AFC North Free Agency Scoreboard
-
I read where the squealers don't have plans to keep Troy Prollyhumpsamoomoo around, either.
They would like him to retire.
-
Old news maybe: Steelers signed QB Tajh Boyd.
-
Let me examine this:
RAVENS:
Lost:
Jacoby Jones - WR3 - can be replaced by 2014 7th round pick Michael Campanaro
Torrey Smith - WR2 - can be replaced by former starting WR2 Marlon Brown (2013 UDFA) who had almost as good a year in 2013 as Smith had in 2014.
Owen Daniels - TE1 - a healthy Dennis Pitta will take over, and their TE2 is expected to be 2014 3rd round pick Crockett Gillmore,
Pernell McPhee - 2nd team OLB - but the team keeps Suggs, Upshaw, and Dumervil... hmm. not much of a loss
Haloti Ngata - DT1 - can be replaced by 2014 2nd round pick Timmy Jernigan
Chris Canty - DE - can be replaced by 2012 7th round pick DeAngelo Tyson who started 4 games and played well
Terence Cody - backup NT - re-signed Christo Bilukidi, who they signed as a FA before the 2014 season
Overall: they lose some big-name talent, but have players they drafted in the past that can probably step in and provide quality production as replacements. I see a slight downgrade at WR and on the D-line, but both positions, along with a 4th OLB, can probably be addressed in the draft.
BENGALS:
Lost:
Marshall Newhouse - backup LT - signed Matt O'donnell from the CFL in Feb '15 for depth who was on their PS in 2011
Robert Geathers - Backup DE - can be replaced by 2014 3rd round pick Will Clarke
Greg Little - WR - with Marvin Jones coming back, they have no need for Little
Mike Pollak - backup G/C - similar to 2013 7th round pick TJ Johnson.
Added:
AJ Hawk LB - who adds depth to an already pretty strong LB corp
Overally, their team remains nealry unchanged going into the draft. Will need to probably draft depth for their o-line.
STEELERS:
Lost:
Jason Worilds - starting OLB - re-signed Arthur Moats and retain Jordan Zumwalt
Brett Keisel - starting DE - likely replaced by 2014 2nd round pick Stephon Tuitt
Lance Moore - WR4 - Likely replaced by UDFA and PS player CJ Goodwin or UDFA and futures contracted L'Damian Washington
Overall, they will need to improve at OLB in the draft or FA, and should look to bring in a WR to make that group stronger. Right now, I see a significant downgrade at OLB but everywhere else they remain stable.
BROWNS:
Lost:
Brian Hoyer - Starting/Backup QB - signed Josh McCown or replaced by 2014 1st round pick John Manziel
Buster Skrine - Starting CB - likely replaced by 2014 1st round pick Justin Gilbert or 2014 4th round pick Pierre Desir
Paul McQuistan - backup OG - re-signed Seymour
Overall, team remains nearly unchanged headed into the draft.
I thought there have been more losses for the teams, particularly for us, but I guess for now all 4 teams look like they will be competinng at about the same level as last season; therefore, the Browns need to have the most improvement.
#Justsayin' -
Also see RB Justin Forsett out in Baltimore. Is he in the same situation as Gipson?? If so 1st or 2nd round Draft tag w/offer sheet? Interesting with Rice Pending. Be great to see them both out in Baltimore on top of what they have already lost.
-
Also see RB Justin Forsett out in Baltimore. Is he in the same situation as Gipson?? If so 1st or 2nd round Draft tag w/offer sheet? Interesting with Rice Pending. Be great to see them both out in Baltimore on top of what they have already lost.
Also see RB Justin Forsett out in Baltimore. Is he in the same situation as Gipson?? If so 1st or 2nd round Draft tag w/offer sheet? Interesting with Rice Pending. Be great to see them both out in Baltimore on top of what they have already lost.
He has not signed anywhere else yet, so I am not counting him until something happens.
But Jabaal Sheard is now a Patriot.
And Eric Winston resigns with Bengals
And the Steelers lose DB Brice McCain to Dolphins
-
Let me examine this:
RAVENS:
Lost:
Jacoby Jones - WR3 - can be replaced by 2014 7th round pick Michael Campanaro
Torrey Smith - WR2 - can be replaced by former starting WR2 Marlon Brown (2013 UDFA) who had almost as good a year in 2013 as Smith had in 2014.
Owen Daniels - TE1 - a healthy Dennis Pitta will take over, and their TE2 is expected to be 2014 3rd round pick Crockett Gillmore,
Pernell McPhee - 2nd team OLB - but the team keeps Suggs, Upshaw, and Dumervil... hmm. not much of a loss
Haloti Ngata - DT1 - can be replaced by 2014 2nd round pick Timmy Jernigan
Chris Canty - DE - can be replaced by 2012 7th round pick DeAngelo Tyson who started 4 games and played well
Terence Cody - backup NT - re-signed Christo Bilukidi, who they signed as a FA before the 2014 season
Overall: they lose some big-name talent, but have players they drafted in the past that can probably step in and provide quality production as replacements. I see a slight downgrade at WR and on the D-line, but both positions, along with a 4th OLB, can probably be addressed in the draft.
BENGALS:
Lost:
Marshall Newhouse - backup LT - signed Matt O'donnell from the CFL in Feb '15 for depth who was on their PS in 2011
Robert Geathers - Backup DE - can be replaced by 2014 3rd round pick Will Clarke
Greg Little - WR - with Marvin Jones coming back, they have no need for Little
Mike Pollak - backup G/C - similar to 2013 7th round pick TJ Johnson.
Added:
AJ Hawk LB - who adds depth to an already pretty strong LB corp
Overally, their team remains nealry unchanged going into the draft. Will need to probably draft depth for their o-line.
STEELERS:
Lost:
Jason Worilds - starting OLB - re-signed Arthur Moats and retain Jordan Zumwalt
Brett Keisel - starting DE - likely replaced by 2014 2nd round pick Stephon Tuitt
Lance Moore - WR4 - Likely replaced by UDFA and PS player CJ Goodwin or UDFA and futures contracted L'Damian Washington
Overall, they will need to improve at OLB in the draft or FA, and should look to bring in a WR to make that group stronger. Right now, I see a significant downgrade at OLB but everywhere else they remain stable.
BROWNS:
Lost:
Brian Hoyer - Starting/Backup QB - signed Josh McCown or replaced by 2014 1st round pick John Manziel
Buster Skrine - Starting CB - likely replaced by 2014 1st round pick Justin Gilbert or 2014 4th round pick Pierre Desir
Paul McQuistan - backup OG - re-signed Seymour
Overall, team remains nearly unchanged headed into the draft.
I thought there have been more losses for the teams, particularly for us, but I guess for now all 4 teams look like they will be competinng at about the same level as last season; therefore, the Browns need to have the most improvement.
Let me examine this:
Well, your examination states mostly that so and so will be replaced by players that are already on that team's roster. And while that all may be possible, the losses are still lost. Each of these losses decrease the depth of these teams until and unless they find someone to replace them. Each roster spot needs to be filled by someone. While Gilbert/Desir/K'wan probably can replace Skrine as starter, Skrine's spot on the roster must be dealt with....the way the Browns did bringing in McCown. And while Mingo should replace Sheard as starting OLB, we still need another OLB. Maybe the draft will fill in some spots, but that is not my optimal scenario. At least for the Browns, I like to see Free agent losses beget Free agent signing. We need an OLB.
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
something thats not being mentioned, but is added to this years agenda is the veteran combine.....
considering we are looking as much for depth as we are starters, I wouldn't be surprised to see us tag a guy or 2 from here.....
Instead of overpriced-big name FA'S, I see going for journey men depth players.....maybe a center or guard.....maybe a reserve safety or CB.....and then hit the draft for a big gun or 2 ....
-
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Right... you don't add depth with Free Agents. Free Agents only become free agents because the team that knows them best throught they weren't worth re-signing... Maybe you get one or two because they've been with your OC or DC before and know the system, but for the most part you can get younger, better talent out of the draft and even with UDFAs...
-
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
#Justsayin' -
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
Well, I combine them both. Like real estate. I want to do a like kind exchange using FAs.....and maybe get a little bonus for flipping. But I want to use the draft to step up in my surroundings. Think of the Jefferson's theme song "Moviin' on Up".
And think of my chess/checker playing as 3 dimensional, like this:
-
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
Well, WTF do you replace the FAs you lose with if you don't sign any other FAs to take their place besides rookies? Does Mrs. Haslam bake gingerbread men?
-
Thad Lewis signing noted.
Browns needed to keep up with the Steelers signing of Tajh Boyd.
-
Now you're being ridiculous...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Now you're being ridiculous...
You first. Where do you replace players you have lost if you don't get other FAs or rookies to replace them?
And why are you disrespecting Mrs. Haslam's baking skills?
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login