free agency 2011
 

[url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/freeagents.html]2011 NFL Free Agents[/url]

I don't know if there are any better sites, but this is what I use for research. What free agents do you think we should pursue? Normally I'd assume that most of these guys would be locked up by seasons end, but with teams being reluctant to extend players due to no cba in place, I think that alot of guys will hit the market this year.

Don't just list off big name guys trying to build a pro-bowl roster. Remember, we have a salary cap to work with, and the price tag for the guys on the top of the free agent list is getting exponentially larger every year.

I think we will sign many free agents this year. We only have 2 picks in the first 4 rounds, our entire D-line blows, our interior O-line blows, our receiving core blows, and we have thin depth at linebacker. I don't think we will get big name guys...that hasn't worked out for shannahan when he has done that before, but I do think that we will get many non-starting material guys to patch some holes.

I'd say that we get a backup RB like what we were trying to do with johnson and parker (mike bell? kevin faulk?). I don't see portis or williams here next year, and I don't trust Torain to carry the load.

I don't see Holliday or Daniels back next year., and good for us the DL FA market is stacked. If we were to get a big name FA I'd want it to be Shaun Ellis. I also think it is important to get a backup NT. I don't trust Ma'ake to stay healthy. He is too big, old, and injured in the past.

I think we'll get a versitle LB that can do everything ok, but isn't good enough to start anywhere. Probably someone who is predominantly an IlB....but at the same time I don't see Carter back next year.

I see us signing some BS wide reciever in hopes that he pans out to be ok. Sort of like what we did with roydell williams and joey galloway. Maybe Brandon Stokley?

Re: free agency 2011
 

If we target a FA WR I hope its someone we can either get cheaply or at least reasonably I would really like Malcom Floyd but think he will demand too much money and will probably end up staying in San Diego. James Jones would be a good signing, with the caveat of not over paying him.

For RB there honestly probably isn't anyone who will represent a good value. The only game changer on that list is Charles and I doubt he will leave KC (or KC will let him leave I should say)

For Oline I think Nicks could be interesting, he is only 25 or 26 and has played on some very good teams in the Pros and college. He is HUGE at like 350 for a guard and would help open some holes for whoever we have running the ball next year. I also think he will be a good value, we would certainly have to pay good money for him but not top tier money.

For DE Victor Abiamiri would be a good cheap addition in my mind (full disclosure he is a ND kid and I am predisposed to like ND players)

For NT Barry Cofield would be a good back up/borderline starter

ILB Barrett Ruud would be awesome had a down year (for him) so may not want too much money

Now obviously I do NOT want us to sign ALL of these people but a few of them would be good additions.

Re: free agency 2011
 

I know this doesn't exactly go with the theme of the thread but I have been wanting to say it for awhile.

Missing out on Karlos Dansby was a big whiff by the front office, guy has been money in Miami.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=mredskins;764354]I know this doesn't exactly go with the theme of the thread but I have been wanting to say it for awhile.

Missing out on Karlos Dansby was a big whiff by the front office, guy has been money in Miami.[/quote]

The only thing I can think was that he was coming off injuries in 2 of the past 3 years. You can't argue with the guys production that's for sure

Re: free agency 2011
 

do we even know for sure that there will be a 2011 NFL season that is NOT made up of replacement players??/

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;764358]do we even know for sure that there will be a 2011 NFL season that is NOT made up of replacement players??/[/quote]
Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764359]Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.[/quote]

Then with all the talk of a lockout, and if owners are really forbidden to use replacement players, then what will happen next year??

Re: free agency 2011
 

I want Jolley. If Pat Williams comes back, he'd be a great NT.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764359]Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.[/quote]

Yep. The players will cave in as soon as training camp is about to end. You see the way these guys spend? No way they sit out a season. Like Patrick Ewing said many years ago, "we make a lot, but we spend a lot".

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764359]Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.[/quote]

I thought I have seen it both ways. Do you know what specifically forbids them from using replacements? I had read a real good article on why the de-certification tact won't be a very effective tool this time around, but now can't seem to find it.

Re: free agency 2011
 

I've always complained about pre-season games but now facing the possibility of not having any I am starting to revise my opinion! Imagine if the games counted right out of the gate?

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=mredskins;764354]I know this doesn't exactly go with the theme of the thread but I have been wanting to say it for awhile.

Missing out on Karlos Dansby was a big whiff by the front office, guy has been money in Miami.[/quote]

Would have been nice to have landed him but he simply picked Miami.

Re: free agency 2011
 

I think we should go after Aubrayo Franklin, but I am not sure if that site is up to date and whether he'll be a FA next season.

Re: free agency 2011
 

There's going to be a lot of big names available. I expect we'll hit free agency hard.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Mattyk;764384]There's going to be a lot of big names available. I expect we'll hit free agency hard.[/quote]

I have no problem with hitting free agency hard, as long as we also do it smart!

Re: free agency 2011
 

Maybe we can sign Sydney Rice and maybe a Legedu naanee this offseason.

Orton will be the biggest QB FA available IF Denver lets him walk but I doubt they will.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;764373]I thought I have seen it both ways. Do you know what specifically forbids them from using replacements? I had read a real good article on why the de-certification tact won't be a very effective tool this time around, but now can't seem to find it.[/quote]

I looked for a link but can't find it but I have heard a few (Mort, King, Sheft, Lombardi) say that because of the federal anti trust exemption they have they are not allowed to use replacement workers at a time they are locking workers out.

I'm probably in the minority on this one but I am 100% behind the players. The owners agreed to a deal and then backed out of it. They are trying to expand the regular season for no other reason but greed. You signed a deal, live with it.

Back on topic, I think we will be very aggressive in free agency (whenever it is) at the same time purging much of the carryover roster (Moss, Rabach, Dockery, Portis, Daniels, Carter, Sellers, maybe even Fletcher) in another transition year.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Ruhskins;764383]I think we should go after Aubrayo Franklin, but I am not sure if that site is up to date and whether he'll be a FA next season.[/quote]

I agree with this, finding a good NT is a hard thing to do, and he simply is a great NT.

I would target a center, either cheap, like Lyle Sendline, or expensive like Ryan Kahlil

I would also consider going after a proven receiver like Vincent Jackson.

Dashon Goldson is a solid FS who is definitely an upgrade over Kareem Moore.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764394]I looked for a link but can't find it but I have heard a few (Mort, King, Sheft, Lombardi) say that because of the federal anti trust exemption they have they are not allowed to use replacement workers at a time they are locking workers out.

I'm probably in the minority on this one but I am 100% behind the players. The owners agreed to a deal and then backed out of it. They are trying to expand the regular season for no other reason but greed. You signed a deal, live with it.

Back on topic, I think we will be very aggressive in free agency (whenever it is) at the same time purging much of the carryover roster (Moss, Rabach, Dockery, Portis, Daniels, Carter, Sellers, maybe even Fletcher) in another transition year.[/quote]

I very much disagree with you. The CBA expires this year. That is part of the deal the players signed to have these rules expire this year. They should live with the fact that they are making way too much money while the owners profits are diminishing. Theres no way any single player should be making more money than an owner, but it happens....hell a few owners are losing money every year. It is not greed, it is smart business, and it is not cheep, they have the right to not re-new the CBA because that was in the original contract.

Re: free agency 2011
 

What player is making more money than an owner?

Re: free agency 2011
 

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673]Green Bay Packers' operating profit drops to $9.8 million - ESPN[/url]

I also remember reading an article last year about how much each team makes per year. A few teams lose money, and a whole bunch don't make very much. I'm sorry but I couldn't find the link.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[url=http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html]NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com[/url]

not the original list I saw, but these work too... I count 6 teams that some players make more than, and the seahawks and raiders apparnatly lost money. Not sure how reliable these numbers are, they seem off considering how much teams like the Bills and Jags made, but then again I do trust forbes. The numbers are apparently going down every year the way the CBA works.

Re: free agency 2011
 

You totally lost me. I feel like what I want to say, Schneed will

Re: free agency 2011
 

Vincent Jackson is the only big free agent we need. The rest of the class should be made up of hard working role players.

Re: free agency 2011
 

ignore everything I said. just know that green bay made 9.8 million last year, and the operating profit would going down every year from here on out if the CBA were kept in place.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;764493]Vincent Jackson is the only big free agent we need. The rest of the class should be made up of hard working role players.[/quote]

No offense, I'm a little tired of having a team of hard working role players. I want some playmakers.

Re: free agency 2011
 

We'll need to make a few, high-quality (read: big money) signings in this class, which is an unreasonably strong class because no one really hit the market last year.

But there's a difference between giving a couple of big money deals to guys who can improve the overall quality of the roster, and what the Redskins do, which is give creatively deceptive not-so-big-money deals to players who don't actually improve the quality of the roster. More Andre Carters, fewer Adam Archuletas is what we need.

And by fewer, I mean none.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;764493]Vincent Jackson is the only big free agent we need. [B]The rest of the class should be made up of hard working role players.[/B][/quote]Which is to say we should fix this fallacy. We shouldn't give three year contracts to role players on the FA market, we should bring in undrafteds (like Brandon Banks, Keiland Williams, etc) to plug the same holes we would be filling in free agency.

I agree we should go after Jackson. I think we should also go after Ike Taylor, who plays the same defense we play.

I would also go after Ngata, Joseph, Greenway, Woodley, Rice, and Kiwanuka because they are really great players who all should be franchised to stay with their current teams. If they aren't, we can use them on our roster.

But we have to stop going after "next best" types in free agency. It's troublesome to pay "15th best in NFL at their position" guys like top three guys at their position, which is the mistake the Redskins continually make.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=DM72;764499]No offense, I'm a little tired of having a team of hard working role players. I want some playmakers.[/quote]

Offense taken.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;764388]Maybe we can sign Sydney Rice and maybe a Legedu naanee this offseason.

Orton will be the biggest QB FA available IF Denver lets him walk but I doubt they will.[/quote]

Orton isn't a FA....

[url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5707074/kyle_orton_gets_contract_extension.html]Kyle Orton Gets Contract Extension from Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow Remains Back-Up - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com[/url]

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=skinster;764476]I very much disagree with you. The CBA expires this year. That is part of the deal the players signed to have these rules expire this year. They should live with the fact that they are making way too much money while the owners profits are diminishing. Theres no way any single player should be making more money than an owner, but it happens....hell a few owners are losing money every year. It is not greed, it is smart business, and it is not cheep, they have the right to not re-new the CBA because that was in the original contract.[/quote]

Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. [url=http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/121029]NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out[/url]

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.

Re: free agency 2011
 

What's Allen's history in the UFA market? Shanahan's, just based on my recollection and not research, doesn't strike me as impressive.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764639]Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. [url=http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/121029]NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out[/url]

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.[/quote]

I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=skinster;764733]I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)[/quote]

The point was the CBA wasn't set to expire, the owners triggered this environment by opting out.

The Packers made $9.8 million in profit (reported) but their overall gross revenues were MUCH greater than that. If you want to compare apples to apples, see what a player takes home after taxes, expenses, etc. since that's essentially his 'profit'. I'm pretty sure no player, even Fat Al, made gross revenues close to what any NFL team makes on one home game. Until the full books are released by each team, I'm not buying that any teams are losing money.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the thread, sorry I derailed it. I hope, as one of the richest teams in the league, we spend wisely but aggressively adding at least one G, 2 WR and a playmaking LB.

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=Paintrain;764359]Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.[/quote]

When did Congress pass a bill - - and have a President sign it into law - - saying the owners in the NFL could not use replacement players?

Or did that happen in each and every state where the NFL has a team?

Re: free agency 2011
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;764968]When did Congress pass a bill - - and have a President sign it into law - - saying the owners in the NFL could not use replacement players?

Or did that happen in each and every state where the NFL has a team?[/quote]

It isn't law as in a federal law. Using the word unlawful was a misuse of the word. After the previous NFL lockout, it was a NFL decision to put in "rules" (since I can't think of a good word to describe it) to prevent replacement players from being used again.

There will be a season next year, I have no doubts, just I think the offseason will be cut really short. Players nor owners, nor the NFL for that matter, want to go without a season because that would be a full year with none of them making money. They owners will still have to pay for their stadium leases and all that crap, would get no endorsement money, would probably see a huge decrease in merchandise sales and so on. So in reality, the NFL, and each team, is in essesence a business, no season means no income.

As far as free agency, I am probably being a homer on this one, but I would actually like to see us do very little. Wait until other teams spend their big money, after that players generally scale down the amount they ask for, sign players to smaller contracts, trade away about 15-20 of our own roster and get draft picks and players that way. We need to go young, stop getting veterans that are 30+ in age. Look at how Philly is doing after taking on a youth movement.