WFT Free Agency

Ok you guys got me. Should we start counting all the players from the 31 other teams too?

Samuel last season

77 Rec on 93 Targets (83%)
11.1 YPR
Lined up in the slot 71% of the time but they also had Robby Anderson and DJ Moore

He's a threat in the run game as well with 41 attempts last yr for 200 Yards

Ok you guys got me. Should we start counting all the players from the 31 other teams too?

Lol. To be fair to your point, I wouldn't call what Davis did for us last year playing anyways.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwuUArcWgAgcl0U?format=jpg&name=900x900

Ok you guys got me. Should we start counting all the players from the 31 other teams too?I was just giving you grief. I agree with your main point 100%

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I was just giving you grief. I agree with your main point 100%

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

:grouphug:

Samuel Signing - B
He is McL 2.0. The question is whether you should have two smurfs as 1 and 2 WRs in today's NFL. It is an interesting question. More conventional wisdom, which is not always correct, says you need a tall, big, fast #1 WR. The only true #1 WRs in FA were both franchised. Not signing Golladay was right move, both because his price was punitive, and because he is really a #1.5 WR, a better version of but still similar to 3 guys we already have on our roster, namely Sims, Golden, Harmon. Bringing in a 4th WR similar to 3 guys we already have, long strider bigger possesion WRs without elite quickness, probably doesn't make sense even if price was right. There isn't a true #1 franchise WR, so what do you do? Sign another smurf burner I guess. I can't fault the approach, even though I'm not sure what the outcome will be.

$11M is no bargain for a solid second-tier receiver, but neither is it drastic overpay. Samuel has not been consistently good, his early career was a suckfest, and you wonder if, as with many college draft picks, if one great year an anomaly. Trust that RR knows what he is doing as he knows the player. This is not some top-tier player, nor a massive bargain, but it is a solid signing, a B.

A few other interesting observations. Our two main signings were young players in their prime, which I like, especially when contrasted as abysmal signings of past.

Lot of 3 year deals out there. Players expecting influx of new TV deal money? Regardless, one consequence is that we can draft a CB or WR high in draft this year or next, and about the time their contracts expire, Samuel and Jackson's expire too. Smart planning? Let's be optimistic and say yes. The downside is you haven't locked them in long term, but this downside more than offset by risk mitigation if players don't perform or younger replacements exist. FO is clearly and smartly avoiding the anchor of shit contracts like Smith, Collins, etc., moving forward, give them credit for that.

So we now have 2 legit burners, and best case scenario is we should be able to punish teams deep, assuming we have a QB to get them the ball. Neither Heinecke and Allen has great arm strength, and I can hear the Fitz chants already, but if we are going with more of a deep threat O, even at times, which I LOVE, we need a big armed QB. That is not Jones or many other QBs in draft.

So at WR in 3 sets you might expect, McL, Samuel slot, and Harmon/Golden/Sims on outside. It is hopefully not absurd to hope one of the three big guys becomes a viable #2, and perhaps use 2 of big guys in red zone or 3rd short situations. We now have 5 WRs that seem roster locks assuming no major ridiculousness, McL, Samuel, Harmon, Golden, Sims. Draft a 6th? Go with other Sims? Keep 5 WRs. I think they draft 1 more WR, just because an injury to McL or Samuel puts you right back where you started, and smaller WRs take a beating and Samuel has injury history. This means teams can no longer double McL all game without paying for it and should open up offense immensely.

We had to sign a WR, and a modest signing like this much better than breaking bank for guys that are not true #1s. We now have a #1.5WR in McL, a #1.5WR in Samuel, and 3 #2 or #2.5 in Golden, Harmon, Sims. That is respectable, but a true big and quick #1 would still be ideal. Maybe we draft that guy. Our WR unit went from a C or D to a B, but would need a true #1 to be ranked A. That being said, our offense should be exponentially better, and I still think we draft WR with one of first 5 picks.

Lamar Miller - B+
Let's assume he's making league minimum or no more than $2M on one year deal, contract details not released. Yes, I'd rather draft a young player later in draft to fill this role, but going to take FO time to fill all such holes through draft. We still have lots of holes and stated intention of FO is to enter draft with no major holes so they aren't forced to draft for need. A smart approach.

Miller was a stud when younger. He has the straight-line speed to take it to the house, even assuming he's lost a step with age. He can catch. He has decent size. You could do a lot worse for a #3 RB. He's been proven to handle the load of starting, meaning if Gibson goes down, you don't have to wonder if some rookie can handle it or not. And if you draft a good young RB, you can cut him without hosing cap.

This is one of those smart signings, cheap and under the radar, that we made a half dozen of last year.

David Sharpe - F

I'd give it a G or H if I could. We traded for him last year, as we had serious depth problems at T. Calling Sharpe a T is the height of optimism. Not sure he would have good foot speed or agility even in moon gravity. He moves like a G, but doesn't have strength of one. Yeah, he's a #4 T. You don't expect a world-beater, but if he ever had to man the edge for a long period of time you'd need 6 QBS on the roster. While I don't expect the FO to sign another FA in such a deep draft class for Ts, they had better draft a T with one of first 4 picks, Sharpe is so bad that even at league minimum (deal details not released by said 1 year deal) this is still an F signing.

To me, this signing means one of 2 things: Christian gone or Charles health not progressing well. Let's hope the first.

So our Ts as of now are Lucas LT Moses RT, with Charles and Sharpe for depth. If we drafted one of studs at #19, or a solid LT in 2nd round, this position looks WORLDs better. It bears repeating that Lucas and Moses older and will need to be resigned soon. Do we have the cap money for that if we extend Scherff and Allen (or by next year Payne), after all the contracts we've signed, many doubtless with small numbers this year that balloon next 2 years? Bringing in a young LT and grooming him a year sure does sound smart, versus spending $10M+. Ideally by 2022 you'd start Charles and whoever we draft at both Ts.

TE market has dried up, but may be some quality lower tier player.
As of now, major holes that remain are at FS and LB.
I still expect some FS to be signed, lower tier guy?, and at least one LB.
Really thin draft for TE, so maybe a low cost signing there? Moss has a big name, but is he a legit player? I don't know, but someone behind our starter needed.

Sure looks like FO plans on spending at least one of our first-four picks on LB. Del Rio and RR both played linebacker, tough to think they wouldn't like an elite thumper in middle. Assuming FS isn't a gaping liability as it has been since death of Taylor (what a tragedy, ugh), we should be tougher to pass on, meaning teams may try to pound it up middle. A thumper MLB to doll out the pain would seem necessary.

Excepting QB which is a train wreck, and perhaps TE, the only area of our roster where we don't have at least one higher-tier or impact player is LB. I expect this to be addressed in FA and in draft. I think we'll draft at least 2 LBs. It is again frightening to think of our D with a good FS and 2-3 stud LBs. I again find myself wondering about a D-focused draft.

The final note is that if our FO is serious about filling all holes and going BPA, you could get long term solutions at LT and CB even though not highest needs short term, and really set yourself up well long term, because deep draft both positions. Deep draft QB WR also. I would still love to see us hit the high leverage positions if board fall that way, to go QB,LT,CB,WR with first four picks. That would be such a smart draft from a long-term and salary cap perspective--if the board falls that way. In reality, if you throw a LB in and we hit 3 high leverage with top-4 picks, still good. You look at how limited our cap'll be long term, and how much signing CBs, WRs, QBs, good LTs, costs, you have to be drafting them long-term. That being said, sneaking suspicion our FO is going to just make our D into a monster in draft.

I also wonder if there is a QB in draft we really like but are keeping quiet about, even if not a high QB.