GroupThink - Current players

[Easy Mac]

Having a chance to now look at the WR's closely, in terms of their contracts:

I say keep Howard. He looks better as a 3rd down receiver, which is really the only reason to have either him or Montgomery on the team. Plus, He's asking for about a million less a year than is Montgomery, and they are the same age.

Howard is also far more loyal, so he actually may be willing to re-sign for even less money. He is also a little bigger, if that makes a difference, and he's smarter.

Here's how they break down by rating (Note, the FL are asking for too much $$$ and Montgomery=M, Howard=H, N for if it is +-3):

Asking Salary - H by $1 million a year
Avoid Drops - N (M+2)
Getting Downfield - M (+5)
Route Running - H (+16)
3rd Down - H (+27)
Big Play - H (+30)
Courage - M (+12)
Adjust to Ball - M (+18)
Avoid Fumbles - M (+51)
Returns - M (doubt they'll be our returners though)
Endurance - N (M+1)

Montgomery wins 5 categories, Howard 4, and 2 neithers.

But in terms of a good 3rd down reciever, I think Howard leads because he can run routes, make big plays and he is better on 3rd downs. And I think thats tyhe main reaon we'll keep one of these guys around.

[Bee]

Do we have anyone to run back kicks and punts? That is always something that can make an impact when you have a weak offense like we do.

[wade moore]

Easy Mac has made the argument for me that if we keep one of the guys we have, Howard is the man..

[Easy Mac]

Bee

Yeah, I posted about that in the other thread about an FA that may be a good choice, but that should also have an impact on who we keep. I think the SE I mentioned in the other thread would complement nicely with Howard, but then we may have too many SE's.

If we took Littlejohn in the draft, perhaps we could move him to FL, I don't think thats against the rules, and he only takes an experience hit. But I'll worry about the draft after my shower.

[Doug5984]

I like Howard, and I think he would be our best option at keeping a WR.

Now...If we do decide to not give Oksenberg the big $$$, can we trade him away? If so trading him for I would guess a first and 3rd round pick and keeping Singletary....then that is not a bad idea, I would like having those 2 extra picks...It could help us a lot in the long run.

[strait8]

I'm sorry We westcoast guys are getting to the meeting late.
I do not see the point about oksenburg. We do not have to deal with him till next year. He's under contract for 2 years.
Keep for one year look at his numbers. Draft a back in round 3-5 with high green and evaluate both.

is there a house rule i am not understanding here.

[Bee]

Originally posted by strait8
I'm sorry We westcoast guys are getting to the meeting late.
I do not see the point about oksenburg. We do not have to deal with him till next year. He's under contract for 2 years.
Keep for one year look at his numbers. Draft a back in round 3-5 with high green and evaluate both.

is there a house rule i am not understanding here.

In the first year, anyone we keep on the team has to be resigned (no matter what their contract situation is) or cut.

[wade moore]

To trade him, do we have to resign him first?

[Bee]

Originally posted by wade moore
To trade him, do we have to resign him first?

That's the way I understand it. QS came up with the rule, so he should make the call, but I understood it to be either we resign the player or cut them.

[strait8]

I am know fully informed! I missed that before

I am all for trading him. i don't think we will get more than a mid range 1st for him.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by Bee
That's the way I understand it. QS came up with the rule, so he should make the call, but I understood it to be either we resign the player or cut them.

ouch- if we were to do that it would be a $10 million dollar cap hit....if we were to resign him to keep him it would cost us 8 million this year, and if we cut him it would only be a 2.7 million dollar hit...this is a tough decision because if were to try and trade him we could easily get a first round pick...

[strait8]

I am getting more fully informed by each passing post. We seem to have no other choice but to sign him. We cut him get nothing and it costs 2.5 mill in dead cap. I'd rather invest, not trade as that would cost at least 9 mill in dead cap.

[primelord]

If we resign him we can;t trade him until next year. The computer will not accept a trade of players who were just signed.

[strait8]

I thought the computer accepts the trade of a currently signed player you resigned (contract extention). It will not allow the trade of a freshly signed free agent player.

I have traded resigned players i think as long as it was in essence a "contract extention"

[Bee]

Originally posted by strait8
I thought the computer accepts the trade of a currently signed player you resigned (contract extention). It will not allow the trade of a freshly signed free agent player.

I have traded resigned players i think as long as it was in essence a "contract extention"

That's what I was thinking too, but I'm not positive since it doesn't happen very often.

[primelord]

Actually I think you are right. So I guess it won't be a problem.

[Bee]

Other than the $10 mil. cap hit.

[QuikSand]

I realize that everybody is being sensibe and money-conscious - traits that I think will serve us well. But at some point, sometime, we are simply going to have to spend some money.

We have an offense that is supposedly going to be built around the running game. And we have a running back in hand who certainly appears to be the complete package. (I haven't really heard anyone really argue against Oksenberg - rather against spending the money)

I don't think it woudl make any sense at all to sign him and than turn around and trade him. If we want a "star caliber" player, why not just sign a star caliber player? (The real value in a high draft pick is getting a star for less than a star price - eating $10m in cap hit to do so basicaly defeats the purpose)

If we've decided that we don't want to re-sign Oksenberg - than I think it ought to be for a particular purpose. Maybe it's so we can sign the stud DT in the FA market this year. Maybe it's to sign a batter QB. Of course, we'll still need *somebody* to run the ball, and the "cheap" options there aren't very appetizing, it seems to me.

It looks to me like our reasonable options are to:

1) pony up for Oksenberg, and play him for the next few years at least

2) let Oksenberg go, and go with a cheaper veteran ($3-5 million type of guy)

3) let Oksenberg go, and try to get a decent rookie in the draft

4) let Oksenberg go, and just go cheap there (sacrificing immediate success)


I don't put "sign-then-trade" on the list of reasonable options.

[Bee]

QS,

Based on your statement, I assume the answer to wade's question would be "yes"?

To trade him, do we have to resign him first?

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
It looks to me like our reasonable options are to:

1) pony up for Oksenberg, and play him for the next few years at least

2) let Oksenberg go, and go with a cheaper veteran ($3-5 million type of guy)

3) let Oksenberg go, and try to get a decent rookie in the draft

4) let Oksenberg go, and just go cheap there (sacrificing immediate success)

Those do look to be the only reasonable options, when i mentioned trading him I did not know we had to sign him then trade him...that makes it not worth it. If those are our only choices (and they appear to be) then I think we should go option # 1...and hope for the best

[wade moore]

QS,

Here's my basic argument... The other guy (I'm drawing a blank on his name at the moment, starts with an S) averaged 5.2 ypc vs. i think.. 4.3 ??? numbers are in the other thread... and he had more carries. I don't know that Oksenberg qualifies as the stud that he's being geared up to be, am I missing something? I unfortunately don't have the game in front of me at the moment, so that is part of the problem. If I don't realize some green bars that are there, i apologize.. believe me, i want a stud RB, i'm just trying to figure out how Oksenberg qualifies, and from what i remember he was "good" not a stud...

[Bee]

I have to agree with wade. I looked at Oksenberg and I saw an "average" NFL starter. Not great, not bad...but not worth the contract he wanted.

I think we'd be better off getting a slightly lesser RB and signing the center Roush from Dallas(?). Then hope for a "great" RB next year.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by wade moore
QS,

Here's my basic argument... The other guy (I'm drawing a blank on his name at the moment, starts with an S) averaged 5.2 ypc vs. i think.. 4.3 ??? numbers are in the other thread... and he had more carries. I don't know that Oksenberg qualifies as the stud that he's being geared up to be, am I missing something? I unfortunately don't have the game in front of me at the moment, so that is part of the problem. If I don't realize some green bars that are there, i apologize.. believe me, i want a stud RB, i'm just trying to figure out how Oksenberg qualifies, and from what i remember he was "good" not a stud...

The other guy is Shawn Singletary- 7 year vet- rated as a 38...He did put up some good numbers, but he is gettin gup there in age for a RB and his ratings arn't that great. If we were to go with him instead of Oksenberg then I think he would be more of a short term solution, that would still leave us looking for the long term-premier RB that Oksenberg *could* be. Oksenberg is rated as a 59 current, 68 future...but in his 8 starts only 2 games he had over 3.9 (20.6 & 7.5)...we have a tough decision to make here about the guys. I think with us being a young team we should go with the younger guy who will probably be the better long term solution.

Edit: With that being said, Wade is the Offensive Coordinator and he should have the say (with Quick's approval) on who we get.

[primelord]

I am in favor of Quiks comment that we dump the RB and use the money on a stud DT.

[strait8]

i am now all for keeping Oksenburg. Without knowing a complete history it would seem to me that looking at his stats he was on the bench behind another back. he just does not have significant carries.
I find guys "bars" shrink when they languish on the bench. It takes some one with a keen eye to spot this and really utilize the back.
My bet is if this guy gets 16-25 touches per game he is a top maxed out 5 running back for years to come. If we really are going to be a run first team we are very lucky, for even as he stands we all know he can.

If we are going to be a ground team we have to have a premier back. Even if we pay him and the other top guys , my bet is we end up 10-15 mill under cap. Which is where I'd like to be anyway for next year.

[wade moore]

Let me do some analysis tonight if i can, if not tomorrow morning..

[wade moore]

Ok... I'm a moron and need to look at stats less..

In a similar analysis to what Easy did with the WRs... here is a comparison of O and S...

Breakaway Speed: O +15
Power Inside: O +16
Third Down Running: O +34
Hole Recognition: O +31
Elusiveness: S +4
Speed to Outisde: O +49
Avoid Drops: O +51
Getting Downfield: O +13
Route Running: O +11
Third Down Catching: O +22
Avoid Fumbles: O +53
Punt Returns: EVEN
Kick Returns: EVEN
Endurance: O +12

The morale of the story? I stand completely corrected. I did not realize he was that much better and relied way too much on the stats. I would love to have Oksenberg on my squad ..