7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That's all fine and good, and it is what it should be.  BUT... trying to pretend that the Eagles "added" any of those players during Free Agency is a false narrative.  They weren't added, they were retained, which is net neutral.  That's not to say it's a 'bad' thing, but it's not adding to the roster.  The roster still has the same problems it did at the end of last season, with the exception of adding Reddick and White.  We'll see if the minor gamble on White pays off.  But, in the grand scheme of roster building, they've not added significant pieces, which is what the Roobster was implying by wording his Tweet the way he did to shill for the Eagles' FO.  

The moves were fine.  But, they shouldn't be spun as having added a LT, DE, or TE.  They were all here last year.  

Fair enough.  They weren't added so from that perspective, I agree.

 

From a perspective of having X amount of dollars at your disposal and where you spend them, you could look at it as this is your free agency because you are addressing potential holes on your team by locking up soon to be free agents. 

47 minutes ago, paco said:

Fair enough.  They weren't added so from that perspective, I agree.

 

From a perspective of having X amount of dollars at your disposal and where you spend them, you could look at it as this is your free agency because you are addressing potential holes on your team by locking up soon to be free agents. 

Basically money spent on players familiar with our schemes to prevent creating additional holes.  That’s fine by me honestly, I didn’t want to overspend in free agency … was only interested in a pass rusher and WR.  Was hoping to address most holes through the draft.  That’s where we need to place more of our focus on right now … when we have a more complete team and are just a couple pieces away, then go ahead and make the splash moves in free agency.

Ultimately it sounds like Howie feels pretty good about kicking the can down the road and apparently plans to use this strategy for years to come. 

5 hours ago, Infam said:

Still not buying it. I think you underestimate how valuable Cox and BG are beyond their still respectable production. Johnson is still one of if not the best RT so I have no idea where your problem is with him. Brooks has had mental issues but when on the field played excellent.

Jeffrey and Jackson was a mistake, though to be fair Jackson was never injured before he came here (figures) so if your crystal ball saw that coming congrats.

Wentz was a terrible contract which almost everyone applauded. You got him early and would’ve payed so much more if he was actually good. But let’s play the hindsight game: Aren’t we better off now with pick 15 and a lot of dead cap in the past over not extending him and he just is gone?

Sounds crazy, but we are actually better off ‘buying’ that first - if we get a good player with it. But even if we had the money your point is that we aren’t that good spending it so might as well have the cheap first rounder, hm?

I’ll never understand your cap fetish. How many years of it not mattering does it take for you to let it go? Will we really be here 2030 arguing how kicking the can gave us a bad situation in 2031? Just open your eyes: All the good teams follow Rosemans example. The teams with tons of cap are broken.

The issue with Brooks' contract extension has absolutely nothing to do with his mental issues, and everything to do with his durability.  They resigned him to a mega-contract AFTER his first Achilles injury, after the age of 30.  The notion that he'd be healthy enough to live up to that deal was wishcasting not realistic.  Johnson to a lesser extent, but still too rich for his durability recently.  And when you have to caveat each contract with 'when on the field', that sort of says it all, doesn't it?   There's a reason that in the Joe Banner days, older players weren't given big money.  Specifically because they break down and can't live up to the level that that deal should produce on the field.

Wentz was a great contract for a franchise QB.  Trouble with that was he regressed badly after signing it.  That one I only partially blame on Howie.

 

The dead cap from Wentz is already dealt with.  That is what it was.  The issue with that is that it wasn't the only bad dead cap hit.  There were lots of them.  Brooks, Jeffery, Jackson, Jackson, etc.  If it were only the Wentz hit, it wouldn't be as big an issue.   But, it wasn't... and it isn't going forward.  

 

And please explain how it didn't matter last year?  Ryan Kerrigan, Joe Flacco, Anthony Harris, Eric Wilson... that's the free agent crop we brought in to help bolster the roster.  Was that bargain shopping trip the goal because of how talented they were, or because that's all we could afford?  Please don't act like it doesn't matter, when clearly the team was handcuffed last year.  And frankly, were handcuffed this year as well.   The teams with tons of cap are broken?  Nah... it isn't about the cap space, its about how the cap space is used.  When you are only using 75% of the effective cap number, you aren't being efficient in your usage of the cap.  And 1/6th of the money available on the cap is spent on players that are no longer contributing to the team, that's bad.  B - A - D.  

 

Then you talk about buying a first round pick... and the guy who bought it has proven that he can't draft in the range that that pick falls.  So, are we better off?  Do we get excited to add another Derek Barnett, Jalen Reagor and Andre Dillard?   Maybe we can add another fireman this year.  That should be helpful.

1 hour ago, paco said:

Fair enough.  They weren't added so from that perspective, I agree.

 

From a perspective of having X amount of dollars at your disposal and where you spend them, you could look at it as this is your free agency because you are addressing potential holes on your team by locking up soon to be free agents. 

Given the money we had available, not adding big money players from elsewhere makes sense.  Of course, adding Cox back at $14M doesn't.   That said, this isn't a 'good' offseason plan in a vacuum.  It is only a good offseason plan given the box that Howie has placed the franchise in.

1 hour ago, paco said:

Fair enough.  They weren't added so from that perspective, I agree.

 

From a perspective of having X amount of dollars at your disposal and where you spend them, you could look at it as this is your free agency because you are addressing potential holes on your team by locking up soon to be free agents. 

Just looking at the new guys is a weird selective way of looking at things considering plenty of teams who actually are in cap hell have to let go of main players.

So if we let Goedert and Mailata walk and sign two big name agents we ‘added’ big time players and should celebrate a strong FA but if we resign the guys we successfully drafted it doesn’t count? 

7 minutes ago, Infam said:

Just looking at the new guys is a weird selective way of looking at things considering plenty of teams who actually are in cap hell have to let go of main players.

So if we let Goedert and Mailata walk and sign two big name agents we ‘added’ big time players and should celebrate a strong FA but if we resign the guys we successfully drafted it doesn’t count? 

If Howie had not put us in this cap situation, you still re sign your players, still get Reddick and Paschal, but you have the money to add a Marcus Williams.  Williams is a 25 year old top notch safety who would be a cornerstone of the secondary for many years.  The Malcolm Jenkins signing was one of the major pieces in the Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

No one is saying you sign the top 5 free agents, but striking on the right guys when available is absolutely necessary.  Find me the last Super Bowl winner that was built solely through the draft and did not add a major free agent or trade for a big impact player and have money to give them a new contract.

Just now, downundermike said:

If Howie had not put us in this cap situation, you still re sign your players, still get Reddick and Paschal, but you have the money to add a Marcus Williams.  Williams is a 25 year old top notch safety who would be a cornerstone of the secondary for many years.  The Malcolm Jenkins signing was one of the major pieces in the Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

I mean actually if he cut Cox and didn't resign him surely he could have gotten another of those top safeties? Or he could have added more solid foundational pieces to this team. I really don't get the Cox deal.

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

If Howie had not put us in this cap situation, you still re sign your players, still get Reddick and Paschal, but you have the money to add a Marcus Williams.  Williams is a 25 year old top notch safety who would be a cornerstone of the secondary for many years.  The Malcolm Jenkins signing was one of the major pieces in the Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

No one is saying you sign the top 5 free agents, but striking on the right guys when available is absolutely necessary.  Find me the last Super Bowl winner that was built solely through the draft and did not add a major free agent or trade for a big impact player and have money to give them a new contract.

Yes, that’s true. Except life rarely goes perfectly as planned.

Name one team where that perfectly worked out as you described.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

If Howie had not put us in this cap situation, you still re sign your players, still get Reddick and Paschal, but you have the money to add a Marcus Williams.  Williams is a 25 year old top notch safety who would be a cornerstone of the secondary for many years.  

Memories of similar comments made about Jarius Byrd back in 2014.

2 hours ago, paco said:

Drafting well and retaining your own talent is the Joe Banner model.  Or the Ravens.  Or the Steelers. etc.  One things those teams all have in common is that they were constantly competitive.  

 

I have no problem with a quiet FA period where we lock up our own talent.  The Barnett contract aside, I have few complaints.

I agree, and I don't want them reaching or overpaying in free agency.  But retaining your own talent isn't "adding" these positions like some are spinning.  They added Reddick and White were free agency additions and they were good ones.

7 hours ago, Infam said:

Still not buying it. I think you underestimate how valuable Cox and BG are beyond their still respectable production. Johnson is still one of if not the best RT so I have no idea where your problem is with him. Brooks has had mental issues but when on the field played excellent.

Jeffrey and Jackson was a mistake, though to be fair Jackson was never injured before he came here (figures) so if your crystal ball saw that coming congrats.

Wentz was a terrible contract which almost everyone applauded. You got him early and would’ve payed so much more if he was actually good. But let’s play the hindsight game: Aren’t we better off now with pick 15 and a lot of dead cap in the past over not extending him and he just is gone?

Sounds crazy, but we are actually better off ‘buying’ that first - if we get a good player with it. But even if we had the money your point is that we aren’t that good spending it so might as well have the cheap first rounder, hm?

I’ll never understand your cap fetish. How many years of it not mattering does it take for you to let it go? Will we really be here 2030 arguing how kicking the can gave us a bad situation in 2031? Just open your eyes: All the good teams follow Rosemans example. The teams with tons of cap are broken.

It's not the "cap" per se because as I've said, every team stays under the cap.  I don't like some of the contracts he's given out.  He even admitted he was trying to hold onto the players from the SB too long.  I don't like the contracts given to guys for very long extensions with too many years and then having too much dead money and cap taken up for guys that end up on IR.  It doesn't take a crystal ball to realize older players will decline and miss games.  They got almost nothing out of Jeffrey and Jackson for 2 years, and they're still paying dead money on Jeffrey, Malik Jackson too.  Brooks thankfully retired, they were paying him for 2 years of injuries and he was signed to more future years.  

Locking up young guys is fine, extending guys who are too old and injury prone then makes them too hard to cut.  

This is all because he doesn't draft well enough to have replacements so he keeps holding onto veterans past when he should.

1 hour ago, Infam said:

Just looking at the new guys is a weird selective way of looking at things considering plenty of teams who actually are in cap hell have to let go of main players.

So if we let Goedert and Mailata walk and sign two big name agents we ‘added’ big time players and should celebrate a strong FA but if we resign the guys we successfully drafted it doesn’t count? 

Do you understand what 'net' means? 

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

If Howie had not put us in this cap situation, you still re sign your players, still get Reddick and Paschal, but you have the money to add a Marcus Williams.  Williams is a 25 year old top notch safety who would be a cornerstone of the secondary for many years.  The Malcolm Jenkins signing was one of the major pieces in the Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

No one is saying you sign the top 5 free agents, but striking on the right guys when available is absolutely necessary.  Find me the last Super Bowl winner that was built solely through the draft and did not add a major free agent or trade for a big impact player and have money to give them a new contract.

And that's what this organization used to do... back when they were building something sustainable.

1 hour ago, time2rock said:

Memories of similar comments made about Jarius Byrd back in 2014.

Yeah, and instead of him that signed a slightly cheaper, better fit in Jenkins.   Who did we sign instead of a top FA safety?   Anthony Harris.  A guy that was a liability last year... and they decided to bring him back to be a liability this coming year.   #addedaFAsafety!!!

2 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

Ultimately it sounds like Howie feels pretty good about kicking the can down the road and apparently plans to use this strategy for years to come. 

I say this all the time but the cap exists to be manipulated - that's why it was designed to function the way it does.  Remember, the league and it's GMs created this system. 

Fundamentally, every team spends about the same amount on players every season.   Kicking the proverbial can down the road is a solid cap strategy as long as the cap rises every year.  The only circumstance that would cause the Eagles or any other team trouble is if the cap goes down and the cap only goes down when revenue drops and in the NFL, revenue only drops when there's a major, disruptive event like a work stoppage... or a pandemic.   But in reality, no team is ever in real long term trouble because of the cap. 

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye said:

Fundamentally, every team spends about the same amount on players every season

False.  How are the Eagles, with 36.4 million dead and 12.4 million in space this year spending the same amount on players that the Rams are with 13 million dead and 8 million in space ??

Eagles have 48.8 million in cap they are not spending on players on the roster, the Rams have 21 million.

28 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yeah, and instead of him that signed a slightly cheaper, better fit in Jenkins.   Who did we sign instead of a top FA safety?   Anthony Harris.  A guy that was a liability last year... and they decided to bring him back to be a liability this coming year.   #addedaFAsafety!!!

I don't think we had the money to make a splash signing like Williams (unfortunately - would have loved him).  Will be interesting to see how he plays in Baltimore now (in much the same way we kept an eye on Byrd).  I'm hoping we address S in the draft on day 2 (highly doubt we spend a 1 on a S) - someone like Pitre or Brisker.  Guessing Harris was brought back because they didn't want to replace 3/4 of the secondary (the entire backend of the secondary) in a single offseason.  

21 minutes ago, downundermike said:

False.  How are the Eagles, with 36.4 million dead and 12.4 million in space this year spending the same amount on players that the Rams are with 13 million dead and 8 million in space ??

Eagles have 48.8 million in cap they are not spending on players on the roster, the Rams have 21 million.

On players, not players on the roster.  Big difference.

Dead money is money they've already paid out.  In future years, they'll be paying dead money for guys on THIS year's roster who are no longer with the team.  Take Fletcher Cox and his new deal.  By cutting him with a post June 1st designation, the Eagles save about $2 million in cap space this year but have a dead money hit of more than $15 million in 2023.  That's money they've already paid him through bonuses and other cap-manipulation tools. 

27 minutes ago, Hawkeye said:

I say this all the time but the cap exists to be manipulated - that's why it was designed to function the way it does.  Remember, the league and it's GMs created this system. 

Fundamentally, every team spends about the same amount on players every season.   Kicking the proverbial can down the road is a solid cap strategy as long as the cap rises every year.  The only circumstance that would cause the Eagles or any other team trouble is if the cap goes down and the cap only goes down when revenue drops and in the NFL, revenue only drops when there's a major, disruptive event like a work stoppage... or a pandemic.   But in reality, no team is ever in real long term trouble because of the cap. 

I get the overall concept of differing money against the cap for later dates. With the cap generally rising each year it shouldn’t be an overall problem, but are they using these moves wisely with the players they’re choosing? Basically the current Barnett contract apparently has like 5 or 6 dummy years connected to it. Is a player like him worth that kind of commitment? I get it for some players especially guys who are talented, but they’re doing this stuff for fringe guys and basically for one year deals. If you’re going to rob Peter to pay Paul at least do it for someone like Robinson and not Barnett. Just my opinion. 

2 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

I get the overall concept of differing money against the cap for later dates. With the cap generally rising each year it shouldn’t be an overall problem, but are they using these moves wisely with the players they’re choosing? Basically the current Barnett contract apparently has like 5 or 6 dummy years connected to it. Is a player like him worth that kind of commitment? I get it for some players especially guys who are talented, but they’re doing this stuff for fringe guys and basically for one year deals. If you’re going to rob Peter to pay Paul at least do it for someone like Robinson and not Barnett. Just my opinion. 

The Barnett contract is really just a two-year deal and this year he only counts for $2.6 million in cap space.  They have three voidable years beginning in 2024 to spread the money out but that will all come due after the 2023 season unless they restructure again. 

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye said:

The Barnett contract is really just a two-year deal and this year he only counts for $2.6 million in cap space.  They have three voidable years beginning in 2024 to spread the money out but that will all come due after the 2023 season unless they restructure again. 

Yeah, but is he worth it? Is this the guy worth having those years capped on for? That’s my point. 

25 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

Yeah, but is he worth it? Is this the guy worth having those years capped on for? That’s my point. 

Those voidable years are for the sole purpose of keeping his cap number down this year. They got him cheap and he'll be a rotational player.  I saw an article somewhere or another before free agency predicting he'd get $10 million a year on the open market.  Laughably incorrect. 

1 hour ago, time2rock said:

I don't think we had the money to make a splash signing like Williams (unfortunately - would have loved him).  Will be interesting to see how he plays in Baltimore now (in much the same way we kept an eye on Byrd).  I'm hoping we address S in the draft on day 2 (highly doubt we spend a 1 on a S) - someone like Pitre or Brisker.  Guessing Harris was brought back because they didn't want to replace 3/4 of the secondary (the entire backend of the secondary) in a single offseason.  

Stating they didn't have the money to sign him would indicate that they were limited by their cap situation.   But they did have the money to add him, but not quite at the level the Ravens offered AND bring back Cox at the ridiculous $14M for this year that they gave him.  They cut him with a post-June 1 designation freeing up money from this year to push it to 2023... but then used almost all of that 'savings' by cutting him and avoiding the roster bonus payment to bring him back.   Just another example of Howie overvaluing his own players again.  Cox at his age isn't worth $14M this year to this team.  They'd have been better off letting him go and putting some of that money into Williams.  (They also could have structured the contract to be fairly low cost for 2022, and have bigger hits in the future, as most teams do for free agents.). 

But, they didn't... and the consolation prize wasn't a player even close to that level but Anthony Harris off the bargain bin.   

I'd rather they not put money into just any free agents, but certain targets, you pay for.

Moderation was a key word Paco and others used.

I think Howie got caught up doing it too much, partly because he thought they would compete for a SB again.  It's not worth doing it for Jeffrey, Malik Jackson, DeSean Jackson, Brooks after he was injured, etc.  

The Eagles rolled over 16 million from 2021. Dead cap of 36 million. So in total they killed 20 million this year. 10 of which is on Barnett and Harris who are both on the team with low contracts.

It’s easy to say they killed 36 million in cap. But its really about 10. 

59 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

The Eagles rolled over 16 million from 2021. Dead cap of 36 million. So in total they killed 20 million this year. 10 of which is on Barnett and Harris who are both on the team with low contracts.

It’s easy to say they killed 36 million in cap. But its really about 10. 

Actually the money given to Barnett and Harris to return is also dead money.  Not sure how then returning lowers the dead cost as it was already sunk.  And Harris did nothing for this team.