NFL 2023 Offseason/Free Agency/Draft Thread

[GrantDawg]

To be fair to Jackson, he has won an MVP and Watson had not. This might be the only big contract he will get in his career. If Watson was worth that contract, then Jackson isn't crazy to think he is worth plus at least $1.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I can speak for the Falcons....they can lose a lot. I have actually seen the number closer to 4 first rounders or 3 and another couple of picks. The Falcons need way too much roster help to give up thar much. Not to mention the crazy contract demands for a guy that is a season ending injury waiting to happen. I can totally see a trade going down, Lamar injured for the year in week two, and the Ravens getting the first pick of the draft in 2024. I think the fan base would literally jump off a cliff.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I agree with you. I like him but think price (and risk) will be too high

[flere-imsaho]

I totally get where Jackson is coming from, the but the fact of the matter is that the Watson (and Murray, to be honest) contract was extremely ill-advised. The Ravens generally don't give an impression of being an organization prone to those kind of bad judgments.

If there was no salary cap, however, I'd do it and just consider the whole thing a sunk cost. I'm sure that's a big part of the equation. They give him all that guaranteed money and he degrades via injury to the point where they have to cut him, it's a huge and uncompetitive albatross on the balance sheet.

Maybe the players should negotiate, in the next CBA, for some sort of owners' cap relief in the event of long-term injuries.

[tzach]

lamar is a well-deserving former mvp and has great talent -- the ravens getting that at the end of the 1st is the exception, not the rule. they may get 3 firsts and still not find a qb. they have a newish gm and letting lamar go could be a career killer.

i think the ravens will play hardball as much as possible and, as is well advertised, the issue seems to be mostly about guaranteed money. they just negotiated a deal with a player with no agent (roquan smith), and that had to be in the makings since they traded for him.

the ravens hit a home run with that contract -- it's ultra team friendly. low cap but 60% guaranteed at signing. it will be hard to get that from lamar. since they are clearly willing to guarantee 60% to a LB that plays under a much higher injury risk, i'd guess they would have no problem in guaranteeing 70-80% to lamar. so we are most likely talking about 20-30% of the deal being guaranteed or not. i'm not sure i'd hit the reset button at qb for that. maybe the duration of the deal and conditions (no tag, no trade clause) are making things more complicated.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by tzach

lamar is a well-deserving former mvp and has great talent -- the ravens getting that at the end of the 1st is the exception, not the rule. they may get 3 firsts and still not find a qb. they have a newish gm and letting lamar go could be a career killer.

i think the ravens will play hardball as much as possible and, as is well advertised, the issue seems to be mostly about guaranteed money. they just negotiated a deal with a player with no agent (roquan smith), and that had to be in the makings since they traded for him.

the ravens hit a home run with that contract -- it's ultra team friendly. low cap but 60% guaranteed at signing. it will be hard to get that from lamar. since they are clearly willing to guarantee 60% to a LB that plays under a much higher injury risk, i'd guess they would have no problem in guaranteeing 70-80% to lamar. so we are most likely talking about 20-30% of the deal being guaranteed or not. i'm not sure i'd hit the reset button at qb for that. maybe the duration of the deal and conditions (no tag, no trade clause) are making things more complicated.

I honestly hope they do because I don't want the Falcons to trade for him.

[GrantDawg]

The kickoff thing is interesting. I don't dislike it. But does that mean no onside kicks?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If Watson was worth that contract, then Jackson isn't crazy to think he is worth plus at least $1.

That's the problem though, Watson wasn't worth that contract to sane ownership either.

[QuikSand]

I’m hearing that Daniel Jones will get something like 35m/yr… yikes. Does any other team pay him that?

[JPhillips]

I always compare these contracts to the Antoine Walker deal. These contracts where the player probably isn't good enough to win a championship but losing the player would undoubtedly make the team worse, are often the worst decisions GMs have to make. You're setting yourself up to be fired with either decision, so it's easiest to resign and hope the player is better than you think.

[B & B]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I’m hearing that Daniel Jones will get something like 35m/yr… yikes. Does any other team pay him that?

Yes.

Do you not think he's at least 2/3rds of Kirk Cousins?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by B & B

Yes.

Do you not think he's at least 2/3rds of Kirk Cousins?

Not even close

[henry296]

Since usually there are only about 5-6 QBs that are truly good enough to win a title. Every team should draft one, play them for 4 years. Determine if they are one of those 5-6, if not repeat the process. These are probably the 5 potential super bowl QBs and if not, play a rookie or cheap QB

Mahomes
Burrow
Allen
Herbert
Hurts

Most of the rest of the guys aren't worth it.

[albionmoonlight]

I think I agree, henry296, but as JPhillips said, it is very hard as a GM to cut a guy when it will probably make your team worse. Say you go to the playoffs with Kirk Cousins. But you know in your heart that you got there with Cousins, not because of Cousins.

So you let him walk instead of paying him. And you draft a guy. And he sucks. And you go from a playoff team to a 3-win team. And Cousins is grabbing the #5 seed with some other team. And he will never ever win a Super Bowl. But at least he plays relevant football in December.

The overall plan might make sense. But some other GM is probably going to be the one to benefit from your long term thinking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by henry296

Since usually there are only about 5-6 QBs that are truly good enough to win a title. Every team should draft one, play them for 4 years. Determine if they are one of those 5-6, if not repeat the process. These are probably the 5 potential super bowl QBs and if not, play a rookie or cheap QB

Mahomes
Burrow
Allen
Herbert
Hurts

Most of the rest of the guys aren't worth it.

But then there's the less than stellar list of QBs that [i]have won an SB. Notice that your list doesn't include a guy who won one just a year ago.

And before Stafford was Foles, and before him Flacco. That's 3 in 11 years.

Go back further and you get Johnson, Dilfer, Rypien, and Hostetler. That's 5 in 23 years, 7 in 34 years.

And I think those play a role in the approaches we see taken. Those guys create a certain "So you're saying there's a chance" reality that's kinda hard to ignore.
edit to add: and I can't blame people for considering that. It seems to happen, on average, every 4 or 5 years for the past 3 or 4 decades.

[JPhillips]

Listening to the talk about the Jets and Rodgers/Carr just shows how brutal life is in the AFC for the next decade. The Jets best option is maybe the seventh-best QB in the conference and that's putting him ahead of Watson, Jones, Tua, Pickett, and the two or three draft picks coming into the AFC.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, I am a fan. And I like winning more than losing.

So Jon's framing of "so you're saying there's a chance" has some appeal. The offseason, the early season, the Wild Card chase are more fun if there's a chance. Yeah, at some point we'll have to beat Burrow or Mahomes, but the ball bounces weird, and it's one game--not trying to beat Jordan over a 7 game series.

I don't think I'd like to spend 10 years winning 5 or less games just to happen to eventually draft Trevor Lawrence. And then . . . . maybe? Probably?

I think I'd prefer a decade of generally meaningful football going to the playoffs more often than not even if we are never on the preseason short list of likely-to-win-the-Super-Bowl.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

So maybe the real question if you do want to go the "we have a chance route" is if Burrow, etc. are worth $50/year, are you better off paying Cousins $35/year or Teddy Bridgewater $10/year and spending that $25 on other players?

[bhlloy]

I think for the most part it's damned if you do and damned if you don't, but I will note that Jon's list includes quite a few "good enough" QBs who had absolutely exceptional defenses. So I think if if my choice was Bridgewater and signing 2/4ths of a top 3 defensive line or Cousins and going with average players at that position, I'd probably go for the Bridgewater option. But I don't think for example if you spend the extra $25m on a WR and a DB that moves the needle much at all.

[Ksyrup]

If you are listing the "mediocre QB/good D" SB winners, you have to add the Manning Broncos. HOF name but just managed games that year and rode it to a SB win.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I think for the most part it's damned if you do and damned if you don't, but I will note that Jon's list includes quite a few "good enough" QBs who had absolutely exceptional defenses. So I think if if my choice was Bridgewater and signing 2/4ths of a top 3 defensive line or Cousins and going with average players at that position, I'd probably go for the Bridgewater option. But I don't think for example if you spend the extra $25m on a WR and a DB that moves the needle much at all.

Honest question: which is easier, building a strong defense or getting a top-tier franchise quarterback?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by tzach

i'd guess they would have no problem in guaranteeing 70-80% to lamar. so we are most likely talking about 20-30% of the deal being guaranteed or not. i'm not sure i'd hit the reset button at qb for that. maybe the duration of the deal and conditions (no tag, no trade clause) are making things more complicated.

I haven't been paying close attention but I suspect the % they didn't want to guarantee was much much higher or this would have been done. Maybe the Tyler Huntley experience was bad enough that last stretch they've gone a lot higher recently though.

[tzach]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I haven't been paying close attention but I suspect the % they didn't want to guarantee was much much higher or this would have been done. Maybe the Tyler Huntley experience was bad enough that last stretch they've gone a lot higher recently though.

it could well be -- i certainly don't know the facts and i'm just inferring from public info. but if they guaranteed 60% against injury to a LB, why wouldn't they do at least a bit more for a qb?



these are some contract data from 2022 -- aaron rodgers got 100% guaranteed against injury, russell wilson got 67%, and kyler murray (!) got 70%. i think lamar is smart enough to not base his case on watson's contract alone. i was surprised last season that the ravens and lamar didn't meet somewhere in the middle at 85 or 90% guaranteed or so. there's no way that lamar would accept a similar contract as murray.

[JPhillips]

So if Hurts is the best QB in the NFC, who is #2? Dak? Cousins? Stafford?

Is it maybe Daniel Jones?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So if Hurts is the best QB in the NFC, who is #2? Dak? Cousins? Stafford?

Is it maybe Daniel Jones?

A healthy Stafford.

[Swaggs]

Are we assuming Rodgers is done?

[Solecismic]

He is in a place where defensive ends cannot throw him to the ground and rub his face in the turf while saying bad things about his parentage.

Not quite junior high school, but not quite the womb, either. I really want to see him play for the Bears, but they'll never let that happen.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So if Hurts is the best QB in the NFC, who is #2? Dak? Cousins? Stafford?

Is it maybe Daniel Jones?

Jared Goff?!?

I mean, if Rodgers ends up in the AFC, it’s Hurts, maybe Dak, and then…. I did a whole breakdown on the first page. Given that Murray is injured, it’s a bit of a toss up after Hurts.

[Solecismic]

Prescott, Goff and Cousins are all franchise-level quarterbacks. Just not on the same level as Burrow and Mahomes. Few will ever be. Mahomes might be GOAT before he's done.

[JPhillips]

But are any of them above the top group in the AFC of,

Mahomes
Burrow
Allen
Herbert
Jackson
Lawrence

Personally, I'd rather have any of those six before I take Cousins or Goff.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But are any of them above the top group in the AFC of,

Mahomes
Burrow
Allen
Herbert
Jackson
Lawrence

Personally, I'd rather have any of those six before I take Cousins or Goff.

Good list, but I would bump Lawrence up a spot and put Tua in a category with Lamar. Franchise QBs when healthy, but not healthy often enough to depend on right now.

[Solecismic]

I'm not 100% sold on Allen or Jackson, but they are entering their prime and are franchise guys. I think Detroit can win with Goff - I'd put him second in the NFC. I think someone will get a steal with Garoppolo and I think Rodgers has some life left in him, but the Packers will not deal him within the NFC. Derek Carr is OK, and should find a decent new home and Russell Wilson will rebound in a big way unless there's something physically wrong.

There are two things that separate guys who can lead a franchise and the Trent Dilfer type.

One is interceptions. You can make wonderful throws all over the kingdom like Jameis Winston or Ryan Leaf, but you can't be trusted if you throw interceptions like you're in a 23-hour Oliver Stone movie (though Leaf didn't exactly possess the capacity to throw anything with touch).

The second is if you think you're Carson Wentz or Mitch Trubisky and the thought of throwing downfield fills you with so much fear that you're checking down to the umpire in charge of offensive holding and illegal hands to the face.

So Daniel Jones? Please check in with the courtesy desk where you'll find $5 million and a primary backup job on a team that wants to pretend it can win if the big guy goes down. Tua? I'm intrigued. Do that again, and I'll put you up there ahead of some of the big names. Justin Fields? I don't think so - not even close.

[Kodos]

Tua should walk away while he can. Too many concussions. Get out before your future is ruined.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But are any of them above the top group in the AFC of,

Mahomes
Burrow
Allen
Herbert
Jackson
Lawrence

Personally, I'd rather have any of those six before I take Cousins or Goff.

None of them, but that’s sort of the point. At the moment, other than Hurts, all the premiere QB talent resides in the AFC. So, if you’re a NFC team just trying to make it to the Super Bowl (not necessarily win it), maybe a Prescott or Goff level QB is sufficient.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I’m hearing that Daniel Jones will get something like 35m/yr… yikes. Does any other team pay him that?

See? This is one of the real added benefits of having one of those elite QBs. Sure, you're paying Mahomes or Burrow or whoever $40-50M of your cap. But you're /not/ having to pay Daniel Jones $35M of your cap, and that's one hell of a bargain.

SI

[miked]

Obviously, the goal of most teams should be to make the playoffs. One 1 of 32 actually win the SuperBowl, and while that is your ultimate goal, you can't win without getting to the playoffs. There are probably about 15 or so QBs who could get you there...so the question for the Ravens could be, would your rather go all in on your guy who has spent a decent chunk of time on the injury list...or perhaps roll the dice with a Goff-type (Carr, maybe Mayfield) and see if you can boost your defense with the added cap space?

I'm no Mayfield fan, but getting picks to draft a great WR and adding an above average QB may be the way to go. I mean, Ryan Tannehill has taken his team to the playoffs several times. Maybe Garrapolo and a nice WR can help offset the loss of Jackson.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

None of them, but that’s sort of the point. At the moment, other than Hurts, all the premiere QB talent resides in the AFC. So, if you’re a NFC team just trying to make it to the Super Bowl (not necessarily win it), maybe a Prescott or Goff level QB is sufficient.

I'm generally opposed to trading draft picks and locking up a huge portion of the cap in a single player, but in this case I think an NFC team should do whatever it takes to land Jackson. They'd instantly have the #1 or #2 QB in the NFC a be able to compete for the Super Bowl for years .

[albionmoonlight]

Tennessee QB Hendon Hooker has met extensively with the Raiders, Panthers, Giants, Saints, and Cowboys during the pre-draft process, per source.

The dual-threat talent is expected be healthy and ready for training camp after suffering a torn ACL in Nov.

— Ryan Fowler (@_RyanFowler_) February 21, 2023

A lot of teams have the same idea, I think.

1. Get a veteran bridge QB.
2. Draft Hooker, who falls to the 3rd round because of his injury
3. Have Hooker sit for a year and then become the next great young QB
4. Everyone talks about how you got a steal in the draft and you are the smartest GM in the league

But with this many teams sniffing around, he is going to sneak into the high second/late first. And the whole value/steal thing goes away

I also don't think that guys really fall b/c of ACLs anymore. Teams know that you can come back 100% from them. I'd be much more worried about guys with a concussion history.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm generally opposed to trading draft picks and locking up a huge portion of the cap in a single player, but in this case I think an NFC team should do whatever it takes to land Jackson. They'd instantly have the #1 or #2 QB in the NFC a be able to compete for the Super Bowl for years .

As much as I hate to say it, I think WAS becomes a really interesting team with someone like Jackson, and with the new OC.

[Lathum]

Jones just switched agents and I am seeing he wants 45 mil/year. If I am the Giants I laugh in his face and let him walk.

The problem the Giants have is Jones showed tremendous growth this year and got them to the playoffs, but he isn't a top guy who makes others better. IF you let him walk you start from square one, if you sign him, plus you have to sign Saquon, you are putting yourself in cap hell.

[Swaggs]

Man, the Athletic posted an article with a 2020 redraft. They have Herbert going 1:1 and bumping Burrow down to 1:2 and Hurts at 14. And Tua at 18. Not sure how this is supposed to be taken as serious journalism.

I can't imagine anyone choosing Herbert over Burrow, although some folks in the comments seem to think Herbert would take less sacks. More people said they stopped reading after the change, though.

And having a dozen teams skip over Hurts just seems silly.


2020 NFL redraft: Is Joe Burrow still QB1? How high does Justin Jefferson climb? - The Athletic
(behind paywall)

[Atocep]

That's one of the worst articles I've seen posted on the Athletic.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Jones just switched agents and I am seeing he wants 45 mil/year. If I am the Giants I laugh in his face and let him walk.

The problem the Giants have is Jones showed tremendous growth this year and got them to the playoffs, but he isn't a top guy who makes others better. IF you let him walk you start from square one, if you sign him, plus you have to sign Saquon, you are putting yourself in cap hell.

It looks like the franchise tag would be around $32M. Seems like a perfect time to tell him to go play the market and see what you get. I would be tempted not to franchise him and offer something between $25M-$30M/per for 4 years and see what he can get on the open market. If he can beat that, more power to him.

My quick research says that, in the past three years of free agency, Brady and Rivers got the biggest AAV contracts with $25M (Brady obviously discounted himself, but he's Brady) and that Jameis Winston is the only other FA QB to get an AAV over $10M at $14M.

Spotrac (Daniel Jones Contract Breakdowns, Salary Cap Figures, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac) says the most comparable players (age, contract status, and production) to Jones are Jimmy G, Tannehill, Trubisky, and Winston and their average salary is around $18.5M. I think $25M per year seems fair, and maybe generous, but I guess it only takes one team to make someone rich obscenely rich.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Man, the Athletic posted an article with a 2020 redraft. They have Herbert going 1:1 and bumping Burrow down to 1:2 and Hurts at 14. And Tua at 18. Not sure how this is supposed to be taken as serious journalism.

I can't imagine anyone choosing Herbert over Burrow, although some folks in the comments seem to think Herbert would take less sacks. More people said they stopped reading after the change, though.

And having a dozen teams skip over Hurts just seems silly.


2020 NFL redraft: Is Joe Burrow still QB1? How high does Justin Jefferson climb? - The Athletic
(behind paywall)

No way the Bengals would take anyone other than Burrow. Between performance and being an Ohio boy, he's perfect for that franchise.

[Ksyrup]

If this is a "if you knew then what you know now" article, why would anyone spend a 1st on Tua given the concussion situation? Does a college star who is where he is right now with concussions get drafted at all?

[Solecismic]

Studies still have a selection bias, in that families need to agree that a brain can be included in a study, but the BU study found 99% of those brains from former NFL players showed signs of CTE and more than 91% of a smaller sample from former college football players.

The idea that you can play professional football and not get concussed is not a realistic one. That's the unfortunate reality.

I know of no way to rationalize continuation of football as a competitive sport other than at this point, taking a paycheck to play football is informed consent to having your brain bounced around your skull like a margarita mix at a trendy bar.

The situation is improved somewhat by better tackling techniques, penalties for targeting, awareness that the effects of a concussion mean that detecting it immediately and avoiding a second one in a short amount of time makes an enormous difference. But nothing is going to prevent concussions, and it's undoubtedly worse for non-quarterbacks, who aren't watched like hawks after every play.

I don't know what to say about Tua. Awareness that he had at least two concussions last season makes this an important case. But I think it leads more to whether the sport itself should survive than it leads to whether Tua can have a career if he's cleared by doctors and wants to get back out there. The evidence supports the concept that the brain will recover complete neural connectivity given time, but that is a separate concept from the CTE issue.

There was about one diagnosed concussion during every two games this past NFL season. How many undiagnosed? Obviously, we don't know. A player who reacts every time his helmet hits something hard during a game and submits to evaluation (which most of the time would probably come up OK if this were the case) might give us a product in which games took ten hours because of the line outside the tent after many plays. And then maybe roster sizes could double? Or perhaps CTE is entirely separate from what we call a concussion and its immediate effects on neural connectivity.

This is an uncomfortable reality. There is no way to have football and prevent CTE. There is a way to reduce the more immediately dangerous effects of a second concussion and the NFL is at least making this a focus.

As for whether Tua is worth the investment at this point, I think it's up to him and how he feels about competing if the doctors say he has recovered.

[QuikSand]

So, Around this time last year, a number of us decided to contribute to a standalone thread, where we talked about making decisions from the point of view of one team, selecting the Giants, because of their two early pics, and multiple interesting contract situations. I found it to be pretty fun, and would like to do the same thing again this year. Giants, again? Or is there another team similarly situated where we could Max out the interest level? Texans?

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, Around this time last year, a number of us decided to contribute to a standalone thread, where we talked about making decisions from the point of view of one team, selecting the Giants, because of their two early pics, and multiple interesting contract situations. I found it to be pretty fun, and would like to do the same thing again this year. Giants, again? Or is there another team similarly situated where we could Max out the interest level? Texans?

Lions? Multiple picks. Controversy over whether to Goff or not. Arguments on who would be able to bite the most kneecaps.

[albionmoonlight]

Lions also have the last year's Hard Knocks team thing going for them.

Panthers are another interesting team, though I think that a lot of discussion would collapse into what QB to trade up and draft.

Raiders? Never a dull moment with them, and they have a good mix of pretty good players and huge question marks.

But I'm down with the Lions. Good choice.

[QuikSand]

Lions is really good, yesss

[albionmoonlight]

I'm on Team #KeepGoff