit of both.

 

You are in nickel about 65% of snaps league wide. Then you add in short yardage and goal to go snaps and maybe some dime snaps in prevent every now and then etc - so 'base' is maybe 15% of snaps tops anyway. 

 

Then for us in those base snaps we were so weak at backer that we moved to the 3 safety look more and more with one safety being a hybrid S/LB.

 

But even best case the value of your third backer is limited by teams being in so much 11 personnel and the need for D's to match that with nickel.   

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I think in our case it's a bit of both.

 

You are in nickel about 65% of snaps league wide. Then you add in short yardage and goal to go snaps and maybe some dime snaps in prevent every now and then etc - so 'base' is maybe 15% of snaps tops anyway. 

 

Then for us in those base snaps we were so weak at backer that we moved to the 3 safety look more and more with one safety being a hybrid S/LB.

 

But even best case the value of your third backer is limited by teams being in so much 11 personnel and the need for D's to match that with nickel.   

 

Yeah, I would also add that "wrong way Bostic" who was the MLB and a starter (and a captain) got hurt eary-ish in the season.  

 

They essentially replaced him with Collins in the box and transformed their base defense to the "big nickel" with 3 safeties.   We know they liked that grouping previously, but they really went to it almost exclusively if memory serves once Bostic was hurt.  Until the last game when I think Collins was also out, then they had Mayo in there at MLB some with Holcomb and Davis.

 

I think you're right, it's some of both.

 

But I do think they really like the base being more big nickel, assuming they have an "in the box safety" who can cover and play the run.

 

They also like to mix that with a 5 down lineman formation, so they're playing a 5-1-5, with 2 CB and 3 safeties.  They trade off the extra LB for a DL, but they still have 5 DBs.

 

I'll give them this, they really have been somewhat creative in their personnel groupings.   That was never the problem.

 

The problem is they put the wrong players into the creativity at times, and in the wrong spots.  It took a while to figure it all out.  

 

I do think they want their base this year to be "big nickel" for the most part, and really only go to standard "base" when the offense is in 12 personnel.  Anytime the offense is in 11 personnel, they want either big nickel or nickel, depending on the down/distance.  

 

I could even see them lining up in big nickel against some 12 personnel, because you have an extra safety to handle the TE.