“I think Dalvin is having as good of a year as anybody on our defense,” safety Logan Ryan said late last season. “Leonard’s having a great year statistically, but Dalvin is having a better year for our team and what we ask him to do.”
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
in mind for him. They may let him go to seek what level he attains and either match it or exceed it. Dangerous game. I would like to retain him and I think his numbers will be lower than expected.
if Tomlinson leaves it's hardly an indictment on the Giants. It is likely because he took a huge payday somewhere else, where the Giants decided not to spend a huge payday on him and on Leonard Williams, and decided to spend the limited COVID salary cap money elsewhere.
Big fan of Tomlinson. He's a good player, and a class individual. It would be equally vapid to indict Tomlinson for leaving.
there are plenty of ways to get it done. DT would not get anywhere near the dollars LW would get in FA, imv. Still, he’d get a very nice contract, one which I believe we probably can afford. TBD
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
played their best football after being paired together. I dont know if one was the catalyst but they should both be retained and maybe then can each give a little to make sure they stay together.
RE: Also, been waiting for the Giants to start trimming cap fat
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
RE: Also, been waiting for the Giants to start trimming cap fat
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
They've still got a bit of time, but I'd have thought they'd be looking to make those moves this week. Generally its more fair for the players you're releasing the early to do it, allows them to feature in other teams planning.
RE: RE: Also, been waiting for the Giants to start trimming cap fat
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
True, but for players you're going to release anyway, you're not only doing them a favor by letting them hit the market in advance of FA, but you might also take some money out of the market in advance.
The only benefit to not releasing players before you absolutely have to is that you can still view them as a contingency plan and have them under contract.
When it comes to guys like Tate, that's actually a bit troubling, IMO. I can easily envision a scenario where the Giants miss out on multiple FA WR options and are forced to pivot with regard to their plan to add playmakers. Tate should not be a part of the ideal plan or part of that pivot, IMO, so it makes me curious why he wouldn't be an early cut.
RE: RE: Also, been waiting for the Giants to start trimming cap fat
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
It doesn't have to happen but rolling piecemeal typically happens after the first wave(s) of free agency. Cuts are typical after the Super Bowl to get the ball rolling securing UFAs more quickly and to allow players to start finding new places to land.
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
I could see some rational for not releasing Tate as of yet.
Giants have a few critical negotiations on the near horizon and no need to show they are creating savings or positional openings until they have to. Let the guys on the other side of the table make their own assumptions.
Obviously Tate would like to know sooner versus later but he hasn't exactly acted like a model citizen on/off the field so Giants don't need to do any additional favors beyond the monies he received.
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Weird way to look at it. He is a nose tackle. That is his position. NTs do the dirty work on every team. I think if he had the ability to do something more, he would be doing it, i.e. pass rush.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
He's going to be paid based on how the league values him. NYG is not likely to tag him, so DT will get the chance to test the market. If NYG can bring him back at a good number, it isn't because they don't value his contributions.
I do expect that he will be in fairly high demand, however. I think GB makes a run for him.
the cap money up around $185 mil vs the floor of $180 is the sentiment that the NFL is leaning towards implementing the 17th regular season game as agreed upon last year. That would open up some additional broadcast money and revenue channels to help keep the cap up above the floor of $180 mil.
I just keep thinking of how often people crowed about that
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Yep.
Giants should be retaining Tomlinson if bid/ask are close. He plays very hard on the field, good leader and presence off of it.
There is something to be said about guys you don't have to worry about their effort once they get paid. Would suggest Tomlinson may be one of those guys...
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Weird way to look at it. He is a nose tackle. That is his position. NTs do the dirty work on every team. I think if he had the ability to do something more, he would be doing it, i.e. pass rush.
Not sure what is weird about it. Read Ryan's quote. That speaks volumes. I'm not saying we have to sign him at all costs. I am just pointing out that Dalvin seems to have done everything asked of him and more. And if you want to be a respected organization then you keep players like that around. Now, if he gets blown out of the water with an offer elsewhere then that is understandable. But the Giants should be trying to bring him back.
I'm sure there are those who could point out the dissimilarities but
this reminds me of the crossroads we were at with Barry Cofield and Linval Joseph. Hated to see both of them leave and play solid as a DT for other teams. Didn't like that feeling then and don't want to have it again with DT.
RE: I'm sure there are those who could point out the dissimilarities but
this reminds me of the crossroads we were at with Barry Cofield and Linval Joseph. Hated to see both of them leave and play solid as a DT for other teams. Didn't like that feeling then and don't want to have it again with DT.
To me the only dissimilarity is that in Linval's case, he became a great player only after he left. He was 'just' pretty good, and the Giants had a second round pick waiting to take his spot. Linval's pass-rushing ability exploded under a different coaching staff.
then he is gone. At $10-$12 million per, I think the Giants make it happen. Given their cap situation, the Giants will have options in future years to get players paid to keep them this year (i.e. signing bonus in 2021 and then guarantee salaries in '22 & '23). And if you don't think a player is worth guaranteeing them in yrs 2 & 3, then you probably shouldn't resign them anyway. If the Giants plan to use the draft on the offensive side of the ball, then I think this deal gets done and they keep both LW and DT.
even if the giants don't have a chance at the top 2 WRs (Golladay / Robinson), i'd rather they go out and sign Moton to play RT rather than use the money on tomlinson.
tomlinson is fine. he's not the player LW is. and his skill set is replaceable. they can draft that big fat guy Shelvin from LSU who can do exactly what dalvin does. and they can probably get shelvin in rd 3
Under the Possible if not Probable file...
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
Under the Possible if not Probable file...
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
I agree about Dex, I think NT would be his best spot. Hill was fine in his role, I do worry that he would be exposed given more PT, but that can be addressed in the draft or a less expensive FA.
LW is going to get big money, so unless DT gets little interest, I don't see keeping both.
that? Keeping Tomlinson and LW for a total cap hit over $30M+ for DTs.
What a total waste of cap resources that would be.
We need at least another 10ppg on offense to really compete next year and beyond. While many here consider Barkley the best RB ever, his return isn't going to create another 160 points next year. That's where the fix needs to occure - on offense.
The most important person on defense isn't LW or Tomlinson. It's Graham. And he stayed.
Keeping LW is not the answer. Keeping Tomlinson at $12-14 is not the answer either, but it's a better answer than keeping LW.
that? Keeping Tomlinson and LW for a total cap hit over $30M+ for DTs.
What a total waste of cap resources that would be.
We need at least another 10ppg on offense to really compete next year and beyond. While many here consider Barkley the best RB ever, his return isn't going to create another 160 points next year. That's where the fix needs to occure - on offense.
The most important person on defense isn't LW or Tomlinson. It's Graham. And he stayed.
Keeping LW is not the answer. Keeping Tomlinson at $12-14 is not the answer either, but it's a better answer than keeping LW.
Agreed. If I had to choose, it would be Tomlinson at a cheaper deal. It will still be overpaying, but that is the nature of a lot of FA deals. But, it would cost a lot less. I agree that re-signing both would be a mistake from a cap perspective.
Agreed. If I had to choose, it would be Tomlinson at a cheaper deal. It will still be overpaying, but that is the nature of a lot of FA deals. But, it would cost a lot less. I agree that re-signing both would be a mistake from a cap perspective.
I disagree. LW supplies a badly needed skill - the ability to get to the QB, and he does it without giving up anything when defending the run. Guys like him are much harder to find, and why he is certain to get big money.
As good as DT is, his skills are replaceable. In fact, his replacement is already likely on the roster in Dex. So the issue will be how to replace Dex at the other DT/DE spot.
I'm not sure I trust Williams to be a big time passrusher
if they are not going to resign him it really makes you wonder why they didn't trade him at the deadline when teams reportedly were trying to trade for him
Agreed. If I had to choose, it would be Tomlinson at a cheaper deal. It will still be overpaying, but that is the nature of a lot of FA deals. But, it would cost a lot less. I agree that re-signing both would be a mistake from a cap perspective.
I disagree. LW supplies a badly needed skill - the ability to get to the QB, and he does it without giving up anything when defending the run. Guys like him are much harder to find, and why he is certain to get big money.
As good as DT is, his skills are replaceable. In fact, his replacement is already likely on the roster in Dex. So the issue will be how to replace Dex at the other DT/DE spot.
My issue is whether it is safe to expect that kind of pass rush from him consistently and for at least 3 more years. That is what you need to justify a 5 year deal at the money it will take. I just don't see considering last year was the anomaly in his career thus far, by a significant margin.
My issue is whether it is safe to expect that kind of pass rush from him consistently and for at least 3 more years. That is what you need to justify a 5 year deal at the money it will take. I just don't see considering last year was the anomaly in his career thus far, by a significant margin.
His pressure ratings from the year prior were really good, he just didn't finish often enough. I don't know that he'll be able to replicate what he did this year, but there is no reason to think he won't be a very productive player down the road, especially if he has a good ER outside.
My issue is whether it is safe to expect that kind of pass rush from him consistently and for at least 3 more years. That is what you need to justify a 5 year deal at the money it will take. I just don't see considering last year was the anomaly in his career thus far, by a significant margin.
H
His pressure ratings from the year prior were really good, he just didn't finish often enough. I don't know that he'll be able to replicate what he did this year, but there is no reason to think he won't be a very productive player down the road, especially if he has a good ER outside.
I expect him to be productive and even very good. But, if he isn't anywhere near the amount of pressure, sacks, and TFL as last year, then the deal he is going to get is not worth it. As I said the other day, he has already been paid for his production here. He got nearly $18M last year, which paid for the year. Giving him more than that for 5 years means he has to live up to that level because he has no other years of production he is "owed" for. If you can't honestly and confidently say he should produce at that level, then why would you pay a DT nearly $20M for 5 years?
What I hate about this, is arguing against signing him
is too often mistaken for not liking him, etc. That is far from the truth. I do like him as a player and I loved his output last year. That doesn't mean I think it is a wise cap move to allocate that kind of money for a player I don't honestly believe will replicate his production for the enough of the deal. Even if he has a big year next year, it won't mean anything if he reverts back to his normal levels. What he does next year won't determine the value of the deal. What he does 3 years from now will.
This is why I didn't like the trade either. I would have been 100% on board with pursuing him via FA. They could have signed him to a 3-5 year deal which would have overpaid him for what he already produced to that point, but been far less restrictive than the deal he is going to get now and he would already be on year 2, where the remainder of the deal would be less of a concern.
Instead, we already paid him over $17M, which worked out. But, now we are looking at 4 or 5 more years at more than that.
Under the Possible if not Probable file...
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
"Dek" is a new one. Do you misspell your favorite Cowboys players' names this frequently?
RE: What I hate about this, is arguing against signing him
is too often mistaken for not liking him, etc. That is far from the truth. I do like him as a player and I loved his output last year. That doesn't mean I think it is a wise cap move to allocate that kind of money for a player I don't honestly believe will replicate his production for the enough of the deal. Even if he has a big year next year, it won't mean anything if he reverts back to his normal levels. What he does next year won't determine the value of the deal. What he does 3 years from now will.
This is why I didn't like the trade either. I would have been 100% on board with pursuing him via FA. They could have signed him to a 3-5 year deal which would have overpaid him for what he already produced to that point, but been far less restrictive than the deal he is going to get now and he would already be on year 2, where the remainder of the deal would be less of a concern.
Instead, we already paid him over $17M, which worked out. But, now we are looking at 4 or 5 more years at more than that.
Except for one thing: Trading for him made him ours; to get the first and only crack at him. Not trading for him allowed many other suitors to attempt to outbid us. That’s a huge difference..
“I think Dalvin is having as good of a year as anybody on our defense,” safety Logan Ryan said late last season. “Leonard’s having a great year statistically, but Dalvin is having a better year for our team and what we ask him to do.”
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Big fan of Tomlinson. He's a good player, and a class individual. It would be equally vapid to indict Tomlinson for leaving.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
They've still got a bit of time, but I'd have thought they'd be looking to make those moves this week. Generally its more fair for the players you're releasing the early to do it, allows them to feature in other teams planning.
Quote:
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
True, but for players you're going to release anyway, you're not only doing them a favor by letting them hit the market in advance of FA, but you might also take some money out of the market in advance.
The only benefit to not releasing players before you absolutely have to is that you can still view them as a contingency plan and have them under contract.
When it comes to guys like Tate, that's actually a bit troubling, IMO. I can easily envision a scenario where the Giants miss out on multiple FA WR options and are forced to pivot with regard to their plan to add playmakers. Tate should not be a part of the ideal plan or part of that pivot, IMO, so it makes me curious why he wouldn't be an early cut.
Quote:
to prepare for the open of UFA. Without creating considerable space and getting LW done first, decisions will come down to allocation choices like keep Zeitler or Tomlinson, basically.
Trimming cap fat does not have to happen before UFA only before the FA is signed if it will put us above the cap. I am sure the Giants know exactly how much cap room they will have free and will reach agreements with players even though they are not announced right away.
It doesn't have to happen but rolling piecemeal typically happens after the first wave(s) of free agency. Cuts are typical after the Super Bowl to get the ball rolling securing UFAs more quickly and to allow players to start finding new places to land.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Obviously Tate would like to know sooner versus later but he hasn't exactly acted like a model citizen on/off the field so Giants don't need to do any additional favors beyond the monies he received.
Keep your good players. Offer a good market value contract. Hope he accepts and don't overpay if he decides to leave for more money.
Quote:
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Weird way to look at it. He is a nose tackle. That is his position. NTs do the dirty work on every team. I think if he had the ability to do something more, he would be doing it, i.e. pass rush.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
He's going to be paid based on how the league values him. NYG is not likely to tag him, so DT will get the chance to test the market. If NYG can bring him back at a good number, it isn't because they don't value his contributions.
I do expect that he will be in fairly high demand, however. I think GB makes a run for him.
Well this is how that happens.
Quote:
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Yep.
Giants should be retaining Tomlinson if bid/ask are close. He plays very hard on the field, good leader and presence off of it.
There is something to be said about guys you don't have to worry about their effort once they get paid. Would suggest Tomlinson may be one of those guys...
Just my .01 cent.
Quote:
In comment 15159255 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
Tomlinson did everything the Giants say they want their players to do. Worked hard, self-motivated guy, waited for his turn behind other players and became quietly excellent on the field and a locker room leader.
The reason you pay that guy is the same reason you paid Shepard. Because you want your players to follow that example and show the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
While this is true I think you are missing the point. I think the point of the article and Ryan's quote is that Dalvin is asked to do the dirty work in this system so he is sacrificing his stats for the team. Therefore, paying him a lesser value because he doesn't have the stats is not very admirable by the Giants.
Weird way to look at it. He is a nose tackle. That is his position. NTs do the dirty work on every team. I think if he had the ability to do something more, he would be doing it, i.e. pass rush.
Not sure what is weird about it. Read Ryan's quote. That speaks volumes. I'm not saying we have to sign him at all costs. I am just pointing out that Dalvin seems to have done everything asked of him and more. And if you want to be a respected organization then you keep players like that around. Now, if he gets blown out of the water with an offer elsewhere then that is understandable. But the Giants should be trying to bring him back.
To me the only dissimilarity is that in Linval's case, he became a great player only after he left. He was 'just' pretty good, and the Giants had a second round pick waiting to take his spot. Linval's pass-rushing ability exploded under a different coaching staff.
My guess is Leonard would have less drops and Dalvin would be a better blocker...
tomlinson is fine. he's not the player LW is. and his skill set is replaceable. they can draft that big fat guy Shelvin from LSU who can do exactly what dalvin does. and they can probably get shelvin in rd 3
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
The last 2nd round drafted player to get a lengthy extension was Corey Webster!
That's crazy.
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
I agree about Dex, I think NT would be his best spot. Hill was fine in his role, I do worry that he would be exposed given more PT, but that can be addressed in the draft or a less expensive FA.
LW is going to get big money, so unless DT gets little interest, I don't see keeping both.
What a total waste of cap resources that would be.
We need at least another 10ppg on offense to really compete next year and beyond. While many here consider Barkley the best RB ever, his return isn't going to create another 160 points next year. That's where the fix needs to occure - on offense.
The most important person on defense isn't LW or Tomlinson. It's Graham. And he stayed.
Keeping LW is not the answer. Keeping Tomlinson at $12-14 is not the answer either, but it's a better answer than keeping LW.
Or maybe try and sign both,and make it harder to improve the rest of the team.
If there's any truth to it,have fun sorting it out Johnny
What a total waste of cap resources that would be.
We need at least another 10ppg on offense to really compete next year and beyond. While many here consider Barkley the best RB ever, his return isn't going to create another 160 points next year. That's where the fix needs to occure - on offense.
The most important person on defense isn't LW or Tomlinson. It's Graham. And he stayed.
Keeping LW is not the answer. Keeping Tomlinson at $12-14 is not the answer either, but it's a better answer than keeping LW.
only to then add what?
I disagree. LW supplies a badly needed skill - the ability to get to the QB, and he does it without giving up anything when defending the run. Guys like him are much harder to find, and why he is certain to get big money.
As good as DT is, his skills are replaceable. In fact, his replacement is already likely on the roster in Dex. So the issue will be how to replace Dex at the other DT/DE spot.
Quote:
Agreed. If I had to choose, it would be Tomlinson at a cheaper deal. It will still be overpaying, but that is the nature of a lot of FA deals. But, it would cost a lot less. I agree that re-signing both would be a mistake from a cap perspective.
I disagree. LW supplies a badly needed skill - the ability to get to the QB, and he does it without giving up anything when defending the run. Guys like him are much harder to find, and why he is certain to get big money.
As good as DT is, his skills are replaceable. In fact, his replacement is already likely on the roster in Dex. So the issue will be how to replace Dex at the other DT/DE spot.
His pressure ratings from the year prior were really good, he just didn't finish often enough. I don't know that he'll be able to replicate what he did this year, but there is no reason to think he won't be a very productive player down the road, especially if he has a good ER outside.
Quote:
My issue is whether it is safe to expect that kind of pass rush from him consistently and for at least 3 more years. That is what you need to justify a 5 year deal at the money it will take. I just don't see considering last year was the anomaly in his career thus far, by a significant margin.
H
His pressure ratings from the year prior were really good, he just didn't finish often enough. I don't know that he'll be able to replicate what he did this year, but there is no reason to think he won't be a very productive player down the road, especially if he has a good ER outside.
This is why I didn't like the trade either. I would have been 100% on board with pursuing him via FA. They could have signed him to a 3-5 year deal which would have overpaid him for what he already produced to that point, but been far less restrictive than the deal he is going to get now and he would already be on year 2, where the remainder of the deal would be less of a concern.
Instead, we already paid him over $17M, which worked out. But, now we are looking at 4 or 5 more years at more than that.
LW and DT can play.
You can't just go out and re-allocate that money to the offensive side of the ball and expect to produce more points.
There are very few offensive weapons available to fix that offense in FA.
Plus, if DJ isn't any good - it doesn't matter how much money you spend on guys that can make explosive plays on offense.
Dek Lawrence is a natural nose and would be better there than Tomlinson - and significantly so (remember this is just conjecture).
BJ Hill improved as last year moved along and would be as good as Lawrence as an end in the 3-4.
Just idle speculation, Still.....,,,,
"Dek" is a new one. Do you misspell your favorite Cowboys players' names this frequently?
This is why I didn't like the trade either. I would have been 100% on board with pursuing him via FA. They could have signed him to a 3-5 year deal which would have overpaid him for what he already produced to that point, but been far less restrictive than the deal he is going to get now and he would already be on year 2, where the remainder of the deal would be less of a concern.
Instead, we already paid him over $17M, which worked out. But, now we are looking at 4 or 5 more years at more than that.
Except for one thing: Trading for him made him ours; to get the first and only crack at him. Not trading for him allowed many other suitors to attempt to outbid us. That’s a huge difference..