2023 Offseason Mini Camp, OTA’s, Training Camp Discussion Thread: Hallelujah, Josh Harris & Co. Era Edition

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 minutes ago, Tress Is The Way said:

Yeah that contract is freaking nuts but it's only detrimental as a pre june 1st cut.. if it's post june 1st they have some outs in 2026 to save some of their cap.. still talk about a freaking contract it's quite bonkers. 

They have to take AT LEAST $110 on their cap at some point.  That's what's guaranteed at signing.  To the best of my knowledge about how the cap works, there is no way out of that.  So, even if they split that evenly over 5 years, that's over $20m per year.  Now, they've totally back-loaded it into the 2030's.  So it's not even.  

 

There's an additional $70m of guarantees, what is unclear is when those kick in.  If the agent was even remotely smart (and I'm assuming he was) then the additional $70m of guarantees "vest" at some point where it is absolutely impossible for the Eagles to cut Hurts.  So in the next 2-3 years where he carries a dead cap number of over $90 million dollars.  

 

Which means, most likely, the Eagles are, at some point, going to have to take $180 million hit on their cap over some period of time. 

 

Again, if Hurts is who they think he is, they rip this contract up after 2025 and extend him again, and push it all out to 2040.  And that's clearly the plan/hope.  

 

But if for some reason he's not that guy, the Eagles might have to field a team with 8 UDFAs playing both ways to pay the dead cap hit they might take.  

[wit33]

 

 

49 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't vacillate on it.  60% of the cap on the less important side of the ball is criminal.  CRIMINAL I TELL YOU!  Even with a cheap QB.  I think they should trade Sweat or Young.  Preferably Sweat if Young is better.  But they should do that.  It's just too much to be invested in one area of the team from a cap % perspective.  And I like Sweat, and might be the biggest "wait and see" on Young as you can get.  I wouldn't do it this off-season, but if both play well, you pay one, tag the other, then trade them.  Maybe for a starting left tackle?????  

 

Criminal not to be open minded.

 

Giving up great to elite talent rarely has worked out for Washington. With that said, that Dline unit must take it up a few notches to warrant the team finagling the cap like they would for a $50 plus million a year QB. 
 

I lean towards paying all four and market them like the hogs and hope they lead the franchise for next 3 season to the playoffs each season. 

 

 

44 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Yeah, the cheap QB thing doesn't skate here. 

 

Howell, if he's the guy, is already in extension territory after this year. We'd need to pay him. Granted, it won't be Joe Burrow/Herbert/Mahomes money, but he'll still count more towards the cap than he does now.

 

We'll see. If our D is completely dominant than maybe the answer is to keep them.

 

But if it's not... attaining assets to make our offense more dominant is a better move.

 

Getting a first rounder to get an OT + additional O help would be a major boon.

 

Not to mention, we have no linebackers.

 

We'll see how the season plays out. But it's too early to declare that we need to keep both edges, imo. 

2-3 year window is an eternity in NFL years. If a window is created, the organization has succeeded and separated from mediocrity (80% of the NFL). 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

 

Criminal not to be open minded.

 

Giving up great to elite talent rarely has worked out for Washington. With that said, that Dline unit must take it up a few notches to warrant the team finagling the cap like they would for a $50 plus million a year QB. 
 

I lean towards paying all four and market them like the hogs and hope they lead the franchise for next 3 season to the playoffs each season. 

 

 

2-3 year window is an eternity in NFL years. If a window is created, the organization has succeeded and separated from mediocrity (80% of the NFL). 

 

The window is one year after this season.

 

If Howell tanks it's less.

 

Unless we go the cheap QB route again... which... no thanks. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

 

Criminal not to be open minded.

 

Giving up great to elite talent rarely has worked out for Washington. With that said, that Dline unit must take it up a few notches to warrant the team finagling the cap like they would for a $50 plus million a year QB. 
 

I lean towards paying all four and market them like the hogs and hope they lead the franchise for next 3 season to the playoffs each season. 

Unless they are able to win championships with the DL, it's an absolute waste of resources.  They never should have spent 4 consecutive first round picks on defense to begin with.  They can find a guy to play well enough on the other side without having to take a huge contract.

 

Teams win by scoring points and winning on offense in today's NFL.  Of the teams that made the playoffs last year, I think all were in the top 14 of points per game.  

 

Allocate your resources in a way which gives you the best chance to win.  That means spending more on offense.  I'm not suggesting blowing up the entire thing, but let's say Sweat and Young are both "A" players.  And so are Daron and Jon Allen.  

 

You can get by with 3 A's and a B on the DL and take the additional money and flip it to offense.  The cost difference between and A and B player is not reflective of the production difference.  

 

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

2-3 year window is an eternity in NFL years. If a window is created, the organization has succeeded and separated from mediocrity (80% of the NFL). 

I want to be in the playoffs for the next 10 years, not 2-3 and lose in the Divisional round.

 

I want a top 10 offense.  Starts with QB.  But even then, investing money and draft picks in the OL is the second best thing...

[Skinsfan1311]

36 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think they should just release all the LBs and play only with DL, Safeties and CBs.  

 

It would be revolutionary.  Take the NFL by storm.  Position flex that!

 

(This is a joke.  It is only a joke.  Kindof....)  

Like the swinging gate? 😆

[Voice_of_Reason]

Back to the topic at hand:  

 

It appears as though all is not lost and we shouldn't punt on first down based on the comments/tweets.

 

Though Phidarian Mathis getting schooled by an UDFA is a bad look.  

1 minute ago, Skinsfan1311 said:

Like the swinging gate? 😆

It really could have worked ....  

 

(no, it couldn't have)

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

 

 

Not to mention, we have no linebackers.

 

 

 

A dude we both liked, and he was an UDFA

 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is funny.  I think that would be a strategic mistake but I'd be open to see what it would look like....   

 

On a somewhat related (and humorous) note, on JP's podcast, JP and Mitch were arguing which was more important, LG or kicker.  JP had Kicker and Mitch had LG.  It was quite the exchange.

 

I'll say this: without Adam Vinatieri, Tom Brady might have 3 less SBs, and not even gotten to the first one.  People forget Vinatieri kicked a game tying FG in the snow after the tuck rule to send the game into OT, which the Pats won, and Jon Gruden is STILL bitter about.  (eff him, but he's got a point to an extent.)

 

Was Vinatieri more valuable than Andruzi or Compton, the starting guards for the Pats that year?  Ehhhhhhh....... Maybe?  Probably?  I mean, yeah, I kindof think so....  

 

But that is an extreme circumstance.  

 

#KickersArePeopleToo

 

Yep I was listening to that very podcast as I had to kill an hour walking out of training camp waiting for the bus.

[Rocky21]

15 hours ago, MartinC said:

I met Colt a few months ago. We were on the same flight from Phoenix to Atlanta. 
 

He’s not a big guy. He didn’t look like he is built to be smashed around by 300lb highly athletic human beings.

Yup.  Passed him on the street in Richmond when camp was held here.  Dude is my  size and I work in an office building.  😄

[Skinsinparadise]

Agree about their low ranking from Tucker but disagree about Cosmi.  If he can stay healthy he's the one dude I'd bank on as to that unit.

 

 

Poor Tier

Poor offensive lines have many question marks. That is a scary proposition for a position group only behind the quarterback in terms of importance to team success. They might end up being fine, but I wouldn’t count on it.

 29. Washington Commanders

The big additions for the Washington Commanders were center Nick Gates and Wylie. Yeah, I don’t get it, either, and I’m skeptical of Sam Cosmi’s move to right guard.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Captain James]

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Back to the topic at hand:  

 

It appears as though all is not lost and we shouldn't punt on first down based on the comments/tweets.

 

Though Phidarian Mathis getting schooled by an UDFA is a bad look.  

Not if that UDFA ends up being a beast in his own right...

[wit33]

24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Unless they are able to win championships with the DL, it's an absolute waste of resources.  They never should have spent 4 consecutive first round picks on defense to begin with.  They can find a guy to play well enough on the other side without having to take a huge contract.

 

I know of no formula that guarantees championships. 
 

24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Teams win by scoring points and winning on offense in today's NFL.  Of the teams that made the playoffs last year, I think all were in the top 14 of points per game.  
 

 

The top offenses are generally paired with an elite QB. 
 

If your argument is elite QB who can throw or account for 35 plus tds, no argument from me. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Allocate your resources in a way which gives you the best chance to win.  That means spending more on offense.  I'm not suggesting blowing up the entire thing, but let's say Sweat and Young are both "A" players.  And so are Daron and Jon Allen.  

 

You can get by with 3 A's and a B on the DL and take the additional money and flip it to offense.  The cost difference between and A and B player is not reflective of the production difference.  

 

I don’t disagree with your overall argument if there was an elite QB needing to be paid by Washington. 
 

Letting go of an “A” player to sign average dudes isn’t  the way to go (IMO). Completely own I’m a huge proponent of keeping elite talent and valuing the 80% pool of average very little.

 

I rather draft and develop average and pay very little and churn those dudes in and out and build around the elite, even if it’s 4 guys on the Dline. No doubt it goes against the grain and requires creativity in terms of salary cap.

 

If going with an all in model with a few guys, it’s a must to have great player development and all around continuity of scheme, coaches, FO. 
 

Full disclosure, I believe keeping all 4 has a very little chance of happening for legitimate reasons. I’m open to keeping all four is all I’m saying. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I want to be in the playoffs for the next 10 years, not 2-3 and lose in the Divisional round.

 

I want a top 10 offense.  Starts with QB.  But even then, investing money and draft picks in the OL is the second best thing...

Only way to project playoffs for next 10 seasons is by having an elite QB. A top 10 offense around whatever metric wanting to use loses value without an elite QB. I’ll put up an elite defense (even by today’s standards) against a good QB all day. If the argument is the elite defense most likely won’t beat the elite QB… no doubt agree. The good QB shouldn’t be lumped in with the elite QBs, even if the good QB had a cool statistical season/“top 10” offense. 
 

Every post I make relating to team building is based around not having an elite QB. Elite QB is king, until Washington lands one, creative thought is required (IMO). 

Edited August 1, 2023 by wit33

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

First Brooks mention that i can recall about camp

 

 

 

 

Did a Mason Brooks fan club just start? Interesting that Standig is calling him a Guard when I think the UDFA signing only mentioned him as a Tackle? Wish we know if he's been a Guard since OTA's/MiniCamp or if this is a new thing for Training Camp after seeing Charles stumble around.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Was Mason Brooks the guy that we signed that there was a lot of interest from other teams? A guy we targeted? 

[Skinsinparadise]

You can win with a good QB with good weapons.  Elite QB is of course ideal.  

 

If you devote draft high capital to offense (like some teams do) and are good at drafting, you can have some cheap contracts for a time at that spot, too.

 

 

[wit33]

31 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

The window is one year after this season.

 

If Howell tanks it's less.

 

Unless we go the cheap QB route again... which... no thanks. 

Most if not every extension I see provides the team continued cap flexibility for the duration of the rookie contract. The extension is added onto the rookie deal and doesn’t replace the remaining season.

Am I missing something?

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

5 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Was Mason Brooks the guy that we signed that there was a lot of interest from other teams? A guy we targeted? 

 

I believe so as I think he had the 2nd highest UDFA signing bonus and guaranteed salary in the league. So I'm guessing there was a bit of a bidding war.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Most if not every extension I see provides the team continued cap flexibility for the duration of the rookie contract. The extension is added onto the rookie deal and doesn’t replace the remaining season.

Am I missing something?

 

Fair point here.

 

I had 2025 FA in my mind, but that's his final season... 2026 FA for Howell.

 

So if he's good this year but not great it's a two year window. 

 

Still, I'd rather make sure we take the money from one of the ends (unless the defense is totally dominant and they are a huge part) and give it to OT/LB/WR

[NickyJ]

It's been a while since we've had a good UDFA named Mason. Last one I can remember was Marcus Mason. I'm sure Mason Brooks will be a star in camp.

 

And best of all, he's a UDFA who's practically playing for free. I love me some free Masons.

[wit33]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

You can win with a good QB with good weapons.  Elite QB is of course ideal.  

 

If you devote draft high capital to offense (like some teams do) and are good at drafting, you can have some cheap contracts for a time at that spot, too.

 

 

No argument from me, you can with good QBs. An elite defense paired with an average QB has similar value to a good QB is my theory these days. 

 

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Fair point here.

 

I had 2025 FA in my mind, but that's his final season... 2026 FA for Howell.

 

So if he's good this year but not great it's a two year window. 

 

Still, I'd rather make sure we take the money from one of the ends (unless the defense is totally dominant and they are a huge part) and give it to OT/LB/WR

Completely dislike jettisoning  a known B+ to A commodity developed in the “program” for a higher risk unknown to fill a hole. Develop from within to fill needed positions and spend judiciously in free agency. Not saying to never pounce if a great opportunity/match presents itself in the open market.

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Dotson maybe develops into a big money player.  Howell maybe?  Remember with him its 4 years not 5 so we aren't miles away from it.  Will see.

 

I agree with the premise that if our roster stays just like it is, then why not?

 

But to me context is king.  If the D line is dominant and wins games then ride that card.   If not, maybe paying the moon for 4 D lineman doesn't make sense. 

 

We bemoan how we can't afford this or that O lineman and you make the case that Ron did fine with the budget he had.  what if our budget is bigger and it wouldn't be comical for us to afford an Orlando Brown, etc. 

 

I started to project Dotson to having 8 or 9 AV, looked at the 4 AV total from last season, and then backed off.  Seven AV feels much more realistic as a positive outcome for him this year.  When I went looking at the rookie year AV totals for the WRs who have contracts in excess of 20 million AAV, Davante Adams and Chris Godwin were the only ones who started as slow as Dotson.  Terry had 7, and then Diggs and Metcalf were the next lowest ones at 8.  The other guys: Deebo, Amari Cooper, Keenan Allen, AJ Brown, Tyreek Hill, even Cooper Kupp all had 9+.  And the next guy into this tier, Justin Jefferson, had 13.

 

If Dotson were likely to make the leap into the salary neighborhood of Montez or Chase, I think he would have had a more obvious and promising start to his career.  I don't think paying Montez and Chase would be robbing the future Jahan Dotson contract.

 

Howell would be great, but that is still a long ways away, and if need be, we can deal one of our DLs at that point.  That would be a no-brainer decision.

 

I agree that context is king, which is why I don't like these vacuum general statements of "you can't pay four DLs big money."  Yes you can when you look at our roster and see that there is no one else who deserves it.  No one else to save for.

 

I don't feel good at all about letting the bird in the hand walk to keep the potential for a big ticket FA signing like Orlando Brown Jr expedient.  For one thing, big ticket FA signings rarely work out as well as expected, and for another, free agents have a choice in where they sign.  Brown went to Cincinnati to play for a SB contender.  And even still, his 16 million AAV could absolutely still be worked into our cap structure with Chase and Montez both making 20 million AAV.

 

One thing that has been hammered home to me in watching the way we've operated over the last 10 years, is that it has never been worth it to let our Probowlers walk to preserve cap space for the future.  It wasn't worth letting Trent go instead of renegotiating his deal, and it wasn't worth letting Scherff walk.  Committing 8-10% of your cap for these kinds of players is worth it.  It's spending 6% of your cap on players like Curtis Samuel and Charles Leno and Kendall Fuller, or spending 10% of your cap on Carson Wentz and Alex Smith that aren't worth it.  It's paying 9 million in dead money to William Jackson that's not worth it.  The best teams keep their studs and turn over their average starters, and they usually don't put themselves in situations where they take on a bunch of risky money for dodgy free agents that ends up in a lot of dead cap.  If Chase Young and/or Montez Sweat go out and make the Probowl like Payne and Allen did, extending them is the safest money we can spend next winter.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

Completely dislike jettisoning  a known B+ to A commodity developed in the “program” for a higher risk unknown to fill a hole. Develop from within to fill needed positions and spend judiciously in free agency. Not saying to never pounce if a great opportunity/match presents itself in the open market.

 

Thing is, Chase Young isn't a B+/A commodity at the moment. He hasn't shown that and has been injured the last two years. His potential is A+, though. But if we're talking actual production, he ain't there.

 

And Montez Sweat is a B+ish, A- guy.

 

I don't think we need both... at the moment. 

 

And I think we need a whole lot else. Sometimes having these good players is a means to improve your roster. Every player and draft pick that you have is an asset when it comes to the business side. Some assets are more necessary to keep while others have value that bring a return for them.

 

Our ends are currently good assets for bringing in draft picks.

 

Yes, those draft picks are unknown and could be an issue. But you don't have to just use those draft picks on rookies. You can turn around and trade for vets, too. 

 

The major point is asset accrual.

 

I think we CAN afford both, I'm just not sure we should. 

 

But if they both light up the League this season my stance will change on this as a truly dominant defensive line can absolutely aide in winning games.

 

But so far, they haven't, and aren't worth the asset cost to have all four. In my opinion, of course. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by KDawg

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Completely dislike jettisoning  a known B+ to A commodity developed in the “program” for a higher risk unknown to fill a hole. Develop from within to fill needed positions and spend judiciously in free agency. Not saying to never pounce if a great opportunity/match presents itself in the open market.

 

Agreed.  Big money free agents are almost always flawed, because the guys who are worth big money and don't come with baggage/limitations never even sniff the open market during their prime seasons.

 

The best strategy for every team is to draft well and keep your best hits.

[Captain James]

17 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

It's been a while since we've had a good UDFA named Mason. Last one I can remember was Marcus Mason. I'm sure Mason Brooks will be a star in camp.

 

And best of all, he's a UDFA who's practically playing for free. I love me some free Masons.

Took a while to set that one up 🤣

[Chris 44]

1 minute ago, Captain James said:

Took a while to set that one up 🤣

Just was waiting for someone to jar it loose.

[Voice_of_Reason]

25 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Most if not every extension I see provides the team continued cap flexibility for the duration of the rookie contract. The extension is added onto the rookie deal and doesn’t replace the remaining season.

Am I missing something?

Unless you do what the Eagles did, you get the percentage of the signing bonus as a cap hit in the final year of the rookie deal.

 

What the Eagles did, which was bananas, is drastically reduced the signing bonus to $20m, which is why Hurt's salary cap hit this year is only $6m, vs. the ~$1m it would have been prior to the extension.  Because they only had to spread the $20m over the 5 years. So his cap hit this year is his $1m salary from his rookie year + the $5m prorated part of the signing bonus.   I haven't seen a top QB get anything less than a $70m signing bonus.  And some are north of $100m.  So what the Eagles did from a cap management perspective is very different.  

 

But the full guarantee is $180m, and they tacked on 3 or 4 dead years with REAL cap hits starting with $34m and $24m.  They replaced the signing bonus with the option bonus.  Honestly, I haven't seen this done before to this extent.

 

So, Hurt's extension cap number went up by $5m, but is still cheap for year 1.  But it does include the prorated part of the signing bonus.

 

Could the commander's do this with Howell?  Yes.  Will they?  Don't know.  It's very odd.

 

A much more traditional way of doing the extension would be to give a large signing bonus, and then spread it over 5 years + 2 voided years.  So, let's assume a $70m signing bonus (to make the math easy) over a 5 year extension with 2 years which automatically void. 

 

In this case, you'd pick up $10m of salary cap cost per year for 7 years.  If you cut or trade the player before then, it all escalates to the current year.  June 1st cut would spread it over 2 years.  

 

In that scenario, year 4 for Howell would be a higher cap hit than Hurts, but still not HIGH. It would be in the $10m range.  The high salary cap numbers would come in probably in year 3 or 4 of the deal when his base salary would escalate, and push the salary cap number up.

 

That's the traditional way of doing it.  So you still have a benefit of having a lower QB salary cap hit year 1, but it's not SUPER low.  You ALWAYS have to spread the signing bonus the minute the contract is signed to all future years, including the current year.  Those are the rules.  And they are undisputed.  

 

Personally, I think the Eagles are playing with fire. They've deferred SO MUCH money into out-years, one way or another, they're going to be in a world of hurt (no pun intended) eventually.  Unless Hurts excels and they do it again, in which case the "eventually" is just farther out.