PDA

View Full Version : Free Agent Winners and Losers


GiantRutgersFan
03-07-2007, 04:21 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2789661



thoughts???


I gotta say, the G-Men are losers in F/A so far. We havent even done anything except release our own players

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
03-07-2007, 04:24 PM
Much too early to say... but so far, I'll go with the Broncos. Travis Henry and Daniel Graham should make some nice contributions. And the Bly situation only helps, regardless of whether they keep him or trade him.

Obviously the 49ers have added the most, but they spent a lot of money on players that I'm not particularly fond of.

PalmerToCJ
03-07-2007, 04:25 PM
To me the Broncos and Patriots have done the best job thus far.

Eaglez.Fan
03-07-2007, 04:27 PM
Pats, Niners

Vince Lombardi
03-07-2007, 04:31 PM
I really like the moves that the Patriots have made, they've gotten several guys who should play major roles for them.

yourfavestoner
03-07-2007, 04:32 PM
You'd think that people would stop caring about these after the Redskins finish number one every year.

Windy
03-07-2007, 04:34 PM
it seems like its based on who made the most moves.

frogstomp
03-07-2007, 04:34 PM
You'd think that people would stop caring about these after the Redskins finish number one every year.

The difference is that the good teams haven't gone out and signed *everyone*, they've gone out and signed quality players at positions of need.

frogstomp
03-07-2007, 04:35 PM
it seems like its based on who made the most moves.

In that case, you're definitely first after last night. How many times did you get shut down by that one chick?

Windy
03-07-2007, 04:39 PM
In that case, you're definitely first after last night. How many times did you get shut down by that one chick?

haha. i'd give rep but i've given too much lately.

yourfavestoner
03-07-2007, 04:41 PM
haha. i'd give rep but i've given too much lately.

So I'll give him rep for you.

frogstomp
03-07-2007, 04:41 PM
haha. i'd give rep but i've given too much lately.

I still love you. Hell, Im such a rep ***** that just you mentioning rep makes me give you positive rep.

bigbluedefense
03-07-2007, 04:43 PM
I love being a FA loser. Absolutely love it. Because FA WINNERS are usually REGULAR SEASON LOSERS. Remember that.

yourfavestoner
03-07-2007, 04:47 PM
I love being a FA loser. Absolutely love it. Because FA WINNERS are usually REGULAR SEASON LOSERS. Remember that.

Exactly. The Giants cut a bunch of overpaid, often-injured veterans, and then didn't splurge in a talentless free agent pool. Who's to say that makes them losers? They recouped salary cap space and roster spots and didn't waste them on average players.

Shiver
03-07-2007, 04:49 PM
I love being a FA loser. Absolutely love it. Because FA WINNERS are usually REGULAR SEASON LOSERS. Remember that.

Look at last year, for example. Only a few FA additions were beneficial. Mostly, all the teams seeking instant gratification underachieved. I think the Colts and Bears were predominantly build via the draft.

GiantRutgersFan
03-07-2007, 05:10 PM
Exactly. The Giants cut a bunch of overpaid, often-injured veterans, and then didn't splurge in a talentless free agent pool. Who's to say that makes them losers? They recouped salary cap space and roster spots and didn't waste them on average players.

yea but we have too many holes. I didnt really like any of the "superstar" free agents (except Clements if the price was reasonable), but I think we should sign a 3rd WR, a 3rd DT, such as Ian Scott, and an O lineman for depth (Jordan Black would fit nicely).

as you can see, no crazy signings, but we need depth

RaiderNation
03-07-2007, 05:13 PM
raiders are losers on losing out on the top linemen and garcia

49erfaithful
03-07-2007, 05:16 PM
Pats they got loaded up again, and SF. We really improved our D

jetsfan3
03-07-2007, 05:30 PM
I think the Jets are winners in FA, they got a very solid RB for the value of a high 3rd rounder. This gives them consistency with there running game, for Thomas Jones will get us 1200 yards. Also, we are in the running for Randy McMichael which gives us a solid option for Pennington who loves his TEs.

T-RICH49
03-07-2007, 05:38 PM
NE and KC did a nice job of addressing major needs

Jughead10
03-07-2007, 05:41 PM
yea but we have too many holes. I didnt really like any of the "superstar" free agents (except Clements if the price was reasonable), but I think we should sign a 3rd WR, a 3rd DT, such as Ian Scott, and an O lineman for depth (Jordan Black would fit nicely).

as you can see, no crazy signings, but we need depth

I have a gut feeling that we will end up with Dominic Rhodes at a very nice price, and Roderick Hood as well. Save money for next year, when FA prices probably won't be going up nearly as much and we have more cap room since people overpaid this offseason. Also don't forget we gave Shaun O'Hara a deal that looks like an absolute steal. If might have gotten close to double if he hit the open market with the contracts that are being given out.

DHVF
03-07-2007, 05:44 PM
I do believe that the 49ers are trying to land themselves back in cap hell in the future.

Cashmoney
03-07-2007, 05:47 PM
Gotta throw the titans in the loser mix so far. weve lost travis henry, bobby wade, drew bennett and will probably lose pacman before its said and done, and we are yet to sign any new players. but we resigned kerry collins!

49ersfan_87
03-07-2007, 06:02 PM
I do believe that the 49ers are trying to land themselves back in cap hell in the future.

Care to explain?

Clements contract is nowhere near 80 mil, i dont know lewis' contract but its not 10 mil guaranteed, its roster bonus. And the other 3 signings are a combined 8 mil of guaranteed $.

ks_perfection
03-07-2007, 06:06 PM
NE and KC did a nice job of addressing major needs

Who did Kansas City get? I honestly don't recall hearing any moves they made (besides Huard)

Larry
03-07-2007, 06:11 PM
Niners, Broncos

doingthisinsteadofwork
03-07-2007, 06:15 PM
Raiders arent losers in this FA.ALot of these players are being grossly overpaid.By not going out and paying a large investment in anybody they are saving cap space.

Microphon200
03-07-2007, 06:17 PM
I'd have to go with the 49ers, even though they overpaid Nate Clements by $30 million dollars. Also, they lost out on Thomas and signed Banat-Cain instead.

49ersfan_87
03-07-2007, 06:18 PM
I'd have to go with the 49ers, even though they overpaid Nate Clements by $30 million dollars. Also, they lost out on Thomas and signed Banat-Cain instead.

Thomas didnt want to be with SF, according to peter king.

"The only other serious contender for Thomas' services was San Francisco. Everything about the 49ers interested Thomas, except the locale. "If it was all about money,'' San Francisco coach Mike Nolan told me Saturday, "I don't think we would have been outbid. But in the process of interviewing him Friday and him talking to me, I could see that some of the things I wanted to see happen weren't going to happen. I think geography had something to do with it.''

It was clear what he meant. If the 49ers were going to pay Thomas $8 or $9 million a year -- which the 49ers may have been willing to do if, like Clements, Thomas was willing to move lock, stock and barrel to the Bay Area -- it shouldn't be too much to ask that the player becomes a member of the community. Nolan likes his players to be in the area for the 14-week offseason strength and conditioning program, beginning March 19. He can't make it mandatory, but if a free agent tells him it's a problem, that's going to be a factor.

Thomas couldn't lie to Nolan, his former Baltimore defensive coordinator. He didn't want to move West, nor did he want to leave his family 3,000 miles away for four months. Thomas, from rural Mississippi, has grown to love the energy of the East, as has his family, and Foxboro was infinitely more preferable than Santa Clara.

"There was a good bit of interest from us,'' Nolan said, "but at the end of the day, New England's a better fit for him. What he wanted -- lifestyle, family concerns, a winning franchise -- he got in New England.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/04/thomas/1.html

sup3rk1ng
03-07-2007, 06:24 PM
I do believe that the 49ers are trying to land themselves back in cap hell in the future.

"Word of caution to all fans out there: Don't believe the contract numbers being thrown around for the free agents being signed.

Here's why: They're usually pumped up by the agent.

When safety Michael Lewis signed with the 49ers over the weekend, it was reported as a deal that included $10 million in guarantees. But, according to figures obtained by CBS SportsLine.com, the deal has almost $10 million in roster bonuses -- not guarantees.

Lewis will get a roster bonus of $3.5 million this season, and then if he plays well, he'll get one $3.5 next season and $3 million in 2009. If he doesn't play well, the 49ers can cut him without paying the last two.

That reported $80 million deal for 49ers corner Nate Clements includes loads of funny money. It is a back-loaded deal with high base salary numbers that he will never see.

Clements received a $10 million signing bonus, which is good, but the last three years total $34 million in base salary. There is no way he ever plays for that kind of money.

Some of the other deals reported are as fluffy as those two. That's what agents do. They make their deals look better than they really are, but a closer look shows how false those numbers can be. "


http://www.sportsline.com/columns/weblogs/entry/10030961


Edit - On a side note, Michael Smith just reported that the saints and niners are trying to trade for Darrell Jackson. Accoring to the smith, the niners are the favorites to land him, despite being in the same division. I wasn't sure if this deserved its own topic since it's a rumor.

Non_Sequitur
03-07-2007, 08:39 PM
Too early for this topic.

smittyjs
03-07-2007, 08:51 PM
Gotta throw the titans in the loser mix so far. weve lost travis henry, bobby wade, drew bennett and will probably lose pacman before its said and done, and we are yet to sign any new players. but we resigned kerry collins!
Yeah i would throw us in the loser mix....

cunningham06
03-07-2007, 08:56 PM
Winner- Denver

Loser- Giants

Chucky
03-07-2007, 09:50 PM
i think the bucs are winner, not the number one team, but they improved dramatically

JoeMontainya
03-07-2007, 10:07 PM
Winners - Pats, Browns.

Browns got the best OL in FA (steinbach) and now a solid RB, now that injuries from last year are gone (Lewis). We also got a starting caliber OLB and a bum CB that I think stinks.

21ST
03-07-2007, 10:12 PM
I love being a FA loser. Absolutely love it. Because FA WINNERS are usually REGULAR SEASON LOSERS. Remember that.



I LOVE the redskins not bein on that list cause its the truth

mikehop05
03-07-2007, 10:32 PM
Steelers = winners

we have not over paid anyone yet, and we got rid of porter, thus making us the winner

omecool20
03-07-2007, 10:35 PM
I am happy that the skins are not the winners of FA so far ;-) ... gotta put the Niners as the big winner. 2nd would be the Pats.

PalmerToCJ
03-07-2007, 10:39 PM
Steelers = winners

we have not over paid anyone yet, and we got rid of porter, thus making us the winner

Haha, same for the Bengals. We haven't overpaid for anyone and we had the pleasure of Tory James' contract running out.

critesy
03-07-2007, 10:41 PM
Too early for this topic.


and your avatar is too big for this forum but im not complaining now am i...well, forget this last statement in a way :)

mikehop05
03-07-2007, 10:51 PM
Haha, same for the Bengals. We haven't overpaid for anyone and we had the pleasure of Tory James' contract running out.

who woulda thought i would agree with a BENGALS fan, hahaha

but yeah in all honesty i really think the winners are those who are not spending huge $$ for (mostly) average players

Kurve
03-07-2007, 10:51 PM
raiders are losers on losing out on the top linemen and garcia

How so? Lets see from years past thats all Al did was bring in old washed up players or outcasts that other teams didnt want and pay them top dollar, and look where that lead the team to become. I think this is a great move that al didnt spent high amount on old players because i think he has faith in his young talent and this upcoming draft to get what he needs. Garcia come on he had a great 2nd half of the year but remember he only does well in a WCO yes we hired Knapp as a OC but remember Kiffin is calling the plays and im not sure if i could consider his style a WCO. I dont feel that the raiders are losers i mean they didnt go after these average players which these other teams are willing to spend high amount of dollars for.

Non_Sequitur
03-07-2007, 11:04 PM
Jets = Winners thus far (It's too early to really tell, you know?)

Trading cheaply for Thomas Jones and not even giving up a pick, just moving down.

Cut overpaid players like Ramsey and Blaylock...


Not overspending on big names...

Non_Sequitur
03-07-2007, 11:16 PM
and your avatar is too big for this forum but im not complaining now am i...well, forget this last statement in a way :)


Hey now, seriously who has a winners and losers topic less than a week into the FA season?


That's like a Winners and Losers article at the end of the first round of the draft.

jth1331
03-07-2007, 11:23 PM
I find it HILARIOUS how Clayton thinks Lelie will help out the 49ers in the red zone. Freakin HILARIOUS becuase Lelie is HORRIBLE in the red zone, downright HORRIBLE.

Jughead10
03-08-2007, 07:52 AM
Winner- Denver

Loser- Giants


I know you are an Eagles fan, but I don't see how you can really consider the Giants losers. How can they be anymore losers than the Eagles. They have both done the same, which is nothing. The deal we signed O'Hara to is an absolute steal considering this market. We basically signed him for the same deal the Vikings signed our backup TE who had 12 catches last year for.

Giants have guys interested in playing here. But they aren't going to give out the type of money other teams are. It seems to be making for long negotiations. Both Rhodes and Hood seem to want to come here but we aren't offering the crazy money they want. We are offering them deals below what this crazy market would consider fair. Which is fine with me. I'm not mortaging the future cap for what seems to be an extremely lackluster FA group.

Also the Giants seem to have now thrown their hat into possible negotations to trade for Dre Bly. Along with New Orleans.

DeathbyStat
03-08-2007, 08:19 AM
Winner Pats- barring injury With AT they will be the number one defense next year.

Losers- Miami Dolphins, I think he will be solid for a year or two but the contract that they gave Porter is absurd

portermvp84
03-08-2007, 09:54 AM
The 49ers and the Patriots have hit the jack pot. There the winners.

yourfavestoner
03-08-2007, 10:14 AM
For everybody that's freaking out that their team isn't signing anybody: trust me. Wait until after the draft. Many, many teams in the NFL still draft by needs. Plus, the talent in free agency is such crap, I highly doubt if you're going to find a player of any more quality than you would if you'd just wait a month. If anything, he'll probably come cheaper.

HawkeyeFan
03-08-2007, 10:48 AM
Winners thus far:
49ers
Broncos
Dolphins
Patriots
Texans

Seahawks

Losers thus far:
Packers
Raiders
Ravens
Rams
Cardinals
Cowboys

EdReedUnstoppable
03-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Losers

Baltimore Ravens

Not only do we let Adalius go but we also let our starting FB and up and coming star Mughelli go, but we also let our RT Pashos go, cut a great character guy and a very good lineman in Edwin Mulitalo, we also lost Jamal Lewis which is gonna hurt and hurt double since he stays in our division, and lost a good DL rotational guy in Aubrayo Franklin. So how do we make up for those moves, well we give Jarret Johnson a deal he should never get, we bring back a RB who couldn't stay healthy if his life depended on it, and then trade away 3 picks for an overrated piece of trash RB in McGahee, we are by far the #1 losers of free agency.

BuffaloDraftGeek
03-08-2007, 05:04 PM
In response to the thread reguarding if the bills are the biggest losers (which was locked)...

So far they have lost McGahee, Fletcher, Clements...

Its going to be very hard to fix that through the draft, does this make the Bills the biggest loser thus far in the offseason?
First of all, do some research. The bills didn't lose Mcgahee or fletcher. They let fletcher walk because he was unsuccesful in buffalo's new scheme. They traded mcgahee because they were sick of him. They can draft a LB in round one, a RB and round 2 (willis and bush) and their problems fixed.

Clements however, is a different story. He was a good player, but that contract was crazy. Also, in the bills scheme CB play isn't an important factor, you can get by with average CBs.

Bills signed 2 new starters to their line (both of which will play guard), and are set to have another steller draft. They are winners.

ricky bobby
03-08-2007, 05:40 PM
I think it's a bit early to be calling teams winners and losers. It may turn out that the winners are actually the teams that didn't go paying 80 mill to a overrated corner, or 49 million to a fat lazy LT. This free agent crop was weak, and i'm shocked that they recieved such large contracts. Imagine if Briggs or Samuel hit the market?

NIN1984
03-08-2007, 06:38 PM
In response to the thread reguarding if the bills are the biggest losers (which was locked)...


First of all, do some research. The bills didn't lose Mcgahee or fletcher. They let fletcher walk because he was unsuccesful in buffalo's new scheme. They traded mcgahee because they were sick of him. They can draft a LB in round one, a RB and round 2 (willis and bush) and their problems fixed.

Clements however, is a different story. He was a good player, but that contract was crazy. Also, in the bills scheme CB play isn't an important factor, you can get by with average CBs.

Bills signed 2 new starters to their line (both of which will play guard), and are set to have another steller draft. They are winners.

Its easier said than done, sure Bills can go draft Willis and Bush but that doesn’t mean the holes have been patched, them players have to pan out first.

Its going to be interesting to see what Buffalo does

bearsfan_51
03-08-2007, 06:42 PM
In response to the thread reguarding if the bills are the biggest losers (which was locked)...


First of all, do some research. The bills didn't lose Mcgahee or fletcher. They let fletcher walk because he was unsuccesful in buffalo's new scheme. They traded mcgahee because they were sick of him. They can draft a LB in round one, a RB and round 2 (willis and bush) and their problems fixed.

Clements however, is a different story. He was a good player, but that contract was crazy. Also, in the bills scheme CB play isn't an important factor, you can get by with average CBs.

Bills signed 2 new starters to their line (both of which will play guard), and are set to have another steller draft. They are winners.

Haha...nice that you can predict they are set to have a stellar draft before it's even happened.

Joeyjr09
03-08-2007, 06:47 PM
Bills signed 2 new starters to their line (both of which will play guard), and are set to have another steller draft. They are winners.

IF being set to have a stellar draft is criteria for having a good offseason, then everyone is a winner. Nobdy here thinks there team is set to have a bad draft.

Besides any team tht gives Derreck Dockery a 7 years 49 million dollar contract is not a winner.

eacantdraft
03-09-2007, 07:38 AM
Exactly. The Giants cut a bunch of overpaid, often-injured veterans, and then didn't splurge in a talentless free agent pool. Who's to say that makes them losers? They recouped salary cap space and roster spots and didn't waste them on average players.


A refreshing change for the Giants. The incompetent Ernie Accorsi is no longer there.

elway777
03-09-2007, 09:09 AM
NJX You didn't like the signing of Travis Henry? I mean Mike Bell has yet to show he can be a starting NFL running back, and theres a very slim chance we could get Marshawn in the draft.

bills_red
03-09-2007, 02:21 PM
IF being set to have a stellar draft is criteria for having a good offseason, then everyone is a winner. Nobdy here thinks there team is set to have a bad draft.

Besides any team tht gives Derreck Dockery a 7 years 49 million dollar contract is not a winner.

Price goes up every year!

Next year a guy will make 7 y 55 Mill...etc.

mikehop05
03-09-2007, 04:59 PM
people overpaying = my steelers having the best offseason

BamaFalcon59
03-10-2007, 12:12 AM
I'd say the Falcons are winners. We didn't overpay for a DE on the decline (Kerney), overpayed for a big need in a bruising fullback (Mughelli), cut Hartwell, Reese, and Lehr, replaced Reese with Wilkins as a ST ace and backup LB, signed a CB for depth (Sanders), and got a veteran WR who can still play and mentor (Horn).