We should be honest about it. The defense is better this year almost entirely because of large-contract free agents. That's okay. But it's also not a great way to build a team.
They did this before in 2017, a top 10 defense because of big spending on free agents. And it worked for one year. They made the playoffs. Then it collapsed due to lack of roster depth, an offense that didn't help the team whatsoever, coaching, and injuries.
Free Agency has to be apart of any GM's arsenal, but just be careful handing out plaudits when it's free agents that are the main reason your team is good.
There's a ton of difference in the contracts we gave to Vernon, Jackrabbit, Snacks and resigning JPP versus what we gave to Martinez, Fackrell and Bradberry.
I can't even believe it is being compared to 2017
I dont know why you'd object to this. The defense is built around guys making veteran money. I'm not arguing whether the contracts are "good" or not.
to the idea that it is similar to 2017. The contracts handed out that year weren't sustainable while the contracts given to the players brought in this year are reasonable.
We didn't give out a Vernon-like contract in the group. Or a Snacks-like contract. They are all affordable pieces.
When we signed the players in 2017, SPORTRAC had us projected as being the 29th worst team for the cap in 2021. In 2023, they have us projected as being 6th in cap room.
exactly where we're at now. We acquired him on 10/29/19 and in the regular season since acquiring him we're 3-11. Yes, he has helped improve our defense, but we spent a draft asset, for 1.5 years of control of a player, that hasn't done anything for us record wise, which is I think why a lot of posters/people were against this. Now we're at a crossroads on what is an acceptable long term deal, for a good not great player. For reference Cam Heyward (#7 DT by annual $), is at $16.4M, while Dee Ford (#7 DE by annual $), is at $17.1M. I used the #7 average just for some sort of barometer.
I agree in not trading him for the sake of trading him, and if his salary demands are exorbitant (I'm sure we have an idea of where he's at), we shouldn't sign him to justify the trade. But I'm sure we're listening if anyone is out there, and there's always the compensatory pick formula to keep in mind (with the space we have I'm sure some of our signings would offset, but it's a thought).
to the idea that it is similar to 2017. The contracts handed out that year weren't sustainable while the contracts given to the players brought in this year are reasonable.
We didn't give out a Vernon-like contract in the group. Or a Snacks-like contract. They are all affordable pieces.
When we signed the players in 2017, SPORTRAC had us projected as being the 29th worst team for the cap in 2021. In 2023, they have us projected as being 6th in cap room.
Besides the money, the nature of the signings were different. in 2017 there was a situation where we were completely relying on those signings to not fill holes, but completely elevate and change the D overnight. It worked for one year.
This year, the signings were meant to plug holes and improve the D, but also improve depth somewhat. It was not about creating a top D, but just trying to fill holes around a young and thin core so we wouldn't be terrible. Both have accomplished their intended goals. This year isn't a drastic turnaround, but rather a building block with some building block players to work with. Superstars weren't added and nobody is expected to be one moving forward. But, solid guys were added with the expectation that they anchor an improving D over the next couple of years.
are talking about the annual dollars when it comes to Williams and that's not the best way to value what the contract is actually worth. It's about the years and guaranteed money.
For example if we resign Williams for 3/45 and the first 2 years are guaranteed, similar to the Bradberry deal, I think most fans would like that.
The cap situations are different because they're not paying out any big money on the offensive side of the ball right now other than Solder and Tate. Of course they project to be cap-healthier. That was a given. Soon they'll have to spend some real money to keep players, which makes it tighter.
The thrust of the post is that the defense is mainly reliant on the ability of players you brought in from outside and paid a lot to do so. You spent the money for those players but the defense is, quite frankly, middle of the pack average, and situationally very poor (read: getting off the field on third down). They'll need to spend more money on top of this OR get much more productive in the draft, which they struggle at and have plenty of offensive needs to fill, to take it to the next level.
are talking about the annual dollars when it comes to Williams and that's not the best way to value what the contract is actually worth. It's about the years and guaranteed money.
For example if we resign Williams for 3/45 and the first 2 years are guaranteed, similar to the Bradberry deal, I think most fans would like that.
Of course, but I just wanted to use a barometer on salaries for DT/Edge currently. Looking just at DT/Edge signings from this year's FA class, what is the realm you think he's going to aim for:
Chris Jones- 4 years/$85M ($60M GTD)
Arik Armstead- 5 years/$85M ($48.5 GTD)
Dante Fowler- 3 years/$45M ($29M GTD)
Javon Hargreave- 3 years/$39M ($26M GTD)
DJ Reader- 4 years/$53M ($20.25M GTD)
There were a few other players playing out the franchise tag this year that looks like they'll go to market next year, like Yannick Ngakoue, Jadeveon Clowney, Shaquil Barrett, Bud Dupree.
As far as Williams is concerned, his good play doesn't negate the idiocy of the trade. I doubt well make any trades, which means we only have five picks next year.
Some suggestions are that we trade him for whatever we can get. That's ludicrous
Some suggestions are that we trade him for whatever we can get. That's ludicrous
Ok, it just sounded like your post above was saying fans would settle for (only) a 3rd round pick...like you felt he should command much more.
Quote:
We should be honest about it. The defense is better this year almost entirely because of large-contract free agents. That's okay. But it's also not a great way to build a team.
They did this before in 2017, a top 10 defense because of big spending on free agents. And it worked for one year. They made the playoffs. Then it collapsed due to lack of roster depth, an offense that didn't help the team whatsoever, coaching, and injuries.
Free Agency has to be apart of any GM's arsenal, but just be careful handing out plaudits when it's free agents that are the main reason your team is good.
There's a ton of difference in the contracts we gave to Vernon, Jackrabbit, Snacks and resigning JPP versus what we gave to Martinez, Fackrell and Bradberry.
I can't even believe it is being compared to 2017
I dont know why you'd object to this. The defense is built around guys making veteran money. I'm not arguing whether the contracts are "good" or not.
We didn't give out a Vernon-like contract in the group. Or a Snacks-like contract. They are all affordable pieces.
When we signed the players in 2017, SPORTRAC had us projected as being the 29th worst team for the cap in 2021. In 2023, they have us projected as being 6th in cap room.
I agree in not trading him for the sake of trading him, and if his salary demands are exorbitant (I'm sure we have an idea of where he's at), we shouldn't sign him to justify the trade. But I'm sure we're listening if anyone is out there, and there's always the compensatory pick formula to keep in mind (with the space we have I'm sure some of our signings would offset, but it's a thought).
We didn't give out a Vernon-like contract in the group. Or a Snacks-like contract. They are all affordable pieces.
When we signed the players in 2017, SPORTRAC had us projected as being the 29th worst team for the cap in 2021. In 2023, they have us projected as being 6th in cap room.
This year, the signings were meant to plug holes and improve the D, but also improve depth somewhat. It was not about creating a top D, but just trying to fill holes around a young and thin core so we wouldn't be terrible. Both have accomplished their intended goals. This year isn't a drastic turnaround, but rather a building block with some building block players to work with. Superstars weren't added and nobody is expected to be one moving forward. But, solid guys were added with the expectation that they anchor an improving D over the next couple of years.
For example if we resign Williams for 3/45 and the first 2 years are guaranteed, similar to the Bradberry deal, I think most fans would like that.
The thrust of the post is that the defense is mainly reliant on the ability of players you brought in from outside and paid a lot to do so. You spent the money for those players but the defense is, quite frankly, middle of the pack average, and situationally very poor (read: getting off the field on third down). They'll need to spend more money on top of this OR get much more productive in the draft, which they struggle at and have plenty of offensive needs to fill, to take it to the next level.
For example if we resign Williams for 3/45 and the first 2 years are guaranteed, similar to the Bradberry deal, I think most fans would like that.
Of course, but I just wanted to use a barometer on salaries for DT/Edge currently. Looking just at DT/Edge signings from this year's FA class, what is the realm you think he's going to aim for:
Chris Jones- 4 years/$85M ($60M GTD)
Arik Armstead- 5 years/$85M ($48.5 GTD)
Dante Fowler- 3 years/$45M ($29M GTD)
Javon Hargreave- 3 years/$39M ($26M GTD)
DJ Reader- 4 years/$53M ($20.25M GTD)
There were a few other players playing out the franchise tag this year that looks like they'll go to market next year, like Yannick Ngakoue, Jadeveon Clowney, Shaquil Barrett, Bud Dupree.
As far as Williams is concerned, his good play doesn't negate the idiocy of the trade. I doubt well make any trades, which means we only have five picks next year.