ScotTitan Mock Offseason V.2

What would you recommend we do then? I think backup QB is the least of our problems. If Mett goes down, we likely suck, then we go QB the '16 1st.

 

Well we could possibly go for 2 at once. These top tier FAs won't wait on us, within the first 2 days all those guys will be signed

 

Damn. I completely forgot about that. Good point! Well I guess we could try for more than 2 stars Now that you mentioned that

 

First, why wait til june 1 for the cuts? Sure we save more cap this year but add $10mil of dead money to next years cap after we have signed some big contracts. Better to cut them now to get them off the books for next season so we have more flexibility in how we structure the contracts. Also, we are not gonna run out of cap space even if we only have $65mil.

I'm very much against signing Polamalu and Ike. If you figure they each get $3mil+ and Ingram gets about $4mil, would you rather have those 3 starting or another $9-10mil free agent? In essence, that's probably the cost of McCourty. Lett Huff/Stafford fight over SS and draft a big RB in rnd 5 or 6 and save a lot of wasted cap money. Or if we're gonna sign a cheap vet, I'll take Roos for RT as a backup plan and at worst, he's a nice swing tackle for us.

I don't think Strong lasts to the middle of rnd 2. Plus, #33 is likely to have a player(s) who fell. WR, CB, OLB, DL, OL or maybe a Melvin Gordon. I'm not a fan of spending 3rd rnd picks on 2nd string players when I can get a starter at that same position so I don't love the TE pick. In fact, you have 4 picks in a row of backup players. Meanwhile, you have Taylor and Polamalu starting for us when you could have drafted their replacements earlier in the draft. For example, you could have spent the money saved on not signing Ike, Troy, and Mark and signed another S or a RT and then grabbed a starting caliber CB in rnd 3 and another starter with your other 3rd rnd pick.

 

I'm of the mindset that you draft a QB every year until you find one. In my scenario we take Mannion in the 5th. He's one of the few guys that fits the mold of a Whisenhunt QB; tall, strong arm etc. If Mannion does see the field you get the excitement of seeing if he can develop, rather than just watching an old guy go through the motions of another lost season. Taking Mannion this year doesn't preclude you from taking a QB early in 2016 but it gives you more options in 2015 if Mett gets hurt, which he has in the past 2 seasons.

Whitehurst is a backup and we know what we have with him. He's not going to develop into a better player or eventual starter if he sees significant time. However, when you draft a young guy and try to develop him you may catch lightning in a bottle with one of them.

 

I should of specified, but I'm not offering either of them $3mil+. I'm offering them both vet-min contracts, because besides the name that's all they're worth. Ike & Troy would have to earn their spots or would get cut, they're not promised anything just because of their past. That simple.

Ingram i'm looking at a Shonn Greene 3y/$10m deal. I'd prefer Huff at NB & have no issue with Stafford at SS, but would prefer Troy. I seriously doubt we'd find a 5th/6th rd RB that would produce like Ingram. Sure, there has been RBs in the past who've produced in those rounds, but there's also 10 other RBs in those rounds who don't. I do love Cobb from Minny if we go RB late. I'd prefer Ingram however, he just turned 25 and looked great last year. Nearly 1000 yards & 9 TDs in 13 games. He was never a good fit in New Orleans, could honestly see him breaking out with us. Again, I can't argue with you wanting to pass on spending $$ on a FA RB, when they can be found in the draft. Knowing us, we'll just draft a Sankey or Chris Henry.

Way too early to say Strong will or will not be available at #33. We still have the combine/pro days to go, which will obviously change everything.

#33 is extremely valuable. Last year Washington traded #34 to Dallas for #47 & #78. We're a team of many needs, and picking up an extra 3rd could be huge. Obviously, i'd want to see who's available at #33 before trading, as somebody will fall i'm sure.

Just because these draft picks aren't "starters" doesn't mean they won't be valuable to our team. We could easily run 2 TE sets 90% of the time, so he'd basically be a starter. In fact the TE selection is likely my favorite, he could be a Jimmy Graham. I'd love to see a defense try to stop Wright, Strong, Walker, and James. Grissom would be our #3 OLB and would likely receive a ton of snaps. Gunter could easily work his way up to a starter before years end. I'm not drafting dudes for them to be starters day 1, they need to earn it.

 

To me that's a waste of a 5th round pick. I agree with the logic, but we can find a potential starter in the 5th at a difference position. Would you rather have Mannion or the potential of getting another Avery Williamson in the 5th.

 

Jesse James is a physical freak. He isn't the most fluid athlete, but he has good hands. Just don't ask him to block.

 

The problem with this theory is you will be continously throwing picks out the window. I understand the importance of the QB position but drafting one every year is a bad idea. Think about it. Let's say we draft Mannion this year and Mett starts. Mett shows some promise but not enough to solidify the job and it will be an open competition in 2016. Meanwhile Mannion has not developed much because Mett gets 95% of the reps as he needs them to 'develop' himself. In 2016, Mett barely wins the job again and we add another 5th rnd QB. At this point, Mett is still the starter, Mannion hasn't got much opportunity to develop so we don't know what he can even do, we don't bring Whitehurst back as we have just drafted another guy we can't develop.

Whisenhunt tried this in AZ to very poor results...unless you think rifling thru various QB's and singing/drafting a lot of them is worth something when you can't find the starter.

Meanwhile, you just invested 2 5th rnd picks in players not likely to see the field much less develop as they will get zero reps in practice. Instead, maybe you draft another developmental ILB who can boost special teams play from day 1 and become a starter in yr 2. And maybe you take an OL with that other 5th rndr who is a backup and can develop as he gets reps in practice. You are adding players that will play and develop rather than guys who won't.

And frankly, if Mett isn't anything to write home about next year, I think we will see them try to sign a Rivers or take a QB in rnd 1 of 2016!

 

I don't see them coming here for the Vet min to COMPETE for a job.

Ingram played behind a GOOD OL with a Hall of Fame QB and a very real passing attack and yet he only avg'd 4.3 ypc. Greene avg'd 4.2. While not completely comparable, my point is that there is no guarantee he'd 'break out' here when he had a solid season with the talent around him he would not have here. Probably most importantly, I see little chance he gets that low of a contract and if he does, he's not coming here for that. We'd have to pay him over $4mil a year to get him here and spending the $4mil on Ingram, $3mil on McC, a 2nd rnd pick on Sankey is a heck of a lot of resources for ONE starting position!!! A waste of resources IMO and I don't think Ingram will blow up here without us fixing the OL and if we fix the OL, I think we can get Greene type production from a mid-late rnd power back. then again, if we fix the OL, Sankey MAY get a majority of the carries and we get a Power back for short yardage and goal line.

Just like the #2 pick overall, good trading opportunities and I will throw my mug against a wall if I hear Webster say they wanted to trade down but had no trade partners!!! My point was that if you want Strong and he's there at #33, we may risk losing him if you trade into the mid-40's. #33 is very valueable because everyone knows there is usually 1 or more first rnd picks on their board that fell and also runs on a particular position may leave only 1 or 2 guys left of that quality so team will trade into the 30's to get them. The combine can change things, but Strong would be on that list for me at this point.

I think this is what confused me about your post. I like Gunter and some other players, but you're saying you'd pay Ike and Troy vet min and listed them as day 1 starters. And if they are NOT day 1 starters, why aren't we getting better ones via free agency or the draft?