NFL 2021: The offseason and draft thread

One extra thing to consider about the Darnold trade - since he's entering year 4, the Panthers now have to make a decision about picking up his 5th year option, before actually seeing him play for them. It sounds like the decision is made and that they will be picking up that option, so Darnold will be on the Panthers' books for $18.9 million in 2022, and that money will be fully guaranteed.

Note, the full guarantee is a change thanks to the new CBA. Under the previous CBA, 5th year option salary didn't immediately become fully guaranteed, but rather was guaranteed for injury only when the option was exercised (prior to year 4), and didn't fully guarantee until the start of the league year for that 5th season. Meaning, while teams had to make a decision on picking up the option before year 4, they weren't on the hook for full guarantees until year 5 actually began, allowing them to cut the player (provided the player didn't trigger the injury guarantee).

Now, the option year becomes fully guaranteed at the point in time when the option is exercised. So teams have to decide before year 4 whether or not they want to accept the risk for a fully guaranteed year 5.

Rat Boy wrote:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyPEO4vWQAYKlrI?format=jpg&name=large)

I love that nobody liked your post.

*Legion* wrote:

One extra thing to consider about the Darnold trade - since he's entering year 4, the Panthers now have to make a decision about picking up his 5th year option, before actually seeing him play for them. It sounds like the decision is made and that they will be picking up that option, so Darnold will be on the Panthers' books for $18.9 million in 2022, and that money will be fully guaranteed.

Note, the full guarantee is a change thanks to the new CBA.

That's quite the tag for someone who they've never even had in a practice before. Perhaps they're expecting the cap to go back up next year and are happy with it. I wouldn't be. He still seems like the player he was in college, which means prone to turnovers.

My biggest question is: How good is the Panthers oline? Cause it will need to be spectacular for him to have any chance of success.

Also, poor, poor Robby Anderson.

Stele wrote:

WTH? Jeopardy doesn't come on until 7pm here. Who gets it in the afternoon?

It’s a Midwest thing. In the east, we get Jeopardy and Wheel in some order before prime time tv at 8. On Central Time, they usually air the local and national news before prime time at seven, pushing those shows to the afternoon.

garion333 wrote:

That's quite the tag for someone who they've never even had in a practice before. Perhaps they're expecting the cap to go back up next year and are happy with it. I wouldn't be. He still seems like the player he was in college, which means prone to turnovers.

Carolina's new GM said today that he was a big fan of Darnold when he played for USC.

Which begs the question: If Darnold played in New York, and Scott Fitterer was in Seattle before Charlotte hired him, is it possible that Fitterer hasn't seen Darnold play in the NFL?

Meanwhile, the Panthers are feeling extra smart because they didn't give up their No. 8 overall pick to get their starting QB. /s

garion333 wrote:

My biggest question is: How good is the Panthers oline? Cause it will need to be spectacular for him to have any chance of success.

Carolina was 18th on PFF's rankings for 2020. I would have said they were 5-8 spots lower.

LT has been a revolving door since Jordan Gross retired in 2014. (I think Carolina played 4-5 different guys there in 2020.) Taylor Moton at RT is pretty good. The LG-C-RG crew is replacement level, maybe a bit below. They let LG Chris Reed go in free agency and signed his clone (Pat Elflein) to replace him. The Panthers signed Cam Erving (formerly w DAL, KC and CLE) to play LT but by all accounts he's a terrible LT.

Meanwhile, Matt Rhule is happy with Darnold.

"He’s our quarterback," Rhule said.

No, wait, I stand corrected. That's what Rhule said about Teddy B on March 10.

I root for the stupidest team.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
Stele wrote:

WTH? Jeopardy doesn't come on until 7pm here. Who gets it in the afternoon?

It’s a Midwest thing. In the east, we get Jeopardy and Wheel in some order before prime time tv at 8. On Central Time, they usually air the local and national news before prime time at seven, pushing those shows to the afternoon.

Huh... the more you know. That reminds me of the first time I spent New Year's Eve in Nashville with my wife and her family. WTF, they show the NYC ball drop on an hour delay instead of live? Yeah I know it's not midnight yet but if you want a live NYE then show Chicago or New Orleans or have your own party in Nashville central time.

And final Jeopardy was excellent all around tonight including the question/answer.

Was he more... lively than in the clip that's been going around?

Rat Boy wrote:

Was he more... lively than in the clip that's been going around?

No.

But not sure if people should expect Peyton Manning from Rodgers. Definitely not the same personality.

Panthers could very well be looking at the top two tackles in the draft, which should help those line troubles.

jowner wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

Was he more... lively than in the clip that's been going around?

No.

But not sure if people should expect Peyton Manning from Rodgers. Definitely not the same personality.

So far the only guest host I think that's clicked well was the show's executive producer, and he only got the call because a COVID lockdown in LA prevented guest hosts from being flown in that week.

Well, he was better throughout than I thought from the clip, he just felt a little too... sedate, like he could have picked up the tempo a little at times. Also, the guy who won looks like a prospective college QB hoping to get drafted to take Rodgers' job in Green Bay.

Yeah he was a bit monotone, slow pace. But he spoke clearly, made a few good jokes. He even did an imitation or two reading clues... there was a Larry David that I laughed at.

Solid for a first show. Only the exec producer has been clearly better so far

No offense to Packers fans, but "Aaron Rodgers is offered the lifetime Jeopardy hosting gig and realizes it's his lifelong dream" is by far and away the storyline I most want to see this offseason.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

No offense to Packers fans, but "Aaron Rodgers is offered the lifetime Jeopardy hosting gig and realizes it's his lifelong dream" is by far and away the storyline I most want to see this offseason.

That only happens if the pursestrings of Jeopardy are handled by the same sort of executive who gives out tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to quarterbacks who had one good game.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

No offense to Packers fans, but "Aaron Rodgers is offered the lifetime Jeopardy hosting gig and realizes it's his lifelong dream" is by far and away the storyline I most want to see this offseason.

Aaron Rogers realizes he could have a job that pays millions, involves wintering in LA and not GB, and doesn't involve Khalil Mack trying to kill him. That may be a desirable career change?

Quote from Daniel Jeremiah's latest mock draft:

I'm not surprised San Francisco traded up to No. 3. I am surprised that everything you hear points toward Jones being the Niners' pick at No. 3.

Just seems weird to plan to replace Jimmy Garoppolo by trading a ton of draft capital to move up and draft another Jimmy Garoppolo.

They are probably thinking they want to draft a Jimmy Garoppolo that will be able to play a full season for once.

*Legion* wrote:

Just seems weird to plan to replace Jimmy Garoppolo by trading a ton of draft capital to move up and draft another Jimmy Garoppolo.

Younger less injured (or injury-prone) Jimmy Garoppolo at a much much lower salary is better than current Jimmy Garoppolo, no?

Bill Barnwell had an interesting idea that a team will eventually just cycle through young QBs. This could be the beginning of that.

karmajay wrote:

They are probably thinking they want to draft a Jimmy Garoppolo that will be able to play a full season for once.

Mac Jones missed the last football game he was supposed to play in (the Senior Bowl) due to ankle injury sustained during the week of Senior Bowl practices.

He's 6-foot-2, in the 210-220 lb range, and has a bit of a slighter build.

Who does this sound like?

a) Jimmy Garoppolo
b) Derek Carr
c) Teddy Bridgewater
d) All of the Above

What do these 3 have in common? Significant NFL health concerns.

Vector wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Just seems weird to plan to replace Jimmy Garoppolo by trading a ton of draft capital to move up and draft another Jimmy Garoppolo.

Younger less injured (or injury-prone) Jimmy Garoppolo at a much much lower salary is better than current Jimmy Garoppolo, no?

Bill Barnwell had an interesting idea that a team will eventually just cycle through young QBs. This could be the beginning of that.

That idea had been a long time coming. It's certainly about time, though the problem is missing on a QB will set you back a bit.

I'd still rather have a guy for a decade who is worth keeping that long.

garion333 wrote:
Vector wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Just seems weird to plan to replace Jimmy Garoppolo by trading a ton of draft capital to move up and draft another Jimmy Garoppolo.

Younger less injured (or injury-prone) Jimmy Garoppolo at a much much lower salary is better than current Jimmy Garoppolo, no?

Bill Barnwell had an interesting idea that a team will eventually just cycle through young QBs. This could be the beginning of that.

That idea had been a long time coming. It's certainly about time, though the problem is missing on a QB will set you back a bit.

I'd still rather have a guy for a decade who is worth keeping that long.

It sure is intriguing. Can't miss on drafting a good QB or the team is sent to no man's land for at least a season.

Yeah, Barnwell's idea seems crazy; the NFL becomes more and more of a QB league every year, and rolling the dice on a new QB every few years makes no sense. Look at the consistently good teams over the past couple decades; they had Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Peyton . . . having a great QB makes your team minimum very good, and you really can't afford to pass up the chance to get one.

Spoiler:

Unless, apparently, you're the San Francisco 49ers.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yeah, Barnwell's idea seems crazy; the NFL becomes more and more of a QB league every year, and rolling the dice on a new QB every few years makes no sense. Look at the consistently good teams over the past couple decades; they had Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Peyton . . . having a great QB makes your team minimum very good, and you really can't afford to pass up the chance to get one.

Spoiler:

Unless, apparently, you're the San Francisco 49ers.

Well I think part of the strategy is you save $$$ to allocate elsewhere.

It's essentially just Moneyball in football. Can you ride and pay a B quarterback C type money and use those savings. Tricky part is finding that person and not screwing up the money you saved.

Brady in your example doesn't really work as he was playing at a discount.

The opposite of the Brady strategy is what? The Kirk Cousins? Pay for A talent and get a C+. Can't do anything really in that situation.

You're basically never saddled with an overpriced "impossible" to move QB and forced to take on dead money. All the savings are used to invest in upgrades across the roster. You're very much at the whims of the QB draft class and your own scouting department's ability to find good players.

I'm not sure Barnwell is advocating for this strategy as he's, multiple times, written about how teams overrated their own abilities to find talent in the draft and are even worse at identifying successful QBs. He's more predicting that a team will eventually do this.

jowner wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yeah, Barnwell's idea seems crazy; the NFL becomes more and more of a QB league every year, and rolling the dice on a new QB every few years makes no sense. Look at the consistently good teams over the past couple decades; they had Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Peyton . . . having a great QB makes your team minimum very good, and you really can't afford to pass up the chance to get one.

Spoiler:

Unless, apparently, you're the San Francisco 49ers.

Well I think part of the strategy is you save $$$ to allocate elsewhere.

It's essentially just Moneyball in football. Can you ride and pay a B quarterback C type money and use those savings. Tricky part is finding that person and not screwing up the money you saved.

Brady in your example doesn't really work as he was playing at a discount.

The opposite of the Brady strategy is what? The Kirk Cousins? Pay for A talent and get a C+. Can't do anything really in that situation.

Hot Take for the purposes or argument; Kirk Cousins is a solid B, maybe even a B+, and is consistently an above-average starter who performs well given time to throw, and were he not playing on a team with an offensive line that appears to be somewhere mildly north of Kansas City's in the Super Bowl, he could be much better. He's just in a bad situation, and, yes, is paid a lot, but you pay a lot for competent QB play, and Cousins just can't win with that team because he's not good enough to drag the team on his back, but few teams are.

Anyways, the problem with Barnwell's theory and Moneyballing the QB position is it just doesn't work; QB is so utterly and incredibly important that you simply need one. Take the last 20 Super Bowls; the only ones where you can say with confidence the winning QB isn't going to the HOF are 2002 (Brad Johnson), 2012 (Joe Flacco), and 2018 (Nick Foles). Eli shouldn't get in but might because RINGZ, and who knows with Russel Wilson or Mahomes at this point. I can imagine in earlier eras trying to make do with a QB, but these days it seems patently insane to aim for a young QB that might just work out, because, well, that hasn't exactly been what's been happening for the last few decades.

I dunno, I'd rather trade away my QB than sign, say, Goff or Wentz to a second contract and carry that weight around your neck after you trade em.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hot Take for the purposes or argument; Kirk Cousins is a solid B, maybe even a B+, and is consistently an above-average starter who performs well given time to throw, and were he not playing on a team with an offensive line that appears to be somewhere mildly north of Kansas City's in the Super Bowl, he could be much better. He's just in a bad situation, and, yes, is paid a lot, but you pay a lot for competent QB play, and Cousins just can't win with that team because he's not good enough to drag the team on his back, but few teams are.

Agreed with this.

Cousins is blamed for everything in Minnesota, while he's just about the only thing going right over there. Minnesota was 4th in total offense and 11th in scoring last year. That despite an offensive line PFF ranked 26th who has pretty much the same story as Carolina: good young right tackle, the rest of the line near the bottom of the pass protection metrics.

The Vikings were 7-9 because Mike Zimmer's defense has continued to turn into crap.

Cousins is entering year 4 in Minnesota and will be playing for his 4th offensive coordinator there. He's been productive despite the instability at the top. At least this new coordinator has the same last name as his previous one - Klint Kubiak is taking over the job from his dad Gary, and was the team's QB coach the past 2 seasons, so this is probably the first year Cousins will enjoy some offensive system stability. (Granted, that won't stop Mike Zimmer from wanting the team to lead the league in rush attempts every year.)

Ok Cousins isn't the worst.

I guess Wentz was. Or what's the worst QB cap hit to actual performance?

Regardless I think the point is if you saddle yourself with a huge QB contract # that QB pretty much has to play to that # and or around that value.

Hypothetical if Rodgers gets hurt next year and Love steps in and is OK but no where near A QB play the Packers are essentially just cooked for the year. They would need the rest of their injuries to be 0 + they would need other players to play above and beyond their cap #.

It's really not rocket science to do this cap math. A team will eventually say f*ck it (some probably already are) lets just stream young QBs with a good roster around him until we Russell Wilson it.

49ers have a good roster. If the QB they draft shows good signs early I'm sure they will be out on Jimmy ASAP so that can turn his $$$ into more help for that QB.