WFT Free Agency

[Scalper]

Adam Humphries Signing - B-

As with CB, if Samuels or McL go down, we are hosed and right back where started, and not absurd to think with small receivers that take a beating this might happen. It might also be good to use Samuels speed on outside more at times in certain looks packages, not just in slot. Additionally, while you hope that one of our long-strider giants becomes a #2, Harmon, Golden, or Sims, should you bank on it? For these reasons, bringing in another proven WR makes a TON of sense. This signing makes Sims (smurf Sims) expendable. Unless we keep 7 WRs, you would think Harmon, Golden, Sims, Samuels, McL, Humphries. You get the sense RR and co. want to attack defenses more vertically this year, LOL.

Humphries was a UDFA, is an average athlete, and not super fast, but he has better short area quickness than his measurables might indicate and is fairly savvy at getting separation. You have to think a good word from Fitz factored in somewhere here, they had good chemistry together. Humphries is a hard worker, and a guy that just seems to know how to get open and make plays even though he is not blessed with massive talent and isn't some massively dominant player. He is the type of guy who can beat a 3rd CB however, and you might expect some solid production as teams focus on Samuel and McL. He was signed by Titans for $9M a year over 4 years and was cut 2 years in because of injuries and subpar production. One year, terms of deal not released, let's assume $3-$6M, one year deal.

This is another solid B signing. Given the injury history, anything longer than 1 year would be insane, and we can't tie more money up anyway, at WR, long term, with McL needing new contract soon. Tough to see this signing and think FO has massive confidence in Harmon, Golden, or Sims. Simply can't afford to have absolutely nothing besides McL (or Samuels) again this year if younger guys don't develop or injuries. This gives you an established WR with solid proven production, though not elite production--if he can stay healthy. This is a solid B signing without the injury history, but drops to B- with that. Nothing wrong with solid B signings to round out roster, As are hard to get in FA, what you don't want is Cs and Ds, overpaying, especially older players with injury history past prime, like we used to.

Yet again, this is the type of guy that better teams draft rather than having to sign, but going to take 2 more years to be fully clear of mistakes of past.

You see this signing, the CB signing of Roberts, you begin to wonder if the FO is going to go T, QB, TE, LB, or FS with earlier picks in draft. As of now, we would be hosed at T if one of starters hurt and Charles a total question mark can't produce. Same at TE, nothing behind Thomas. And I just can't imagine we don't draft a QB with one of first four picks to learn behind Fitz and bridge the future. Our 3 QBs better be Fitz, Heinecke, and a rookie. Maybe we sign a TE or LB or FS next few weeks, or maybe or draft focus is becoming more apparent? We could honestly use about 20 picks to draft WR, 2 RBs, 2 TEs, 2 QBs, T, DT, DE, 3-5 LBs (LOL), 2 FS, 2-3 CBs, and a new Red Snapper! So important to draft well long term so you eventually get to point where you have solid drafted players on most of backend of roster.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Darryl Roberts - B

This is the kind of guy you want to be drafting, not signing, but this is again hardly the fault of RR and co., who are cleaning up the mess that Cerrato Ye Dunce, Bruce Allen, and THE DAN left. It will take 2 more drafts before we are fully free and clear of the mistakes of old, so we are stuck with signings like this. You pay 2-10 players on the bottom end of roster $1-3M versus 5th-7th round rookie slotting, it adds up. This is again not fault of new regime.

We have a true #1CB in Jackson, and #1.5CB in Fuller who is much better in slot. Moreland is a feel good story, but no way you want him starting all year as one of primary two corners. Moreland makes some plays, but also seems to be around at times when WRs sprint through secondary wide open, I'll take consistency in coverage over splash plays. If Fuller or Jackson went down, we are hosed. You figure we'll draft a CB, ideally top-4 picks, but FO again wants freedom to go BPA, and even if you knew we were going to draft a CB top-4 picks this signing still probably makes sense. Depending how you reckon Deshazor, I don't love the guy, Roberts is immediately #3 on depth chart. He has some natural speed, he is versatile, can play slot, outside, some FS (be funny but not really if he ended up as our FS this year), and you can trust him much more than other guys backend of roster in nickel (again, see receivers of better teams sprinting wide open through our secondary like it is the plains of Africa). He was making about $6M a year when jets cut him, and $2M we're paying him is probably fair tending towards bit of bargain--tough to say as a guy rolls up on 30. He is probably between 50th-100th best CB in football, in middle or a bit lower of that range I'd say. So where we signed him to play, 3rd CB, is right where his talent indicates he should be. Even if we draft rookie, Jackson, Fuller, Roberts, Rookie, Johnson (STer).

This is a solid B signing. FO again deserves credit for plugging some gaping holes in our depth chart, which could really expose us if we are in competition for playoffs and injuries strike. This is not some absurd bargain, nor some awesome player, so the B grade is appropriate. These are the types of players good teams have, bad teams don't, and the best teams draft rather than signing. Long term plan at position is hopefully to draft young CB this year, bring him along, and then have him be 3rd CB when Roberts leaves next year, and draft another CB next year as well.

He's basically Moreau's replacement, and I'm not sure he jumps Moreland on the depth chart. He's serviceable, but nothing special. That said, I like the signing for depth purposes, but agree that they should still draft a CB.

[AnonEmouse]

Looking at what we've done in FA, I think it's been about giving us more freedom in the draft; reducing the outright need to draft any one position. The only 3 positions I see as not being properly addressed so far are LT, LB and FS. Everything is covered with pickups that will be immediate starters (Fitz, Samuel, Jackson) or depth where we're thin/allowed guys to walk (Roberts, Mayo, Humphries). I think they're placing themselves where any team really wants to be, able to draft BPA with every pick. Given where we pick and the mocks suggest the same, #19 is going to be an LT or LB. I can see us therefore looking to round out depth with a few more FA signings, probably after we see what the draft gives us. Someone like Fisher, if still available, if we don't get the OL we want. Seems a sound approach to FA and the draft so far.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

Looking at what we've done in FA, I think it's been about giving us more freedom in the draft; reducing the outright need to draft any one position. The only 3 positions I see as not being properly addressed so far are LT, LB and FS. Everything is covered with pickups that will be immediate starters (Fitz, Samuel, Jackson) or depth where we're thin/allowed guys to walk (Roberts, Mayo, Humphries). I think they're placing themselves where any team really wants to be, able to draft BPA with every pick. Given where we pick and the mocks suggest the same, #19 is going to be an LT or LB. I can see us therefore looking to round out depth with a few more FA signings, probably after we see what the draft gives us. Someone like Fisher, if still available, if we don't get the OL we want. Seems a sound approach to FA and the draft so far.

You could nitpick, and I still hate the Fitz signing even though I think Fitz is solid for a senior citizen who has never won when it counts and never once led a team to the playoffs, but these are at least the moves of a professional FO rather than the clown show of the last quarter century. I concur with your assessment, and this philosophy has been directly stated by the FO. That being said, there are still some needs, the three you identified, plus we almost have to draft a QB and at least one TE.

I still look at at from the big-5 high-leverage positions perspective: QB, LT, DE, CB, WR in that order. Find a franchise QB. Protect him as no sense paying a guy $40M a year to be on IR, LT. Get a guy that destroys the other teams QB. I put CB above WR simply because there are far fewer shutdown CBs than dominant WRs. We have DE and CB locked up, CB at least 3 years. I still don't view McL as true #1WR, more #1.5, lacks size. Assuming five QBs go before us, as expected, QB with #1 pick no sense. So you would hope that BPA coincides with LT or WR. In a deep LT class, with hopefully 5 QBs before us and also lots of good WRs, you hope a top-10 LT most years drops to us this year and we button that position up and can keep whoever is QB healthy long term. I would be gritting my teeth if we pass on a franchise LT to draft a MLB or FS, even though we have needs there. Then maybe next year a WR or QB 1st round, and the other year after, you have your high-leverage positions locked up long term and can start having honest discussions about being a contender.

The exception would be a true stud 4.3 speed kind of FS, Earl Thomas. If one of those sitting there first round any year, you pounce.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Terry McLaurin isn't a #1 WR because of his size? Does that mean that Tyreek Hill isn't a #1 receiver too? Stefon Diggs, Amari Cooper, Justin Jefferson... They are all about the same size.

2000+ yards receiving and 11 TDs in two years without a clear #2, and six different starting QBs.

There's no question that TM is a #1 receiver.

[sevier2]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Terry McLaurin isn't a #1 WR because of his size? Does that mean that Tyreek Hill isn't a #1 receiver too? Stefon Diggs, Amari Cooper, Justin Jefferson... They are all about the same size.

2000+ yards receiving and 11 TDs in two years without a clear #2, and six different starting QBs.

There's no question that TM is a #1 receiver.

Agreed. The entire league seems to recognize Terry as a legit #1. I'm surprised to see somebody on our own board doubting him.

Then again, I've seen plenty of GB fans complain about Aaron Rodgers...

[OnceWeWereKings]

Originally Posted by sevier2

Agreed. The entire league seems to recognize Terry as a legit #1. I'm surprised to see somebody on our own board doubting him.

Then again, I've seen plenty of GB fans complain about Aaron Rodgers...

I can only imagine that is being said by someone I have on my ignore list. Terry Mac is clearly a number 1.

[ThirdEyeSquad28]

My take with what the football team should continue doing is building everything important around the QB (a STRONG o-line, versatile weapons WR/RB, and a STOUT Defense...that way, after Fitz...we have a perfect fit for a new rookie QB to succeed, or we become an attractive destination for a FA QB coming next year via release/trade.....on a team ready to compete RIGHT NOW...and every QB loves a good O-line....

With that being said...

I’m hoping we draft In our first several picks:

A Left tackle (will help our run game too)
An elite coverage safety (molden) or LB that’s excels in coverage (Collins)

I think we have made good improvements on offense, and Fitzmagic will help realize more of this offensive’s potentional compared to last year.

I’m all about continuing to complete this very good defense, a good LB/ safety will only help our d line thrive more...we need one elite athlete playing LB so we can capitalize on the havoc wrecked by our front 4

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeSquad28

My take with what the football team should continue doing is building everything important around the QB (a STRONG o-line, versatile weapons WR/RB, and a STOUT Defense...that way, after Fitz...we have a perfect fit for a new rookie QB to succeed, or we become an attractive destination for a FA QB coming next year via release/trade.....on a team ready to compete RIGHT NOW...and every QB loves a good O-line....

With that being said...

I’m hoping we draft In our first several picks:

A Left tackle (will help our run game too)
An elite coverage safety (molden) or LB that’s excels in coverage (Collins)

I think we have made good improvements on offense, and Fitzmagic will help realize more of this offensive’s potentional compared to last year.

I’m all about continuing to complete this very good defense, a good LB/ safety will only help our d line thrive more...we need one elite athlete playing LB so we can capitalize on the havoc wrecked by our front 4

Great 1st post! Welcome!!

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeSquad28

My take with what the football team should continue doing is building everything important around the QB (a STRONG o-line, versatile weapons WR/RB, and a STOUT Defense...that way, after Fitz...we have a perfect fit for a new rookie QB to succeed, or we become an attractive destination for a FA QB coming next year via release/trade.....on a team ready to compete RIGHT NOW...and every QB loves a good O-line....



With that being said...



I’m hoping we draft In our first several picks:



A Left tackle (will help our run game too)

An elite coverage safety (molden) or LB that’s excels in coverage (Collins)



I think we have made good improvements on offense, and Fitzmagic will help realize more of this offensive’s potentional compared to last year.



I’m all about continuing to complete this very good defense, a good LB/ safety will only help our d line thrive more...we need one elite athlete playing LB so we can capitalize on the havoc wrecked by our front 4

Yeah this is exactly where Im at. Welcome.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by OnceWeWereKings

I can only imagine that is being said by someone I have on my ignore list. Terry Mac is clearly a number 1.

He is now on my ignore list as well.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

He is now on my ignore list as well.

He should be moved from ignore to banned by the higher ups, he is a troll and obviously needs to go to work or at least get some fresh air because his mile long posts are obviously cutting into his productivity time. Lol.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Terry McLaurin isn't a #1 WR because of his size? Does that mean that Tyreek Hill isn't a #1 receiver too? Stefon Diggs, Amari Cooper, Justin Jefferson... They are all about the same size.

2000+ yards receiving and 11 TDs in two years without a clear #2, and six different starting QBs.

There's no question that TM is a #1 receiver.

I'm building an ideal roster, and of course the real world is never ideal, I want the #1 WR I eventually pay almost $20M a year once his rookie contract expires to have it all: speed, quickness, size, route running, etc. I'm not hating on McL, but 1,000 yards a season in a 16 game season isn't mind blowing. He has been very solid, but not sure I would call him elite or a true #1 WR yet. Thus I put it at 1.5. He has been our most consistently productive offensive player since drafted, you have to resign him, but I can think of at least 20 WRs just as productive many who aren't #1s.

He's about 6 ft and runs a 4.3 40, would you trade him for a guy 6'4" runs a 4.5? Probably not, so perhaps you are right, and I'd say a #1.25WR. Interesting discussion anyway, the size vs. speed thing. In theory, speedsters rarer, and you want to take top off D. For years I've watched guys like Hill destroy Ds and wished we had such a player, and now we do.

Tyreek Hill only true smurf you listed. I don't love Diggs or Cooper. It is an interesting discussion, especially starting 2 or 3 small speed guys at WR, which we seem destined to try. I mean in theory you should just be able to torch people deep all day long, but this isn't the Raiders or Chargers Os of old, even in a pass happy league. it seems like the Os you see actually getting it done when it counts have some big WRs that can beat off the big zone corners and make the tough contested catches over middle or in end zone. The absence of size limits you, just like the absence of speed. There will also be some outliers, and we could argue how much you trade size for speed, but yeah, while there are outliers, a lack of size does prevent a great many WRs from being #1s.

What I think we all hope is that the O becomes consistently productive, especially in the 1st quarter. With more WRs, less balls for McL, but also increased aggregate O production, so you'd expect his production to increase, but perhaps not simplistically linearly. Whether he is a #1.25 or #1, I'm glad he is on our team, but I still think we have to have a big WR who can get it done at some point. It is really interesting to ask if you can put Samuels, Humphries, McL out at WR and go deep lots and lots and lots. One thing certain, if you do, you'd better be able to protect your QB on deep drop backs to give WRs time to get open deep. Perhaps a good argument for going LT early in draft.

[EdmundDorf]

Originally Posted by Scalper

I'm building an ideal roster, and of course the real world is never ideal, I want the #1 WR I eventually pay almost $20M a year once his rookie contract expires to have it all: speed, quickness, size, route running, etc. I'm not hating on McL, but 1,000 yards a season in a 16 game season isn't mind blowing. He has been very solid, but not sure I would call him elite or a true #1 WR yet. Thus I put it at 1.5. He has been our most consistently productive offensive player since drafted, you have to resign him, but I can think of at least 20 WRs just as productive many who aren't #1s.

He's about 6 ft and runs a 4.3 40, would you trade him for a guy 6'4" runs a 4.5? Probably not, so perhaps you are right, and I'd say a #1.25WR. Interesting discussion anyway, the size vs. speed thing. In theory, speedsters rarer, and you want to take top off D. For years I've watched guys like Hill destroy Ds and wished we had such a player, and now we do.

Tyreek Hill only true smurf you listed. I don't love Diggs or Cooper. It is an interesting discussion, especially starting 2 or 3 small speed guys at WR, which we seem destined to try. I mean in theory you should just be able to torch people deep all day long, but this isn't the Raiders or Chargers Os of old, even in a pass happy league. it seems like the Os you see actually getting it done when it counts have some big WRs that can beat off the big zone corners and make the tough contested catches over middle or in end zone. The absence of size limits you, just like the absence of speed. There will also be some outliers, and we could argue how much you trade size for speed, but yeah, while there are outliers, a lack of size does prevent a great many WRs from being #1s.

What I think we all hope is that the O becomes consistently productive, especially in the 1st quarter. With more WRs, less balls for McL, but also increased aggregate O production, so you'd expect his production to increase, but perhaps not simplistically linearly. Whether he is a #1.25 or #1, I'm glad he is on our team, but I still think we have to have a big WR who can get it done at some point. It is really interesting to ask if you can put Samuels, Humphries, McL out at WR and go deep lots and lots and lots. One thing certain, if you do, you'd better be able to protect your QB on deep drop backs to give WRs time to get open deep. Perhaps a good argument for going LT early in draft.

Actually if you consider who was throwing the ball to him it was practically a HOF season

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

so a 6'0" 210lb WR lacks size? Ok. I have heard it all now.