Best and Worst offseasons? - Page 2

gdamac · 03-03-2008, 09:44 PM

They get worst for over paying? That's a joke. They have a ton of cap room and only 5 out 7 draft picks. They still have enough cap room to lock up Nnamdi and sign a WR and they will have held on to all of their picks. Without a lot of talent to trade, and no extra picks they did what they had to. But kick us while we're down, fine.

And for the record no S has more tackles over the last 4 seasons than Wilson and none of the DTs who moved so far have been more productive than Kelly over the post 4 seasons. Kelly is the youngest of the group, and he is home grown talent. Their only other options was to give up picks, and then overpay for a guy who may or may not work out in Oakland. In a world where the player the Raiders pick at #4 overall will get even more guaranteed money then either of these guys and the #1 overall pick will likely get as much as Kelly and Wilson combined, I'd say the contracts aren't that bad.

But this is all moot, because the only way you judge an off season is how many wins did it translate into. Plenty of teams have made big splashes in free agency only to have it blow up in their face.

bearsfan_51 · 03-03-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdamac

In a world where the player the Raiders pick at #4 overall will get even more guaranteed money then either of these guys and the #1 overall pick will likely get as much as Kelly and Wilson combined, I'd say the contracts aren't that bad.

If Kelly and Wilson were in the draft neither would even sniff the first round, let alone the top 10.

03-03-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I don't think comparing the Berrian deal to the Moss deal is really fair, it's different circumstances.

I mean, if you compare what Berrian got to Jerry Porter or Andre Davis, both of whom I consider vastly inferior receivers, I don't think it's really that bad. Andre Davis got 8 million in guarantees.

So actually, I take back what I said. I'm putting the Texans up there as well. Andre Davis and Jacque Reeves? Seriously?

My problem with Berrian is that he's getting paid as one of the better number 1 WRs in the NFL. He's a nice player and I certainly wouldnt mind having him but he's more of a solid number 2 target then a true number 1 wideout, IMO. With the same token, I think a guy like DJ Hackett could be a solid number 2 target for a cheaper price. He wouldn't make the same amount of plays as Berrian but he would bring the Vikes what they were looking for and thats dependability.

WR is a position you draft, not throw big money in FA because more the other positions, WR is very hit and miss. There's usually better success drafting and developing WRs then you have going out trying to find one that can step in right away and for the price they paid, I think they are not gonna get way they bargined for.

With other needs on the right side of the OL, at DE, to add on top of WR and S, I think they could have done more with what they spent.

saintsfan912 · 03-03-2008, 10:39 PM

I know some Saints fans think we should have done more but I'm happy with the lack of big names. We have 4 big names to resign next season in Vilma (If he returns to pro bowl form), Colston, Will Smith and Jhari Evans. We need the rest of that cap for next season without a doubt. Now, here's hoping Deuce takes a small pay cut to help us out. It's not like he needs the damn money anyways.

03-03-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdamac

But this is all moot, because the only way you judge an off season is how many wins did it translate into. Plenty of teams have made big splashes in free agency only to have it blow up in their face.

You made my point for me. I'm against the big splash because most the time, they backfire. Notice my 3 top teams the Dolphins, Saints and Bills all made fairly reasonable moves to address certain specific needs.

Oakland on the other hand dished out huge contracts to Kelly and Wilson. They committed close to 90 million between the 2. That's what I would call a big splash.

Giving 50 million to Tommy Kelly are the type of moves that blow up big time in teams faces which is why Oakland got a bad grade from me. Hate it if you want but I guaranteed you theres no a single non Raider fan on here that thinks you guys did a good job in FA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdamac

They get worst for over paying? That's a joke.

You contradict yourself. You say big signings come back to haunt teams more often then not but then you get mad when I mark you down for overpaying. Does that even make sense?

You can't say that big signings don't work out and that they are bad but then at the same time get mad because someone says your team had a bad offseason for making too big of signings.

kmartin575 · 03-03-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdamac

They get worst for over paying? That's a joke. They have a ton of cap room and only 5 out 7 draft picks. They still have enough cap room to lock up Nnamdi and sign a WR and they will have held on to all of their picks. Without a lot of talent to trade, and no extra picks they did what they had to. But kick us while we're down, fine.

And for the record no S has more tackles over the last 4 seasons than Wilson and none of the DTs who moved so far have been more productive than Kelly over the post 4 seasons. Kelly is the youngest of the group, and he is home grown talent. Their only other options was to give up picks, and then overpay for a guy who may or may not work out in Oakland. In a world where the player the Raiders pick at #4 overall will get even more guaranteed money then either of these guys and the #1 overall pick will likely get as much as Kelly and Wilson combined, I'd say the contracts aren't that bad.

But this is all moot, because the only way you judge an off season is how many wins did it translate into. Plenty of teams have made big splashes in free agency only to have it blow up in their face.

Homer alert, Homer alert, Homer alert

No DT moved so far has been more productive than Kelly? Are you ****ing kidding me? Rogers and Williams both have more sacks the last two years than Kelly has his entire career. And when healthy Kris Jenkins is on a completley different level than Kelly.

kmartin575 · 03-03-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeyjr09

You made my point for me. I'm against the big splash because most the time, they backfire. Notice my 3 top teams the Dolphins, Saints and Bills all made fairly reasonable moves to address certain specific needs.

Oakland on the other hand dished out huge contracts to Kelly and Wilson. They committed close to 90 million between the 2. That's what I would call a big splash.

Giving 50 million to Tommy Kelly are the type of moves that blow up big time in teams faces which is why Oakland got a bad grade from me. Hate it if you want but I guaranteed you theres no a single non Raider fan on here that thinks you guys did a good job in FA.

You contradict yourself. You say big signings come back to haunt teams more often then not but then you get mad when I mark you down for overpaying. Does that even make sense?

You can't say that big signings don't work out and that they are bad but then at the same time get mad because someone says your team had a bad offseason for making too big of signings.

He's a Raider fan. Give the guy a break, he already has it bad enough.

gdamac · 03-03-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeyjr09

You made my point for me. I'm against the big splash because most the time, they backfire. Notice my 3 top teams the Dolphins, Saints and Bills all made fairly reasonable moves to address certain specific needs.

Oakland on the other hand dished out huge contracts to Kelly and Wilson. They committed close to 90 million between the 2. That's what I would call a big splash.

Giving 50 million to Tommy Kelly are the type of moves that blow up big time in teams faces which is why Oakland got a bad grade from me. Hate it if you want but I guaranteed you theres no a single non Raider fan on here that thinks you guys did a good job in FA.

You contradict yourself. You say big signings come back to haunt teams more often then not but then you get mad when I mark you down for overpaying. Does that even make sense?

You can't say that big signings don't work out and that they are bad but then at the same time get mad because someone says your team had a bad offseason for making too big of signings.

I do not contradict myself, all I said was making a bunch of signings doesn't make your off season. No matter what you do, trade free agent, or draft it has to translate into wins. I never said don't make any signings. What I said was I would rather my team not give up draft picks, and spend extra money, in a year when they are short 2 draft picks. Moreover it doesn't matter what any of our opinions are at this point until we see how the moves translate into wins. The Raiders have had the worst off season so far, fine. But that just means no one has had a terrible off season.

gdamac · 03-03-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmartin575

Homer alert, Homer alert, Homer alert

No DT moved so far has been more productive than Kelly? Are you ****ing kidding me? Rogers and Williams both have more sacks the last two years than Kelly has his entire career. And when healthy Kris Jenkins is on a completley different level than Kelly.

They have had a few more sacks, in more games. You don't measure DTs soley by sacks my friend.

Kris Jenkins (29 when season starts)
Cost: $20 million guaranteed + 3rd round pick and 5th round pick
37 games 92 tackles 7 sacks 0 ff 1 pd *

Corey Williams (28 when season starts)
Cost: $18 million guaranteed + 2nd round 0pick.
56 games 119 tackles 17 sacks 1 ff 4 pd *

Shaun Rogers (29 when season starts)
Cost: $17.5 million remaining on contract + 3rd round pick + CB Leigh Bodden.
52 games 168 tackles 20 sacks 2 ff 10 pd *

Tommy Kelly (27 when season starts)
Cost: $18 million guaranteed.
49 games 166 tackles 14 sacks 7 ff 5 pd *

Of course I am a homer, I am not going to apologize for being a fan. They over paid so they wouldn't have to send picks away, so they could build through the draft. If only they would put half as much thought into hiring and keeping a head coach. If this move blows up on them they aren't out picks, which are worth more than money.

03-03-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdamac

I it doesn't matter what any of our opinions are at this point

Then get out of here and stop harping on us just cause you don't like the fact we think your teams FA has sucked.

You our opinions don't matter then why do you care? They are just that opinions and like I said, U'll be hard pressed to find a single non-Raider fan that thinks you had a good FA to this point. But since our opinions don't matter then don't worry about it. Not need to jump all over our backs about it.

BTW...pass me some of that stuff your taking that's making you think Kelly is better then Jenkins or Rogers. Jenkins and Rogers come with question marks but they are Pro Bowl DTs and went they are at there best they make Tommy Kelly look like a towel boy.

crazyisme · 03-03-2008, 11:49 PM

id just like to know what is waaay too much?

7 mil per year for a young WR whos been getting better year in and year out and compliments Rice very well. It was a need and we solved it, ill agree we probably gave him a little bit too much money (right now) but not THAT that much over...and when you consider in 3 years he'll be making 7 mil...if Berrian is producing pretty well, 7 mil per year is going to be AVERAGE and itll look like Berrian's contract is a good deal.

crazyisme · 03-03-2008, 11:51 PM

btw im not saying that the vikings had the best offseason, tho i think we did do a very good job upgraded at safety and WR two of our biggest needs but failed to sign a DE...the Smith deal was slightly overpaid, BUT Odom was highly overpaid, as was Pace...

but i do think the Vikes made out pretty well.

bearsfan_51 · 03-03-2008, 11:51 PM

Actually to say D.J Hackett is just as or more reliable as Berrian is false. Hackett has battled injuries and consistancy issues his whole career. That and the fact that many fear he's a product of Holmgren's system is the reason he's still on the market.

I like his potential a lot though.

bearsfan_51 · 03-03-2008, 11:52 PM

I actually don't think the Niners overpaid for Justin Smith all things considered. I thought he'd get about 20 million in guaranteed money.

I'm not sure he's worth it mind you, but considering the market that's a fine contract.

Komp · 03-03-2008, 11:59 PM

Hmm....as a Raider fan I really like the Wilson signing as he not only helps us out at SS, it allows Huff to move to FS, so it essentially helps us out at two positions. Seems like a lot of people on here aren't that high on Wilson, but I've always liked him.

The Kelly signing sigh, I like Tommy Kelly, but I would rather have thrown a pile of money at Nnamdi. The only reason I can think of Davis giving that type of money to Kelly is he either wants McFadden [please god no] or he wants to be in a position to trade out of the #4 slot and not ending up shorthanded at DT. Either way, we paid too much money for someone who may just continue being a decent player rather than progressing into a very good one.

Cashmoney · 03-04-2008, 12:04 AM

The Titans had a pretty atrocious day today, but I have a false sense of hope that we will recover. :/

gdamac · 03-04-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeyjr09

Then get out of here and stop harping on us just cause you don't like the fact we think your teams FA has sucked.

You our opinions don't matter then why do you care? They are just that opinions and like I said, U'll be hard pressed to find a single non-Raider fan that thinks you had a good FA to this point. But since our opinions don't matter then don't worry about it. Not need to jump all over our backs about it.

BTW...pass me some of that stuff your taking that's making you think Kelly is better then Jenkins or Rogers. Jenkins and Rogers come with question marks but they are Pro Bowl DTs and went they are at there best they make Tommy Kelly look like a towel boy.

I didn't say he was better, but over the last 4 years he his been as productive. The team has sucked a** and he has been part of it but had he walked, the Raiders would be in a worse position. I am not saying they have had a good off season, but what they have done is about all they could. I mean, the only player so far to visit Oakland is Wilson, and he is from there. If they can't get people to even entertain the idea of coming, they dare not let anyone like Kelly leave. I don't like it, it is what it is. Also, I didn't harp on you, i disagreed with you.

gdamac · 03-04-2008, 12:25 AM

I tell you what. You could have said Raiders and then just put the words "Lane Kiffin" or "Head Coach" as the explanation. It doesn't matter how much I defend signings, if this continues with the HC they will continue to go 4-12.

See, I do have some grasp of reality.

Bluedevil$ · 03-04-2008, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I actually don't think the Niners overpaid for Justin Smith all things considered. I thought he'd get about 20 million in guaranteed money.

I'm not sure he's worth it mind you, but considering the market that's a fine contract.

Ignoring the fact that the 49ers spent a buttload of cash on him, I question how Smith fits in the '9ers 3-4 defense. A very risky signing... somewhat underlooked as a move that could potentially blow up in their face.

FizzyFalcons · 03-04-2008, 12:36 AM

I kinda like the Tommy Kelly signing. He's young, has put up decent numbers.
And with the going market for DT's being a couple day 2 picks, I dont think they really LOSE anything. I dunno how durable he is, but I'm sure he's missed less games than Jenkins, Rogers and Stroud has the last season or two.

I think the Bears are having a horrible offseason. Re-Signing Grossman, Re-signing Briggs after he clearly didnt wanna be there last season and letting go off your top 2 recievers (Berrian's gonna see the Bears 2 times next year)

I like what New England did. Got Moss Back, signed Sam Aiken to replace Donte Stallworth on special teams (for 30 million less) and didnt overpay Asante Samuel. I woulda kept *** though

nobodyinparticular · 03-04-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FizzyFalcons

I kinda like the Tommy Kelly signing. He's young, has put up decent numbers.
And with the going market for DT's being a couple day 2 picks, I dont think they really LOSE anything. I dunno how durable he is, but I'm sure he's missed less games than Jenkins, Rogers and Stroud has the last season or two.

I think the Bears are having a horrible offseason. Re-Signing Grossman, Re-signing Briggs after he clearly didnt wanna be there last season and letting go off your top 2 recievers (Berrian's gonna see the Bears 2 times next year)

I like what New England did. Got Moss Back, signed Sam Aiken to replace Donte Stallworth on special teams (for 30 million less) and didnt overpay Asante Samuel. I woulda kept *** though

This ACL injury was Kelly's first injury.

DaBear89 · 03-04-2008, 12:55 AM

how is resigning briggs a bad thing? if he didnt want to be here, he would be somewhere else. it's really ******** to bring up something he said during a contract dispute. moose wasn't one of our top 2 at season's end as well. and no way does berrian, as much as i love him, deserve all that he got from MIN so bye. i'll let bf51 hit you up on the positives on grossman b/c his views make it seem smart in bringing him back...well almost :P

skiinginNJ · 03-04-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FizzyFalcons

I kinda like the Tommy Kelly signing. He's young, has put up decent numbers.
And with the going market for DT's being a couple day 2 picks, I dont think they really LOSE anything. I dunno how durable he is, but I'm sure he's missed less games than Jenkins, Rogers and Stroud has the last season or two.

considering what the giants paid for tuck, the kelley signing doesnt look great.

gdamac · 03-04-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skiinginNJ

considering what the giants paid for tuck, the kelley signing doesnt look great.

I don't know what his details were, but in this market Tuck would have cashed in.

kmartin575 · 03-04-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FizzyFalcons

I kinda like the Tommy Kelly signing. He's young, has put up decent numbers.
And with the going market for DT's being a couple day 2 picks, I dont think they really LOSE anything. I dunno how durable he is, but I'm sure he's missed less games than Jenkins, Rogers and Stroud has the last season or two.

I think the Bears are having a horrible offseason. Re-Signing Grossman, Re-signing Briggs after he clearly didnt wanna be there last season and letting go off your top 2 recievers (Berrian's gonna see the Bears 2 times next year)

I like what New England did. Got Moss Back, signed Sam Aiken to replace Donte Stallworth on special teams (for 30 million less) and didnt overpay Asante Samuel. I woulda kept *** though

Your kidding, right? He missed most of last season with an ACL injury and you are saying he is more durable than the other guys?