WFT's Off-Season Thread

[MissouriSkin]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

As a history buff, I wouldn't mind Redtails either. The name lends itself to some great logos and uniforms.

I hate to say it, but given today climate, someone will complain that a white owner is making money off the legacy of black people and complain about racism and cultural appropriation.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Fuller is a younger DeSean Jackson. Similar abilities and can't stay healthy.

True he's been hurt quite a lot and I get the cautiousness with players having an injury history.
But at the right price I'd still like the signing.

[Pervis_Griffith]

Originally Posted by MissouriSkin

I hate to say it, but given today climate, someone will complain that a white owner is making money off the legacy of black people and complain about racism and cultural appropriation.

This.

Also ... with Redtails ... what do we call the cheerleaders?? And aren't we just getting over some seriously awful harassment stuff there?

[skinsfaninok]

They won't go to another RED name I bet..

[MissouriSkin]

Originally Posted by Pervis_Griffith

This.

Also ... with Redtails ... what do we call the cheerleaders?? And aren't we just getting over some seriously awful harassment stuff there?

I mean we just had to change how we address a plastic potato that had interchangeable parts and was already gender fluid....🤦*♂️

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Pervis_Griffith

This.

Also ... with Redtails ... what do we call the cheerleaders?? And aren't we just getting over some seriously awful harassment stuff there?

Probably best to just get rid of cheerleaders altogether

I mean when you think about it the whole concept of cheerleaders is a little cringey and dated

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by MTK

Probably best to just get rid of cheerleaders altogether

I mean when you think about it the whole concept of cheerleaders is a little cringey and dated

Nobody even cares about them anymore , I don't even see them on TV much

[Redskins247]

Originally Posted by MTK

Probably best to just get rid of cheerleaders altogether

I mean when you think about it the whole concept of cheerleaders is a little cringey and dated

This. Another thing to follow in the Pittsburgh Steeler organization.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Me too, Brother.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by MTK

Probably best to just get rid of cheerleaders altogether



I mean when you think about it the whole concept of cheerleaders is a little cringey and dated

Yeah its cool in highschool then it is kind of corny.
My parents are Eagles fans. Had season tickets for years. I remember back in the 80’s the cheerleaders started wearing pants. Man you never heard booing like you did at the vet when they came out in pants. Lol

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by MissouriSkin

I mean we just had to change how we address a plastic potato that had interchangeable parts and was already gender fluid....🤦*♂️

It is called the Hegelian dialectic. Divide and conquer.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Well, most teams get beat by the more elite rushers. That's why they call them elite; and you don't get routinely owned throughout the season, and come out at the end with the 6th best offensive line in the league.

Having four different starting QBs (with the best option being completely immobile), a starting RB basically learning the position and missing time due to injury, and receivers who (other than Terry) couldn't get separation, made the line look worse than they were.

There's no reason to start over here. They would be fine if they just add some developmental depth in the draft and retain Scherff.

That depends how stats computed. Great teams don't make excuses, so I'm just ignoring the second paragraph which exemplifies a losers mentality. When it counted against good teams, we got owned. Paper tiger, no matter what the stats say.

The more I think about it, the more I would not resign Scherff. Last three years he has missed just under a third of games, meaning he played 2 effective seasons. Does anyone think he is going to magically get healthier on the bad side of 30? Some guys play awesome well into 30s, but not usually those who have been DECIMATED by injuries in their late 20s. It is a hard-nosed decision. I would rather keep a guy like Allen and draft a G with a 3rd or 4th round pick.

Let's look at our line.
LT: Cornelius, 30 when season starts. Charles backup, young rookie deal, could pan out, but can't count on it.
LG: Schweitzer, 28 when season starts. Wes Martin, young rookie deal, solid backup who seems to lack the chops to be starter.
C: Roullier, 28 when season starts. Backup, Call him Ismael, young rookie deal, appears to be solid backup.
RG: Scherff, 29 when season starts. Ismael, Martin swing position backups.
RT: Moses (all these Biblical names LOL), 30 start of season. No backup besides Charles, who though he may not pan out as LT, should certainly be able to handle RT. I think Christian (damn these Biblical names LOL) is toast.


Cornelius is on a bargain contract, around 2M per year, through end of 2021. He has been solid but hardly elite, clearly outplayed that contract. He'll be looking for $8M+ if he plays as well again next year. So in 2022 are we going to pay a 31 year old above average tackle what will probably be something in neighborhood of $10M+ per year? No, we shouldn't.

Schweitzer earning $4M this year, $5M next, FA 2023 at age 30. He has been solid, neither great or terrible. A smart team would get this level of production out of 3rd or 4th round pick on a rookie deal, but 1st year of regime last year so many holes can't hate the signing.

Roullier is a solid but far from elite C. Resigning him neither great nor terrible. He is paid $7-10M per 2024, a fair deal for both parties.

Scherff is elite, but is still primarily a pancake run blocker, lead footed, which is why he was IMMEDIATELY moved to G from T in basically his first day of practice coming to Skins after draft. There are a number of plays pass blocking where people just blow right by him.

Moses. Average player. Streaky. Lacks consistency, especially over course of his career. In theory a quick footed pass blocker and not a dominant run blocker, but boy has gotten beat a ton off the edge over the years. Due just under $8M this year next, can be cut after 2021 with NO dead money.

Could we get away with focusing more on D in draft this year? And QB?
Sure.

To me, I'm building an O, my three priority positions are QB,LT,C. RBs and Gs grow on trees. You need a good WR, but they are usually available in FA in a pinch and there are LOTS of good WRs available year after year. QB,LT,C, finding elite, franchise caliber players extremely difficult. We have no young franchise QB. We have no young franchise LT. We have decent C. Our offense is built ass backwards, with best player at absolute lowest leverage position on entire O.

C is actually the rarest position on O for elite players, more than QB, though QB obviously much higher leverage. You need a QB for reasons won't belabor. You need a good LT to keep QB alive, and a good C anchors the OL. Good C and LT you can put anyone in at both Gs. A solid RT doesn't hurt either.

One other thing I believe in philosophically is that your swing players should be T and C, not Gs. If you are keeping 8 OL, should be two backup Ts and a backup C, which swing to G if injury. Thus even if you love Moses, Lucas, and believe Charles can stay healthy and start all year if an injury (a dubious proposition), you still need to draft one T this year.

None of our starters are young. Our only elite player is at the absolute least important O position. We need to remake gradually with younger players. This is a deep draft for tackles. It would be smart to draft one. I'm building a team long term, two positions I want elite 1st round talents at, over the long term, is C and FS. Maybe not this year, but long-term. Thus I don't love Roullier because C is 3rd highest priority position. We say game won in the trenches, meaning 2 of 3 high priority positions on O are OL.

End of next year Lucas gone. End of next year not the worst idea in the world to not pay a guy earning $8M a year to perform above average at best at RT. You could draft a 1st round T in next year's draft and have them start, but if you're planning on any later pick, probably want a year to get them to learn the system and coach them up, especially at LT. If we plugged in a rookie contract guy to replace Moses next year, freeing up money to keep our awesome DL.

So if I were GM, and I hardly think I know it all, I let Scherff walk. I use my 1st round pick this year on a LT if available. Most years a potential franchise LT is not available so late in draft, this year maybe, so you exploit that opportunity and fill one of major long term needs of a good team. If not, ideally CB. Assuming QBs all gone when we pick. Then I'd try to draft a G 3rd or 4th round to play RG.

Our coaching staff did a great job of building a stopgap line given that 80% of the roster was holes. That is not the same thing as an OL built for long-term success in a strategically sound manner.

Any year a truly elite C is available, I take him if I don't have one, and we don't. One of lowest risk higher round positions, and most all elite Cs picked 1st 2nd round. I do that even with Roullier on roster.

So let's say we draft a franchise LT in round 1, which I don't think we will. A QB round 2, a RG round 3 or 4. And we let Scherff walk, and get a 3rd round comp for him year after. I'll take the positional drop-off at G for $14M+ a year less. It is a RG, for f sake, no need to spend that kind of money at such a low leverage position.

We then have:

T: Lucas, Moses, Charles, Rookie. Who cares if Lucas or Rookie starts, let them compete. Any injuries, you aren't getting your QB killed. Next year you let Lucas walk, cut Moses, draft two more young guys at T, one early round, one late.
G: Schweitzer, Martin, Ismael, Charles, Rookie LT. Move Martin to RT, expect significant but not ruinous drop off, and use money wasted on Scherff for elite young DL resigning. Charles could also start at LG move Schweitzer to RG. Rookie might also start.
C: Roullier and Ismael.

We lost to virtually every winning team we played for good reason, and for many reasons, but we need much better play on the edges to have any hope of beating better teams. We have NO starting o-linemen on rookie deals. That has to change given salary cap, especially because we won't always find absurd bargains at LT in FA. We just signed a mediocre C to long-term deal, if we sign a RG to $15m+, then we are looking at $25M+ roughly on just C and RG. This is the WRONG way to build an OL. You want your three elite, high-paid players to be LT,C,RT. Long-term, we need to move to this distribution by letting Scherff walk. We also need a succession plan at T, right and left. I expect Moses to be COMPLETELY exposed without Scherff left of him, and would have to draft a second T if letting Scherff walk.

Anyhoo. I would not say our OL blows, but at some point we have to begin beating teams with, you know, winning records. We get a LOT of QBS injured, LOL, ever wonder why?

[KI Skins Fan]

Scalper, I think you may be underestimating Charles. I think he is starter material, assuming that his injury problems are behind him now. Remember how the coaching staff plugged him in at LG last season just as soon as he was physically ready to go? Admittedly, I have no NFL history to go on but I still think (with my fingers crossed) he can be be a quality starter on the left side in 2021.

[MissouriSkin]

Originally Posted by Scalper

It is called the Hegelian dialectic. Divide and conquer.

Oh I’m very aware. Just wish others were.

[Pervis_Griffith]

Originally Posted by Scalper

The more I think about it, the more I would not resign Scherff. Last three years he has missed just under a third of games, meaning he played 2 effective seasons. Does anyone think he is going to magically get healthier on the bad side of 30? Some guys play awesome well into 30s, but not usually those who have been DECIMATED by injuries in their late 20s. It is a hard-nosed decision. I would rather keep a guy like Allen and draft a G with a 3rd or 4th round pick.

__________

Scherff is elite, but is still primarily a pancake run blocker, lead footed, which is why he was IMMEDIATELY moved to G from T in basically his first day of practice coming to Skins after draft. There are a number of plays pass blocking where people just blow right by him.

________

To me, I'm building an O, my three priority positions are QB,LT,C. RBs and Gs grow on trees.


_________

None of our starters are young. Our only elite player is at the absolute least important O position.


So if I were GM, and I hardly think I know it all, I let Scherff walk. I use my 1st round pick this year on a LT if available. Most years a potential franchise LT is not available so late in draft, this year maybe, so you exploit that opportunity and fill one of major long term needs of a good team. If not, ideally CB. Assuming QBs all gone when we pick. Then I'd try to draft a G 3rd or 4th round to play RG.



So let's say we draft a franchise LT in round 1, which I don't think we will. A QB round 2, a RG round 3 or 4. And we let Scherff walk, and get a 3rd round comp for him year after. I'll take the positional drop-off at G for $14M+ a year less. It is a RG, for f sake, no need to spend that kind of money at such a low leverage position.

We then have:

T: Lucas, Moses, Charles, Rookie. Who cares if Lucas or Rookie starts, let them compete. Any injuries, you aren't getting your QB killed. Next year you let Lucas walk, cut Moses, draft two more young guys at T, one early round, one late.
G: Schweitzer, Martin, Ismael, Charles, Rookie LT. Move Martin to RT, expect significant but not ruinous drop off, and use money wasted on Scherff for elite young DL resigning. Charles could also start at LG move Schweitzer to RG. Rookie might also start.
C: Roullier and Ismael.



Anyhoo. I would not say our OL blows, but at some point we have to begin beating teams with, you know, winning records. We get a LOT of QBS injured, LOL, ever wonder why?

I've started leaning this way too ...

If you could sign him on a longer term deal that lessens his annual hit to the cap, then fine. But I don't see that happening -- if it could have happened, it already would have.

What percentage of the fan base feels the same way? 5? 10? My gut tells me it's a small percentage ....


I think the front office and Rivera take a PR hit with most of the fans by letting him walk ... but that shouldn't drive their decisions. And long term roster/cap management is the key to truly building a contender. Spending $15-18 million a year on a guard just doesn't work.