NFL 2012-2013 Post-Super Bowl Offseason Thread

Flacco has been resigned ... still waiting on the details.

Edit: 6 yr, over $120 mil.

Woodson has been in decline for the past few years. He's still a semi-serviceable starter, but Green Bay should be (and is) looking for someone better.

I don't think Woodson is worth a lot more than the veteran minimum at this point, and even there, only to a playoff team that ha a hole at corner that they need a short-term patch for. Preferably as a 3rd corner. If I'm the GM for a young team, I don't want to spend a roster spot on a 36-year old corner.

garion333 wrote:

Woodson to Baltimore? Where the heck would they get the money? They can't even afford to keep Paul Kruger around and no one even knew his name until this year (outside of people from Baltimore and maybe Legion).

It's funny you say that. I remember being slightly intrigued with the Kruger pick on draft day, but even I'm surprised by what I wrote then:

Paul Kruger is a high-motor DE who the Ravens aren't sure where they'll put yet - either move to OLB or bulk up to be a 5-technique DE in the Ravens' 3-4. Of course, Baltimore isn't a pure 3-4 scheme, but use a lot of hybrid fronts, so there will be plenty of room for creativity in using Kruger.

And sure enough, the Ravens weren't sure where to put him. They played him at DE for two uneventful seasons, then tried him on the outside when he struggled to get playing time at DE. That worked in a limited role in 2011, then when 2012 rolled around, he became a full time starter at OLB and, bam, 10 sacks in the regular season and 5 more in the playoffs.

I wish I had as much time to commit to draft "scouting" as I used to.

Yeah, he's been in development for a while and it'll be a shame to see him leave town, but it's likely to happen. They paid Webb in the offseason and he deserved it. Shame they can't do the same for Kruger.

garion333 wrote:

Flacco has been resigned ... still waiting on the details.

Edit: 6 yr, over $120 mil.

Wow, he got paid big time. What does that put them at cap wise?

That is a huge, stinking pile of money for a guy who's career could best be described as "maddeningly inconsistent".

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

That is a huge, stinking pile of money for a guy who's career could best be described as "maddeningly inconsistent".

Perfect timing for him. The Ravens only other option would be raiding the market. I guess they could have traded for Smith and let Flacco walk. The Chiefs would have handed the Flacco the money, then.

This was supply and demand. Flacco had all of the leverage.

Jayhawker wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

That is a huge, stinking pile of money for a guy who's career could best be described as "maddeningly inconsistent".

Perfect timing for him. The Ravens only other option would be raiding the market. I guess they could have traded for Smith and let Flacco walk. The Chiefs would have handed the Flacco the money, then.

This was supply and demand. Flacco had all of the leverage.

Oh, totally agree, the Ravens really had no choice, but the numbers just made my eyes pop out of my head, and I had to spend some time fishing around under the desk for them. I mean, if Denver's secondary doesn't make the biggest bonehead mistake in the playoffs I've maybe ever seen on that deep throw to kick it into overtime, he makes what, $20 million less over the contract minimum?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

That is a huge, stinking pile of money for a guy who's career could best be described as "maddeningly inconsistent".

Perfect timing for him. The Ravens only other option would be raiding the market. I guess they could have traded for Smith and let Flacco walk. The Chiefs would have handed the Flacco the money, then.

This was supply and demand. Flacco had all of the leverage.

Oh, totally agree, the Ravens really had no choice, but the numbers just made my eyes pop out of my head, and I had to spend some time fishing around under the desk for them. I mean, if Denver's secondary doesn't make the biggest bonehead mistake in the playoffs I've maybe ever seen on that deep throw to kick it into overtime, he makes what, $20 million less over the contract minimum?

At least. It's a great year to be a competent QB that needs to sign a deal. The only blemish was Brady signing a below market value contract to give the Patriots room to add talent around him. Of course, that's what we all want a leadership minded QB to do.

My hope right now is that the chiefs wait until next offseason to entertain extending Smith. They have hm for two years, so let him earn his extension. I'd rather get stuck paying more for a QB that had a statement season, than overpay a guy that ends up regressing to his earlier stats.

Plus, and I don't know why teams don't see this, in the NFL, a player can hold out and demand more money any time. The lack of guaranteed contracts mean that teams can cut a player any time, which gives players the right to sit out, too. So signing a guy to a bargain deal early has less of a chance to pay off.

I wonder how much of that money is real though. Is a lot of it backloaded and he'll never see it because they cut him or restructure in 2-3 years?

Jayhawker wrote:

At least. It's a great year to be a competent QB that needs to sign a deal. The only blemish was Brady signing a below market value contract to give the Patriots room to add talent around him. Of course, that's what we all want a leadership minded QB to do.

And really, it's kind of a phony baloney extension. He's not playing for any cheaper in 2013 or 2014. The extension just tacks on some new years, 2015-2017 (in which Brady will be 38-40 years old) in order to push some cap hit out into later years. And in exchange, Brady gets a big up-front bonus money payout.

In reality, the Patriots are rallying for the sunset of Brady's career, and accepting the fact that they'll probably have to munch on some dead money on their cap once Brady retires.

It's highly unlikely Brady plays out all three of those years where he'd be "below market value". I'll be surprised if he plays more than one of them.

And if he is still playing at a high level at that time, then they may just draw him up a new extension and get him right back to "market value" again, by tacking on some new phony baloney "below market value" years after.

I wouldn't put too much weight into a player agreeing to play "below market value" starting 3 years from now.

That's not to say that he's not being a team player or anything, but the way the media likes to portray a move like this as a heroically selfless, team-first act is a bit disingenuous.

I didn't really look at his detail, but you're right. Even Flacco's deal was described as essentially a three year deal. Those extra years get renegotiated are there to lower the cap hit in the short term. It's become the normal way to deal with contracts.

Jayhawker wrote:

I didn't really look at his detail, but you're right. Even Flacco's deal was described as essentially a three year deal. Those extra years get renegotiated are there to lower the cap hit in the short term. It's become the normal way to deal with contracts.

Indeed. I'm still waiting to see a guaranteed money figure for Flacco's contract. That number has been conspicuously elusive.

Chiefs tag Branden Albert.

At first, it seems like a head-scratcher, but I'm wondering if they used the tag just so that they could retain his rights for the purpose of making a trade.

I find it highly unlikely they can get Albert to agree to a long-term deal to play guard. So, if they are keeping him, they are passing on Joeckel?

I wonder if they hope they can leverage him into playing guard by taking him off the FA market. If that's so, if I'm Albert, I sign that tender, pocket the almost $10 million, play guard like a champ for one year, then go back into free agency as a left tackle next offseason. I wouldn't agree to a long-term deal to play guard unless KC is willing to pay me starting left tackle money to do it.

Unless the plan is to pass on Joeckel. Then, well, it all makes sense, but that brings a whole other WTF into question.

*Legion* wrote:

Chiefs tag Branden Albert.

At first, it seems like a head-scratcher, but I'm wondering if they used the tag just so that they could retain his rights for the purpose of making a trade.

I find it highly unlikely they can get Albert to agree to a long-term deal to play guard. So, if they are keeping him, they are passing on Joeckel?

I wonder if they hope they can leverage him into playing guard by taking him off the FA market. If that's so, if I'm Albert, I sign that tender, pocket the almost $10 million, play guard like a champ for one year, then go back into free agency as a left tackle next offseason. I wouldn't agree to a long-term deal to play guard unless KC is willing to pay me starting left tackle money to do it.

Unless the plan is to pass on Joeckel. Then, well, it all makes sense, but that brings a whole other WTF into question.

Why not play either Joeckel or Albert at right tackle?

The Chiefs have a solid RT in Eric Winston. And he older, and probably a stronger RT than Albert is LT.

I'm curious how this is all going to play out. But that's something Ried and Dorsey have to gauge. The best option is to get Albert to embrace beng a G, and selecting Joeckel. But Albert does not want to be a G, and he could hold out and force a trade. But what most people have been thinking is that Albert could go from a serviceable LT to a very good G. But I suspect on the open market, he could find a team to sign him as a LT.

I suspected they may have been able to sign Bowe to free up the tog when they traded for Smith. This should be a good offense for him. Although they should have let him walk last off season and kept Brandon Carr with their tag. This front office's ability to get a deal done and keep two players is a sign that things are improving from last year, when no one wanted to play for Pioli.

If they can have a sit down and get Albert to buy in, they have the makings of a strong OL. It's been awhile since the Chiefs had that. I just don't know if Reid can sell it to Albert.

Using the franchise tag on a guard is surprising, isn't it? Won't he get paid as if he were a premier left tackle? Do the Chiefs have that much cap space that they can afford to overpay like that?

jowner wrote:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articl...$50-get-you

I have no idea where they got that data because 16 oz beers are 8 bucks at Gillette (New England) and have been for quite a few years. 22 Oz are 11.

Pressure continues to change the Redskins team name.

This comes up every few years, of course, though it's been particularly noisy this offseason.

I'm kind of in the same camp as the people that say the name should change. I'll stop short of "should", but I think it is culturally out of place in the modern era. (Much like how a sports team trying to name themselves Colt .45s would never pass muster today)

I think they should simply revert to the franchise's original name: Braves. Still a reference to Native American warriors (although it doesn't have to be), but no longer any sort of racial/ethnic slur. Being the team's original name, it is still tied to the franchise's tradition.

It won't please everyone given that it still would be seen as a Native American reference, but not being a slur is a huge "win". Paired with a suitably non-offensive mascot, I think it's the middle ground answer to this debate.

Phishposer wrote:

Using the franchise tag on a guard is surprising, isn't it? Won't he get paid as if he were a premier left tackle? Do the Chiefs have that much cap space that they can afford to overpay like that?

It depends on what the team's plan of attack is, and we're simply guessing here.

In and of itself, all the tag means is that the Chiefs maintain Albert's rights for 2013, and they agree to pay him a guaranteed salary of $9.8 million for the year (should he opt to sign the offer, and should he and the team come to no other contract terms instead).

It doesn't affect their salary cap beyond the large salary number for 2013. It will, at least for the moment, eat up a good chunk of the Chiefs' free cap space. But that is only until/unless they come to some other agreement.

I don't expect the Chiefs are going to have Albert play under the franchise tender in 2013. I expect they either plan to move him in a trade, or maybe, miraculously, get him to agree to play guard and sign a long-term deal for that. If I'm Albert, it takes a really good deal to make that happen, because I know I'm fetching top-15 starting LT money on the open market. (For an idea of the difference in money: Joe Thomas's extension in 2011 was for $12 mil per season, and that was while under contract with the Browns, not an open-market free agent. Carl Nicks' deal with the Bucs in the 2012 offseason was for $9.5 mil per year, and that was on the open market).

Or maybe they're planning to trade out of the #1 overall spot, and commit to Albert as their long-term left tackle. Honestly, it's hard to get a read on. I expected Albert would simply be allowed to walk. I'm not sure what the course of action is that keeps him happy and still maximizes their draft pick value. A trade down could do that, but that involves someone else wanting to pay the price to move up.

*Legion* wrote:

Pressure continues to change the Redskins team name.

This comes up every few years, of course, though it's been particularly noisy this offseason.

I'm kind of in the same camp as the people that say the name should change. I'll stop short of "should", but I think it is culturally out of place in the modern era. (Much like how a sports team trying to name themselves Colt .45s would never pass muster today)

I think they should simply revert to the franchise's original name: Braves. Still a reference to Native American warriors (although it doesn't have to be), but no longer any sort of racial/ethnic slur. Being the team's original name, it is still tied to the franchise's tradition.

It won't please everyone given that it still would be seen as a Native American reference, but not being a slur is a huge "win". Paired with a suitably non-offensive mascot, I think it's the middle ground answer to this debate.

Makes sense to me. Braves it is. Change it now, sell lots of new RGIII jerseys.

Stele wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Pressure continues to change the Redskins team name.

This comes up every few years, of course, though it's been particularly noisy this offseason.

I'm kind of in the same camp as the people that say the name should change. I'll stop short of "should", but I think it is culturally out of place in the modern era. (Much like how a sports team trying to name themselves Colt .45s would never pass muster today)

I think they should simply revert to the franchise's original name: Braves. Still a reference to Native American warriors (although it doesn't have to be), but no longer any sort of racial/ethnic slur. Being the team's original name, it is still tied to the franchise's tradition.

It won't please everyone given that it still would be seen as a Native American reference, but not being a slur is a huge "win". Paired with a suitably non-offensive mascot, I think it's the middle ground answer to this debate.

Makes sense to me. Braves it is. Change it now, sell lots of new RGIII jerseys.

Yeah it does make a lot of sense to do it now just for that reason. Although maybe Snider is thinking to wait until the end of next season in the hopes they make it even further in the playoffs.

Anyone need a cornerback? The Panthers dumped Chris Gamble because of the salary cap.

He's a little banged up and getting up there in age. But he has a few good years left in him and is an average-to-above corner. He might even work for cheap!

Enix wrote:

Anyone need a cornerback? The Panthers dumped Chris Gamble because of the salary cap.

He's a little banged up and getting up there in age. But he has a few good years left in him and is an average-to-above corner. He might even work for cheap!

And yes, the Chiefs need a CB. It looks like there may be some salary correction going on, as he's not the only one that will be available.

Enix wrote:

Anyone need a cornerback? The Panthers dumped Chris Gamble because of the salary cap.

He's a little banged up and getting up there in age. But he has a few good years left in him and is an average-to-above corner. He might even work for cheap!

I'm willing to bet that someone will roll the dice on him.

*Legion* wrote:

Woodson has been in decline for the past few years. He's still a semi-serviceable starter, but Green Bay should be (and is) looking for someone better.

I don't think Woodson is worth a lot more than the veteran minimum at this point, and even there, only to a playoff team that ha a hole at corner that they need a short-term patch for. Preferably as a 3rd corner. If I'm the GM for a young team, I don't want to spend a roster spot on a 36-year old corner.

Its understandable. He ranked like 89th on PFT's top 100 free agents miles behind a bunch of other CB's.

Just would of been nice to see him finish out his career as a Packer but with the combination of roster limits and the salary cap this is what the NFL is now.

Enix wrote:

Anyone need a cornerback? The Panthers dumped Chris Gamble because of the salary cap.

He's a little banged up and getting up there in age. But he has a few good years left in him and is an average-to-above corner. He might even work for cheap!

If only there were another team, say, potentially in Carolina's division, who has a really desperate need at CB . . .

I would sign Eric Winston in Jacksonville. Or anywhere else that has a serious RT need, really.

Well, this was unexpected, but explains a lot.

Chiefs release RT Eric Winston

My guess is that back issues made him a liability. He seemed excited for the upcoming season, and I thought he was a great addition to the team last year. But this puts the Chiefs back in line to draft Joekel, and probably start the rookie out at RT. Winston was due just under $5 mill, which seems like a bargain.

Also, while results on the field may not live up to the hupe, the Chiefs tickets sales up whopping 112 percent. I don't think it is wise to use every move to placate fans, but sometimes you have to make the move that is the best interest in of maintaining ticket sales and fan interest. Andy Reid and Alex Smith, while questionable, but solid moves, were the no-brainer moves to shore up an eroding fan base. The Chiefs weren't just bad, Pioli had created a team that KC hated on a personal level.

And I have to wonder if there will be speculation that Winston's calling out the fans for cheering Cassel's concussion could have led to his release. I would hope not, but it will play into how valuable he is to other teams on the open market.

At least for once, the Chiefs are executing an offseason plan that will provide them all the clarity they need to proceed in the draft and prepare for the offseason. Instead of being paralyzed by worrying about which is the right move, they are being proactive. That I like.

The Chiefs were a team, that had Pioli come back, I doubt I would have remained a fan of. It's more than bad, it became a team where solid players and coaches would avoid. In one offseason, Clark Hunt undid almost all of the damage to the Chiefs reputation that he allowed Pioli to inflict. I think he gets a lot of credit for that.

I don't think Pioli and Haley were terrible hires at the time they were made. But holy crap did they turn out awful. No one was predicting that the Chiefs were headed into oblivion for hiring Pioli, so Hunt gets a pass, even if he kept him for at least one season too long.