When we are sitting on 7-10 million in available cap space at the end of a season, no core guy is being lost or not getting paid because of some FA brought in. And with contracts not being fully guaranteed, the only risk is in the amount of SB or guaranteed money given. If none of the younger players can beat him out, than he plays and the team is better off. If the younger guys end up developing to where they can win the position, than they play and we can release the FA, and again the team is better off.
Having a starting position filled with maybe players might end up paying off in 2 or 3 years, when they are ready to get new contracts. But if they don't the team is just weaker because we didn't look outside of the team and draft.
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins
Every penny will be spent securing as much of the core as possible, the 7-10M covers 1 year of future Daniels.
Seattle hasn't been nearly the most aggressive in FA; but the result was 30M in dead money; conversely Ted Thompson has less than 10M. 20M more in dead money would have cost us both Bulaga and Cobb. This looks like a slippery-slope argument 'cause signing, EG Spikes, won't create 20M more in dead money. But if a GM doesnt have the discipline to say no to Spikes; this mistake will be repeated. A GM must have a compelling reason to sign a FA; not as Schneider says, "[because] I just cant sleep knowing all that talent is out there."
The new practice rules make it really tough to pick one guy to start, have him fail, and then pick another.
Who's more of a "maybe player:" Bradford who they watched in practice everyday, knowing how he executes within the scheme; knowing how he studies film; knowing how he relates to his mates both on and off the field; knowing whether a minor injury will make him 10-20-50- or 100% less effective; knowing heās comfy w/ the playbookās terminology; knowing whether he plays better w/ Barrington or Palmer at his side and/or Raji, Pennel or Guion in front of him; etc.; or Spikes, who they can see on film and only guess his role in the scheme; can only guess as to his lockeroom character or how heāll mesh; can only guess as to whether heāll learn the new playbook so thinking is replaced with instinct; can only guess how he'll react away from his family or whether his wife or kids will make his life a living hell for moving them to freaking GB...LOL? Etc.???
Alot of FAs fail because they're in the game for the money; when they get it; the edge comes off and suddenly great players becomes okay to bad and good players becomes bad to really bad. And more fail because football is 90% mental and [as Yogi would say] the other 50% is physical...LOL. Most players having a harmonious lockerroom and off-field life, study and play better. A FA moving to a new city, entirely new set of coaches, mates and playbook just may never feel comfy or āget it;ā or he only gets it 80% of last teamās playbook; so heās 20% slower in reacting. This is why 70-80% of FA moves don't work and half of those fail miserably. It is much smarter to keep and maybe āoverpayā the core ācause you know what ya got and ya know they wont disrupt the culture. Spikes is only more known to us than Bradford ācause we only see their respective Sunday stuff; but I assure you GB's staff believes at least one of those ILBs is not a āmaybe player.ā
A few years ago Jones, Jennings, Driver and Nelson were really tight. The wives, kids holidays and personal lives were like an episode of Friends. Now, if GB signed the greatest WR, who was in his own right was a great guy and teammate; but simply had a personality clash w/ one of the four; that 5-some, though on paper the best in history, would probably be worse than the year before. And if the new WR was an egocentric tool, like Randy Moss, I guarantee the receiving core gets worse. What if Randy made a pass at Ms. Driver...LOL. We could replace Baktieri w/ Joe Thomas [Clev.] and if Joe wants to be the big cheese or a million other things could happen that would cause our OL would get worse even though consisting of better players. Itās better to bring rookies into this culture that might have some click to it; so the youngsters can grow into the ever evolving social clicks that always exist in varying degree.
You made a great point earlier that I forgot to applaud: its 100% true that Woodson and Harris helped make Tramon and Shields. If, EG, Spikes, will help make Thomas, Bradford and Palmer great, then it probably worth it to cut one and sign Spikes. Ever wonder why the least talented and most wounded in college became by far the best back of Lacy, Richardson and Ingram? Kuhn had a huge part! The culture is critical and huge part in developing players, they learn to conduct their football affairs like business men, that's why Ted Thompson steers clear of trouble on draft day.