Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official 2023 ES Free Agency Thread... available until Free Agency 2024 begins


Riggo-toni

Recommended Posts

That 2nd overall pick is going to require a hefty amount, like $40 mil over 4 years.  That's around what CJ Stroud got last year.

 

So that'll have to be taken off the cap space.

 

 

 

 

Edited by HigSkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the first FA we agree to terms with is Jayron Kearse. 3 years 20mil.

 

Whitt Jr has repeatedly brought his name up in interview in terms of how he utilised him for DAL.

 

I really like Kyle Dugger - Could he do that role, he’s probably a better longer term acquisition. I’d say yes he could.
 

But Kearse knows the coaches so well, and scheme. Yes I know we are adapting what we run, but he  has a massive inside track that would likely help the whole D group.

 

is both overkill, can we use both ?

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

The thing is, cap space does roll over year-to-year... so you're still maintaining a competitive advantage long-term by not going on some crazy spending spree when your team's still not truly competitive enough to compete for a championship.  When you're legitimately a SB contender, that's when you should go all out.

Agee totally, no need to overpay this year. If you hit the lottery you still need to have control if you want it to last. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Est.1974 said:

Is he reading my posts. Yep that’s the effective cap number. Stop listening to @JamesMadisonSkins telling us all we have a billion dollars to spend each year :ols:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

……….joking obviously JMS…..:cheers:

 


I trust Keim. But there’s a disconnect here. Until cut down day the available cap space applies to the Top 51. We have 49 under contract. But again 17-20 of those guys won’t make the roster. So what I’m driving at is I’m looking at the cap in regards to the Final 53. When you lop off the 17-20 guys who won’t make the roster, I’m saying you’ve got $108m to fill out the final 53, which will amount to 20-23 players acquired in FA + the draft. 
 

Keim is looking at it from how they’ll fill out a 90 spot roster for camp. But in the end the cap applies to the final 53. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HigSkin said:

That 2nd overall pick is going to require a hefty amount, like $40 mil over 4 years.  That's around what CJ Stroud got last year.

 

So that'll have to be taken off the cap space.

 

 

 

 

Rookie pool is around $10M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:


I trust Keim. But there’s a disconnect here. Until cut down day the available cap space applies to the Top 51. We have 49 under contract. But again 17-20 of those guys won’t make the roster. So what I’m driving at is I’m looking at the cap in regards to the Final 53. When you lop off the 17-20 guys who won’t make the roster, I’m saying you’ve got $108m to fill out the final 53, which will amount to 20-23 players acquired in FA + the draft. 
 

Keim is looking at it from how they’ll fill out a 90 spot roster for camp. But in the end the cap applies to the final 53. 

There’s not a disconnect here. It’s all a wash.
 

The bottom 30-40% of and roster equate to a fairly standard amount in terms of cap space.

 

Out effective cap space, as noted on OTC, is broadly in by 75m range. That’s what we’ve got for excess/non-mimimum spending gover and above what is required as a minimum roster required from this stage.

 

We’d have 260m in space if we had nobody under contract. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Michael Pittman.

 

Oh and Mike Evans.

 

Taking a QB we CANNOT **** around and keep throwing all our top picks at the defense. Support the man. Lets not bother with the "a great defense is a great offense"

 

I am happy with any of the top FA TEs but not Hunter. 

Edited by RandyHolt
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

I want Michael Pittman.

 

Oh and Mike Evans.

 

Taking a QB we CANNOT **** around and keep throwing all our top picks at the defense. Support the man. Lets not bother with the "a great defense is a great offense"

 

I am happy with any of the top FA TEs but not Hunter. 

Evans isn't gonna come here. He's gonna go somewhere he can win with an established QB.

 

Pittman would be a good pick up but I feel like some team that is desperate for a WR will overpay for him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick exercise. Let’s remove Logan Thomas. And the bottom tier of players under contract that likely won’t be on the final 53. 
 

Let’s be conservative and say there are 32 players currently under contract that make the 53. I could argue 28-30 but let’s go with 32. 
 

That leaves you with $108m in cap space to fill the remaining 21 roster spots. Our total (not effective) cap allocation for our 9 draft picks is $17.3m. So let’s assume all 9 make the final 53. 
 

We now have 41 of the 53 roster spots accounted for (32+9). We are now down to $91m ($108-17) in cap space with 12 more roster spots to fill. 

Let’s add 2 UDFA (let’s round up to $1m each to be conservative). Now you’ve got $89m to spend on 10 roster spots. 
 

You’ve now got $89m in cap space to spend on these 10 roster spots. We won’t spend it all. We’ll take a minimum of $10m into the season like we usually do, but likely more since it’ll be tough to spend all that $$ in one cycle. 
 

Some of those 10 will be cheaper 1-2 year deals averaging $2-4m. Let’s say we have 4 of these. Now you’re down to $77m in cap space with 6 spots to fill ($3m average over 4 guys = $12m). These could be your “premier” additions, guys making big dollar contracts. Even if we reserve $20m to take into the season and to roll over what we don’t spend in-season … you’ve got $57m to spend on 6 impact players. That’s $9.5m per player and we know year 1 impacts tend to be lower numbers with contracts that are more back-loaded. 
 

This is my point. Tons of $$. We can basically sign whoever we want to. We know this though. Hopefully we are smart in how we make those allocations. 
 

hopefully this made sense haha 

2 hours ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

 

Well blah, there goes the idea of having a good WR group ready and set for the #2 pick. For some reason I thought Higgins would hit FA.


Bengals have like $71m in cap space. I didn’t think they’d actually let Higgins walk with that much $$. 
 

In reality a good chunk of the guys we see as FAs right now won’t hit the market either thru tags or extensions. 

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

I didn’t think they’d actually let Higgins walk

Edit: NVM I misread your post. Carry on.

 

Miami is cutting Xavien Howard and Ogbah. Howard was not good last season. I would have some interest in Ogbah on a cheap prove it deal though. We need edge players on the roster. There are only 2 here under contract right now. 

Edited by clskinsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

I want Michael Pittman.

 

Oh and Mike Evans.

 

Taking a QB we CANNOT **** around and keep throwing all our top picks at the defense. Support the man. Lets not bother with the "a great defense is a great offense"

 

I am happy with any of the top FA TEs but not Hunter. 

 

yeah, I'm kind of surprised by the number of multi round mocks that have us splitting our early picks between O and D fairly evenly with an Edge rusher one of our most common second picks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MrJL said:

 

yeah, I'm kind of surprised by the number of multi round mocks that have us splitting our early picks between O and D fairly evenly with an Edge rusher one of our most common second picks

 

Maybe I'm not "getting" it, but why bother trading your starting edge rushers for 2nd and 3rd round picks just to use one of those picks to grab another DE? Shouldn't we have just kept Sweat or Young if we were going to do that? 

 

My preference would be to sign an EDGE in FA and then go OL and maybe WR with the 2 second rounders. Maybe go back to OL with the third rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

 

Maybe I'm not "getting" it, but why bother trading your starting edge rushers for 2nd and 3rd round picks just to use one of those picks to grab another DE? Shouldn't we have just kept Sweat or Young if we were going to do that? 

 

My preference would be to sign an EDGE in FA and then go OL and maybe WR with the 2 second rounders. Maybe go back to OL with the third rounder.


Cost. We were going to have to pay Sweat and Young $20+ million per year. In theory, if you used the 2nd and 3rd rounder to replace them directly (we won’t) you’d have those positions under contract for a combined $3-4 million per year for the next 4 years versus a combined $50-55m per year for Sweat/Young on extensions. Of course we likely weren’t bringing both back under those terms, but that’s the direct answer. Replace expensive / departing players with players under 4 years of control on rookie contracts. 

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:


Cost. We were going to have to pay Sweat and Young $20+ million per year. In theory, if you used the 2nd and 3rd rounder to replace them directly (we won’t) you’d have those positions under contract for a combined $3-4 million per year for the next 4 years versus a combined $50-55m per year for Sweat/Young on extensions. Of course we likely weren’t bringing both back under those terms, but that’s the direct answer. Replace expensive / departing players with players under 4 years of control on rookie contracts. 

 

Sounds good on the surface but at least with Sweat, we have a top 15 pass rusher. No guarantee the younger players you replace him with will be any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way I look at it … effective versus actual. If we add 2 more players on minimums to reach 51 roster spots … we’ll have $83m in cap space. 
 

Those bottom 20 players making $20m get bumped over the Top 51 when we add 20 players via draft or FA and thus don’t count in the Top 51 as each player is added. So I’m just choosing not to count them. They’re gonna get bumped off the calculus as we add players anyway. So I’m just counting that $20m now, which is where I’m getting to the $108m number when I factor for cutting Thomas. 

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

I am happy with any of the top FA TEs but not Hunter. 

Whats wrong with Hunter Henry? If he doesn't break the bank I think he'd be fine to pair with a rookie QB for at least a year or two. Still only 29 years old and gets himself open. What are your concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...