GroupThink - Free Agent Pursuits

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'd be just as happy grabbing a sizable hanfdul of URFA players, and seeing what they can do.

This brings up another question- is there any house rule against us signing a bunch of undrafted rookie free agents to 2 year contracts?

[QuikSand]

I've added a big for MLB Von Hagel anyway... despite his flaw in zone coverage, he wold be a prety passable #4 guy, for a pretty cheap deal. I put in an offer equal to the amount he requests.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Doug5984
This brings up another question- is there any house rule against us signing a bunch of undrafted rookie free agents to 2 year contracts?

Do you think there's an exploit there? In my limited experience with the patched FOF4, I haven't seen the "left over" stud URFAs as in the past. Also, with only 2 year contracts, if they end up being solid then we have to pay them pretty soon(unlike the old 7 year URFAs).

Just to discuss this for a second.

My thinking was that we would have a few URFAs we would have to carry into training camp. By having the 60 man requirement for training camp, we would be forced to not have "veteran" backups, but more 1st year and 2nd year backups. (Similar to the NFL) because of the salary cap. The minsal veterans I've encountered are generally better than the URFAs, by having to carry 60 into training camp we have to make decisions where we want the backup vets. The salaries of those 7 extra guys I thought would force a few decisions that would reflect a bit of realism (what vet backup has to be cut lose to sign 2 URFAs to carry into training camp?). If there is an exploit with the URFAs that I've not noticed then perhaps we should revisit this?

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by Bee
Do you think there's an exploit there? In my limited experience with the patched FOF4, I haven't seen the "left over" stud URFAs as in the past. Also, with only 2 year contracts, if they end up being solid then we have to pay them pretty soon(unlike the old 7 year URFAs).

Just to discuss this for a second.

My thinking was that we would have a few URFAs we would have to carry into training camp. By having the 60 man requirement for training camp, we would be forced to not have "veteran" backups, but more 1st year and 2nd year backups. (Similar to the NFL) because of the salary cap. The minsal veterans I've encountered are generally better than the URFAs, by having to carry 60 into training camp we have to make decisions where we want the backup vets. The salaries of those 7 extra guys I thought would force a few decisions that would reflect a bit of realism (what vet backup has to be cut lose to sign 2 URFAs to carry into training camp?). If there is an exploit with the URFAs that I've not noticed then perhaps we should revisit this?

I don't think there is an exploit with this, the 2 year contract really helps over the old seven year deals. I have seen a few cases where it could be considered a little exploit- for example in my last career I picked up an undrafter free agent WR who looked to be pretty good, after training camp he had improved a little, and his first year he was my # 3 WR. Now, if we sign them to only one year deals I would have had to pay a very large amount after the first season to bring him back, but since it was a 2 year deal I was able to hold onto him for another season to make sure I was willing to pay him big money. In the end he had over 1,000 yards his second season so i paid him a lot and brought him back....that being said...
I think we should be able to sign them to 2 year contracts, it gives it a little more realism...there is never an undrafted guy who asks for starter money after one season, maybe after 2 good seasons but not one.

[Bee]

Well, I just checked and we have a rule that FAs signed outside the 20 step process can only be signed to 1 year deals, so that takes care of URFAs signing 2 year contracts (not possible).

[wade moore]

Interested to see how this pans out...

QS, what are your feelings on the recent discussions on Oksenberg?

[primelord]

I agree that Von Hagel would be a nice backup, but I don't think we should consider him a serious candidate for our starting MLB job. His lack of coverage skills would be hard on our defense.

We are still planning on putting in an offer for Bell aren't we?

[strait8]

In regard to UFRA, I still thinfk we should sign the best available to fill our roster. If they pan out pay them, If they dont they haven't cost you much if anything at all. You cut them in training camp if the bars shrink. if they make the team you reevaluate in january. Most will be on the taxi squad will not get much playing time and should be cheap to sign as restricted free agents.

As for MLB I see the point with Von Hagel. If we play him in obvious run sits and use the nickel in passing sits. The MLB is pulled anyway for a 3 rd corner.
I like that better anyway as we will face alot of 3 and 4 wr schemes. If you notice usually your 3rd receiver is almostalways has more catches than your No.2. I think this is because the cover two schemes without nickel coverage are offer numerical mismatches.

On first down teams run 60% of he time. What you need is a good runstopper at MLB and DT. You want teams to be 2and 6 or more. This allows your defence to match up better against the 3-4 receiver sets.

[primelord]

Well I appreciate the advice, but Bell is a MUCH better run stopper than Von Hagel is and is a much better cover man. So while he is also a lot more expensive he is worth the money. Even if we only play the MLB in run situations Bell is still a much better option for us.

[Doug5984]

I think we need to somewhat discuss the draft here because a lot of what we need to do in free agency depends on who we will be picking in the draft since we pick so early. I think we can all agree that the # 1 pick should be DE KC Brackens. If he is picked before us (i think he will be) we then have 2 WRs we could pick RJ Littlejohn, or Kelvin Chance. I think both of these players could get picked in front of us but i don't know if they will. Worst case senario is the draft goes like this:

1. KC Brackens DE
2. RJ Littlejohn
3. Kelvin Chance
(not necassarily in that order)
If that were to happen then where do we go? The best player on the board is Roy Pearson, ILB, but he is not a good fit for our D at all. Then there is CB Winston Schultz, he is also not a good fit for our D and I have never been high on taking CBs that early. After those 2 there is a center, but we shouldn't take one this early. Then there is DT Karl Sinard, and I could see us taking him, he looks to be a really good player the only problem is he is 274lbs, that means he would never be able to switch from LDT unless we move him to DE, I don't know if i am willing to take that risk on the # 4 pick. There is a very good RT after him in George Blades, but our O-line seems to be complete. Then there is ILB Norm Hughes who seems like he would be a very good fit for us, but taking him here would be a huge reach...2 players that I think would be good for us are CB Joel Chan, and RDT Robbie Avalos...but taking them at # 4 is a reach...so should we start thinking about trading down if our first 3 choices are gone?
I have put together a little short list of players for us:
1. KC Brackers- DE
2. RJ Littlejohn- WR
3. Kelvin Chase- WR
4. Jorge Blades- RT - not really a need but best player
5. Robbie Avalos- DT
6. Norm Hughes- ILB
7. Winston Shultz- CB
8. Roy Pearson- ILB
9. Joel Chan- CB
10. Karl Sinard- DT - His size really scares me.

This makes me wonder if we should try a little harder than we first thought to try and sign one of the better FA WRs...just incase?

[primelord]

I don't know that I would say Schulz is a poor fit for our system. He isn't an ideal fit. But his Zone coverage potential is in the high 60's, he is strong against the run, strong in bump and run coverage where is man skills would really kick in, is excelent in diagnosing plays and great at hawking the ball. I would prefer his Zone coverage be higher, but I think he would fit well even so.

I also really like Sinard despite his size. I realize given our rules we have to keep size limitations in mind, but he has all the skills we are looking for in a DT.

[Bee]

If the 2 WR's go 2 and 3, I think we trade down. For our team, there are only 3 players worth the #4 pick IMO (Brackens, Littlejohn and Chase). I'd be surprised if the WRs go 2 and 3 though. I gotta think that Blades will go 2 or 3 because he's a tackle. Someone might take a run at Sinard as well because of his skill and DT is always an attractive position to draft high. I'm also not convinced the QB might not go in the top 3 picks if someone is really desperate for a QB after free agency.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
If the 2 WR's go 2 and 3, I think we trade down. For our team, there are only 3 players worth the #4 pick IMO (Brackens, Littlejohn and Chase).

Hear! hear!

[primelord]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Hear! hear!

All this discussion and that's the only comment we get from the GM?

[QuikSand]

I haven't been persuaded to ahcnge the current plan at MLB. We have a big offer in to Bell, and we have a modets offer in to Von Hagel. If we get both, VH becomes (probably) our top backup at each position. If we don't get Bell, VH might have to be our starter. I don't see that as an optimal solution - I agree that Bell is perfect for our system, and is worth the serious pursuit.

As I've mentioned elsewhere... while all the fiscal conservatism is well-intended, we do have to spend money somewhere. I don't think that there's any real benefit to leaving tens of millions on the table unspent - as we are trying to build the team. I don't advocate spending foolishly, but paying a legitimate market price for a potential standout player doesn't seem silly to me.

[QuikSand]

Oh, one more thing. I have withdrawn the $6m/yr offer to WR Green. I have instead put in a bid to retain WR D.J. Howard.

Some good analysis done on that opver in the other thread.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
Will we run through until week 10 in free agency and then re-evaluate?

Our house rules say (I believe) that anyone in free agency we want to pursue, must be on our list as we start the process (by week one). This is difficult to do, but it forces our hand early - pay real money to get guys, don't sit back and see who gets really desperate and cheap.

[primelord]

When do we plan to go ahead and run the free agency process?

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Our house rules say (I believe) that anyone in free agency we want to pursue, must be on our list as we start the process (by week one). This is difficult to do, but it forces our hand early - pay real money to get guys, don't sit back and see who gets really desperate and cheap.

I was thinking more along the lines of resigning some of our guys. I was thinking about the guards. If I don't get the guards I was wanting, I might need to re-evaluate the guys we have and end up resigning someone.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by primelord
When do we plan to go ahead and run the free agency process?

I'm hoping to right after my last meeting of the day - in around a half hour. I'd like to post at least an interim file or a progress report this evening. (I have a commitment a little after 7pm ET, so I'll hope to get done before then)

Though I don't think there's much clear consensus (and there are supposedly "key" people who haven't really weighed in yet) I feel like everyone has had a chance to be heard.

[QuikSand]

By the way, weren't we supposed to have a special teams coach? I don't think we have any real input on ST, either regarding actual returners or just regarding players who could help there. Not much coaching going on there - might be a vacancy.

[Doug5984]

Originally posted by QuikSand
By the way, weren't we supposed to have a special teams coach? I don't think we have any real input on ST, either regarding actual returners or just regarding players who could help there. Not much coaching going on there - might be a vacancy.

I don't think there is much for a special teams coach to do...and I looked at every WR & RB in free agency and I saw none worth the job of return man...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Doug5984
I don't think there is much for a special teams coach to do...and I looked at every WR & RB in free agency and I saw none worth the job of return man...

Fair enough... it woudl be ncie to have someone looking out for those specific roles as we stock the team with RB/WR/DB players. I also like the idea of someone lobbying for a certain TE or LB, based on his ST skills. Since we're all in this together, why not? (There's more to it in FOF4 than in any previosu version)

[QuikSand]

Okay, here are the results of the FA process:

- - -

We have bids in to 34 players – if we land every single one of them, we still will not exhaust our salary cap. However, we have to start somewhere. We have been, in my judgment, very measured in our approaches – we aren’t putting in reckless bids on anyone at all, and we ought to have enough in reserve to work out a deal with one or both of our “pending” big players on our current roster, RB Oksenberg and CB Armstrong.

With that, we’re into the first week of free agency:

Week 1

The first big news – LB Lonnie Bell has signed our offer, in the first week. So, our MLB slot is filled. (I had actually feared that we would lose out there – I’m glad to see I was wrong)

We also have new deals, again all in week one, with QB Monty Houston, DT Christian Howe, LB Gerald John, G Calvin Gaines, G Shaun Meekin, and C Clarence Cates. SO, it looks like the offensive line and LB corps are taking shape pretty nicely.

Elsewhere, we are “pending” with the highest offer to a boatload of other players, and cannot see a single guy who has already signed elsewhere, nor where we are currently being outbid. Good news!

Big deals go to CB Deon Walls (7yr, $76m) and S Anthony Patton (6yr, $56m).


Week 2

We sign more players – DT Mark Mahoney, T Blaine Johnston, CB Alfred Dennis, T Tracy Pederson, RB Scottie Bayless, and WR Ed DeWalt.

We are the only offer in for safeties Donnie Bridgeman and Walter Wetherbee, so my hopes of having those two roaming our secondary this year stays alive – but is not yet certain.


Week 3

S Donnie Bridgeman has accepted our offer, and will remain with our club for another season. We also sign DE Donald Wooden, G Andre Penick, WR Everett Rose, S Karl Linegar, TE Dusty Graham, and S Clay Upshaw.

We still have several players pending, including two quarterbacks. But, we still have yet to truly “lose out” on anyone we have been seeking.


Week 4

S Walter Wetherbee has signed with us, filling our safety pairing. We also get new deals with QB Roger Pritchett, DT R.J. Strikwerda, OLB Ray Grier, and OLB Rufus Horn. With that, I think we have locked up our top four LB prospects (all except Von Hagel), so we are looking pretty good there overall.

We still have QB Reuben Coleman sitting out there, listening to our offer. My original plan was to pull the plug on offer #3 after we got two bites… but we remain some $52 million below the cap, so I’m not too worried that we’re in money trouble.


Week 5

Ocean City is after our punter, Jumbo McIntyre. They are offering him $9.1m over four years – that’s an awful lot to pay a punter, in my book. We haven’t really talked this through, but I’m making an executive decision. We’ll do fine at the punter position, I’m pretty sure of it, without paying the guy more than half of our actual “football players.” Jumbo takes the jumbo offer, and he’s gone.


The weeks go by…

Week after week, we are landing practically every player we have pursued. The lone problem is in week 6, when FB Kelly Duncan gets an offer from Fort Worth – exactly equal to our offer of $7.20m over three years. I have to think that our “flat” deal is more attractive – we probably have more money in bonus as well, if that matters.

In week 8, FB Kelly Duncan signs… with Wheeling. That’s our first and biggest loss in the FA process – one we can live with, but it would have been nice to have a power presence in the backfield.

It takes until week 11, but we finally get a deal with LB Von Hagel, which wraps up our lot of players. Our roster has rapidly ballooned up to 42 players on contract – we have an embarrassment of rhinestone riches on this team now.


Signing “The Ox”

We work out a new deal with RB Brent Oksenberg, true to our own restrictions. The deal is $59 million over six years, with a $9 million signing bonus. He will take up just shy of $10m per year under the cap for the next two years, and then about $10.5 million for the next four years.

After making this deal, and with the new five-year contract for CB Alonzo Armstrong, we have 42 players signed, and $21 million under the salary cap. Our draft is projected to cost us something like $8.6 million – meaning that we are still pretty comfortably under the limit. I think that’s a testament to good, prudent investments on our collective part – we are in pretty good shape for the present, I think.


I had intended to post the scout overview, but am having text-printer problems, which seem to preclude that right now. I'll post the file updates in a new GT Draft thread.

[Doug5984]

Our roster looks pretty good- one thing i did notice is that we have 6 safetys under contract right now, thats a lot....now its time to figure out this draft...

[primelord]

w00t! We landed a lot of guys on defense. Very exciting! Now lets hope Brackens falls to us at #4!

[wade moore]

... I'm quite unhappy about the FB, idiot meatheads! sigh.. i was really counting on getting that guy.. no fault of our GMs, just a stupid player/agent..