2022 Free Agency - Around the NFL Thread

[No_Matter_What]

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So with the trickle of yesterdays UFA period. Here is where the bottom 10 of cap space stand. I chose bottom 10 because they will have moved to make to get compliant and sign more players. Some will be easier than others based on their contracts they still have that can be moved around.

22. - Bills 3.8M in space 56 on contract
23. - Cardinals 2.5M in space 59 on contract (does not account for Nukes restructure that was just announced)
24. - Vikings 2.4M in space 59 on contract
25 - Titans -1.6M in space 60 on contract
26. - Chiefs -6.2M in space 60 on contract
27. - Giants -6.4M in space 58 on contract
28. - 49ers -8.9M in space 51 on contact (not a good ratio there)
29. - Saints - 9.8M in space 62 on contract
30. - Bucs -14.7M in space 53 on contract (yes Tawmy is accounted for in this)
31. - Packers -20.9M in space 52 on contract (Adams Tag and Rodgers new contract accounted for)
32. - Rams -22.8M in space 63 on contract

Not sure if you realize it but in all cases only 51 contracts count. So anything over 51 is irrelevant. All teams you listed have those numbers counting 51 players.

[PetermansRedemption]

5 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So with the trickle of yesterdays UFA period. Here is where the bottom 10 of cap space stand. I chose bottom 10 because they will have moved to make to get compliant and sign more players. Some will be easier than others based on their contracts they still have that can be moved around.

22. - Bills 3.8M in space 56 on contract
23. - Cardinals 2.5M in space 59 on contract (does not account for Nukes restructure that was just announced)
24. - Vikings 2.4M in space 59 on contract
25 - Titans -1.6M in space 60 on contract
26. - Chiefs -6.2M in space 60 on contract
27. - Giants -6.4M in space 58 on contract
28. - 49ers -8.9M in space 51 on contact (not a good ratio there)
29. - Saints - 9.8M in space 62 on contract
30. - Bucs -14.7M in space 53 on contract (yes Tawmy is accounted for in this)
31. - Packers -20.9M in space 52 on contract (Adams Tag and Rodgers new contract accounted for)
32. - Rams -22.8M in space 63 on contract

 

The Giants are baffling. To have such a horrendous team and be that negative in the cap. 

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, No_Matter_What said:

Not sure if you realize it but in all cases only 51 contracts count. So anything over 51 is irrelevant. All teams you listed have those numbers counting 51 players.

I do realize that, and those player counts are NOT irrelevant.  they need 90 for camp.  So those players on contract will go down as they clear space if cuts are needed, meaning for the UFA purposes more players will b hitting the market within 24 hours.

 

Figure teams have 7 draft choices and sign roughly 13 UDFAs.  So going into draft you would want roughly 65-70 on contract to get to your 90

Edited March 15, 2022 by MAJBobby

[nucci]

1 minute ago, PetermansRedemption said:

The Giants are baffling. To have such a horrendous team and be that negative in the cap. 

previous GM and coach were awful

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

Not necessarily. The Browns could pawn him off somewhere else like Seattle, Indy, New Orleans, or Carolina. 

That means Ward and now Mathieu are now gone from that defense. The effects of how they've navigated the Cap will begin to catch up with them. Not to mention how tough that division has gotten over the last week. 

The cap eventually catches up with every good team with an expensive QB.  There will always be cap casualties.  That’s a good thing for the nfl 

[Draconator]

21 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Now Packers have 24 hours to clear 20M in cap space to be compliant.  This is rally Devante Adams tag number that would have to be cleared.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Draconator

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, PetermansRedemption said:

The Giants are baffling. To have such a horrendous team and be that negative in the cap. 

Completely agree.  

[No_Matter_What]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

I do realize that, and those player counts are NOT irrelevant.  they need 90 for camp.  So those players on contract will go down as they clear space if cuts are needed, meaning for the UFA purposes more players will b hitting the market within 24 hours.

Ok, to me the way you wrote it is sounded like those contracts are counted. What I meant they are not relevant to the remaining cap. Not a big deal either way

[NewEra]

22 minutes ago, Mikie's Bills said:

I would have cut/traded Beasley to give Chark that deal. May have been been able to even give him a little less to come to a contender over the Lions.

We might be saving the Cole release for a bigger name.  

[MiltonWaddams]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

The cap eventually catches up with every good team with an expensive QB.  There will always be cap casualties.  That’s a good thing for the nfl 

Exactly why I don’t comprehend how some posters dwell on the Bills lack of current cap space. With a qb making over $40 million you are going to have challenges. I’d take those challenges any day over the alternative.

[Draconator]

 

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Draconator said:

 

 

And as of 5 minutes ago with Rodgers new cap hit this is where packers stand roughly

 

Packers -2.7M in space 52 on contract (Adams Tag)  ***UPDATE*** Rodgers new cap hit is 28.5M that saved 18.2M so they are closer to being compliant

3 minutes ago, Draconator said:

 

Love that CBs are already in the 1 year deal range.  Opens Levi Wallace up for a return guessing his market was soft again....   Maybe GMs realize how CB friendly McDs Defense is and do not want to fall in the Josh Norman trap again.

[ExWNYer]

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

I would make this call.  I loved Shenault in the Draft.  

[filthymcnasty08]

14 minutes ago, nucci said:

previous GM and coach were awful

Not just awful but @#$ING AWFUL!

[ExWNYer]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

I would make this call.  I loved Shenault in the Draft.  

 

Depends on the cost (cap & capital) but I would explore it.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, ExWNYer said:

 

Depends on the cost (cap & capital) but I would explore it.

1.3M cap hit post trade..  still has another year on rookie deal after.

 

3rd will get it done most likely

[CapeBreton]

5 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Would love to have this guy on the team, I wonder what they'd be asking for, he was a second rounder in 2020. Bills did a lot of WR scouting in the 2020 draft so they'd be familiar with him.

[MrEpsYtown]

10 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

The Giants are baffling. To have such a horrendous team and be that negative in the cap. 

 

That Leonard Williams trade and subsequent signing was just really short sighted. And the Kenny Golladay thing was really bad. Bradberry has been good, but still kind of overpaid. At the end of the day the biggest mistake they made was passing on Josh. 

[DCOrange]

6 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

I think he’d make some sense for teams like GB and Cleveland that need receivers and preferably cheap ones. I don’t think he’s very good though and don’t think he’s a fit here with McKenzie on board; they essentially do the same gadget stuff and not much else. 

[BuffaloRebound]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Love that CBs are already in the 1 year deal range.  Opens Levi Wallace up for a return guessing his market was soft again....   Maybe GMs realize how CB friendly McDs Defense is and do not want to fall in the Josh Norman trap again.

 

Can we please get this done already with Levi?  2 years $8m total, all guaranteed.  He never comes off the field.  Dude deserves it.  

[MAJBobby]

Just now, CapeBreton said:

 

Would love to have this guy on the team, I wonder what they'd be asking for, he was a second rounder in 2020. Bills did a lot of WR scouting in the 2020 draft so they'd be familiar with him.

I think a 3rd would get it done.

 

Player for Player....  HMMMM Beasley for Shenault????

18 minutes ago, Draconator said:

 

 

Yep Updated with the New Rodgers 22 cap hit

[Draconator]

Punter option?

 

 

[Rumblinstumblin]

Pat and his source($)

Edited March 15, 2022 by Rumblinstumblin

[MAJBobby]

Haack took a paycut now Cut Haack

 

 

 

 

[ExWNYer]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

Haack took a paycut now Cut Haack

 

Hawking to have Haack hacked from the roster? 

[Draconator]

Just now, ExWNYer said:

 

Hawking to have Haack hacked from the roster? 

Say that after about 3 Gin and Tonics...

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Hawking to have Haack hacked from the roster? 

Yep because Hekker can Throw, Hekker can hold and mor importantly something Haack cannot do, Hekker can punt.

[MiltonWaddams]

Azaiza or Hekker? Go get Johnny so you keep a 5th round pick.

[MAJBobby]

Nice Cheat Sheet to start Day 2 with.  ALOT of players still there. 

 

 

[ExWNYer]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

Yep because Hekker can Throw, Hekker can hold and mor importantly something Haack cannot do, Hekker can punt.

 

Yeah, I was just having a little fun with word play. I think most (all?) want Haack gone. He is/was here to hold for Bass but he's a brutal punter. 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, ExWNYer said:

 

Yeah, I was just having a little fun with word play. I think most (all?) want Haack gone. He is/was here to hold for Bass but he's a brutal punter. 

Oooo I know it was very good word play and wanted to use it to pile on the steaming pile of haack some more

[OldTimer1960]

21 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I think he’d make some sense for teams like GB and Cleveland that need receivers and preferably cheap ones. I don’t think he’s very good though and don’t think he’s a fit here with McKenzie on board; they essentially do the same gadget stuff and not much else. 

Shenault is MUCH bigger than McKenzie and does the same things, but more productive too.  6’1” 220+ and had 50+ and 60+ receptions in his two NFL seasons.

 

I would not give up too much for a player like him, but for this year’s 3rd I would be quite tempted.

[MAJBobby]

Yes Please Beane

 

 

 

[Draconator]

 

[thenorthremembers]

5 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Shenault is MUCH bigger than McKenzie and does the same things, but more productive too.  6’1” 220+ and had 50+ and 60+ receptions in his two NFL seasons.

 

I would not give up too much for a player like him, but for this year’s 3rd I would be quite tempted.

Shenault is bigger, and does the sames things, but he shouldnt.     He was used that way at Colorado, so yes he has done it, but he shouldnt be in the NFL.   The guy is a 4.6 40 guy and has been miscast with teams trying to recreate what he was doing in college.   He is shifty with the ball in his hands, and has decent hands but as far as being an elite athlete like McKenzie or even Deebo Samuel, who he is often compared to, he is a long ways off.

[JGMcD2]

11 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Shenault is MUCH bigger than McKenzie and does the same things, but more productive too.  6’1” 220+ and had 50+ and 60+ receptions in his two NFL seasons.

 

I would not give up too much for a player like him, but for this year’s 3rd I would be quite tempted.

Uhhh this isn’t great. 
 

Shenault was the #2 targeted player in Jacksonville. They were bad and he benefited from that.
 

He was targeted 100 times last year and put up 63/619/0 and 11/41 rushing. That’s 8.9 yards per touch and no TD in 74 touches. 
 

McKenzie was the #8 targeted player in Buffalo. We had a lot of options and he was a complimentary piece. 
 

He was targeted 26 times last year and put up 20/178/1 and 9/47/1 rushing. That’s 7.8 yards per touch and 2 TDs on 29 touches. 
 

Exactly how is Shenault more productive other than sheer volume on a bad team?
 

Shenault is also a 4.6 runner and McKenzie is a 4.4 runner. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by JGMcD2

[stosh64]

1 minute ago, JGMcD2 said:

Uhhh this isn’t great. 
 

Shenault was the #2 targeted player in Jacksonville. They were bad and he benefited from that.
 

He was targeted 100 times last year and put up 63/619/0 and 11/41 rushing. That’s 8.9 yards per touch and no TD in 100 touches. 
 

McKenzie was the #8 targeted player in Buffalo. We had a lot of options and he was a complimentary piece. 
 

He was targeted 26 times last year and put up 20/178/1 and 9/47/1 rushing. That’s 7.75 yards per touch and 2 TDs on 29 touches. 
 

Exactly how is Shenault more productive other than sheer volume on a bad team? 

He had a lot of drops.

[MAJBobby]

4 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Shenault is bigger, and does the sames things, but he shouldnt.     He was used that way at Colorado, so yes he has done it, but he shouldnt be in the NFL.   The guy is a 4.6 40 guy and has been miscast with teams trying to recreate what he was doing in college.   He is shifty with the ball in his hands, and has decent hands but as far as being an elite athlete like McKenzie or even Deebo Samuel, who he is often compared to, he is a long ways off.

He is Beasley in terms of Zone Recognition with a much more effective YAC ability.  For a 3rd and 2 years on a Rookie Deal yes please.  I would make this trade over and Barkely or McCaffery trade

I think that RE position gets addressed pretty quickly

Edited March 15, 2022 by MAJBobby

[H2o]

2 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Uhhh this isn’t great. 
 

Shenault was the #2 targeted player in Jacksonville. They were bad and he benefited from that.
 

He was targeted 100 times last year and put up 63/619/0 and 11/41 rushing. That’s 8.9 yards per touch and no TD in 74 touches. 
 

McKenzie was the #8 targeted player in Buffalo. We had a lot of options and he was a complimentary piece. 
 

He was targeted 26 times last year and put up 20/178/1 and 9/47/1 rushing. That’s 7.8 yards per touch and 2 TDs on 29 touches. 
 

Exactly how is Shenault more productive other than sheer volume on a bad team? 

Yeah. Easy pass on Shenault unless it's a 6th/7th Round flier type of situation. No way in hell do I send anything before that for him.