EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[Iggles_Phan]

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Not really. They got him before the pandemic killed the cap. That changed the equation greatly. 

No, they got him as the pandemic was breaking and signed him after all major sports teams had not just stopped letting fans in, but stopped playing GAMES.  So, anyone who didn't see a potentially horrific end for the NFL wasn't playing the risk mitigation game.  And for some (afan, in particular) to defend Howie with the "he knew a rebuild was going to be necessary"... that just makes the move even dumber.    If you know you need a rebuild, you don't trade away resources and don't double down with the new contract... and to do it in the shadow of Covid is just even worse.

[ManuManu]

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

No, they got him as the pandemic was breaking and signed him after all major sports teams had not just stopped letting fans in, but stopped playing GAMES.  So, anyone who didn't see a potentially horrific end for the NFL wasn't playing the risk mitigation game.  And for some (afan, in particular) to defend Howie with the "he knew a rebuild was going to be necessary"... that just makes the move even dumber.    If you know you need a rebuild, you don't trade away resources and don't double down with the new contract... and to do it in the shadow of Covid is just even worse.

I understand all that, but I don’t think it was unreasonable at the time to assume the US would have better handled a pandemic with six months to go before the start of the season. 

[Iggles_Phan]

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I understand all that, but I don’t think it was unreasonable at the time to assume the US would have better handled a pandemic with six months to go before the start of the season. 

1 - having a handle on the pandemic doesn't necessarily mean a 'return to normalcy' in the fall.  The Spanish flu pandemic (which is immediately where I went to look for information on how this might play out) lasted over a year, so the idea that there wouldn't be impacts far beyond the summer was more wishful thinking than historically supported precedence.  

2 - for a team that was already showing massive signs of being long in the tooth and needing an infusion of young (and cheap) talent, trading for and signing Slay was not a smart move, independent of Covid.

 

Put item 1 and 2 together, and there's just no defense for the Slay move.  They over paid independent of the virus.   They paid him like a top 5 CB.  He is not.  He was not when they signed him/traded for him.   He might have been in some years prior... but his expiration date was fast approaching when they made the move to bring him in.   A CB over the age of 30 is a unicorn when he can still play at a Pro Bowl level.   I don't see Slay as a unicorn.

[DEagle7]

[Iggles_Phan]

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

The good news is that Barnett is soon to turn only 25.   So, he'll be around past 2022, presumably.  Not so much the rest of these restructures.

[RLC]

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Not negotiating this would be malpractice. Young and plays a premium position.

Doesn't mean we have to resign him, but not trying to is crazy.

[metal]

Not surprising. They want Barnett to stick around but also reduce that $10 million dollar cap hit this year.

[Penn7980]

Restructure and make it more affordable to keep Barnett around.  He is young and has played well.  If they want to go in a different direction, it will be a season or two before they know the new DE can be as productive.  Better go with the one you know.

[ManuManu]

19 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

1 - having a handle on the pandemic doesn't necessarily mean a 'return to normalcy' in the fall.  The Spanish flu pandemic (which is immediately where I went to look for information on how this might play out) lasted over a year, so the idea that there wouldn't be impacts far beyond the summer was more wishful thinking than historically supported precedence.  

2 - for a team that was already showing massive signs of being long in the tooth and needing an infusion of young (and cheap) talent, trading for and signing Slay was not a smart move, independent of Covid.

 

Put item 1 and 2 together, and there's just no defense for the Slay move.  They over paid independent of the virus.   They paid him like a top 5 CB.  He is not.  He was not when they signed him/traded for him.   He might have been in some years prior... but his expiration date was fast approaching when they made the move to bring him in.   A CB over the age of 30 is a unicorn when he can still play at a Pro Bowl level.   I don't see Slay as a unicorn.

We’re going to agree to disagree. I think there is plenty of defense for that move. The contract wasn't nearly as bad as you are portraying, and the odds of hitting on a 3 or 5 aren’t particularly good (not that I think teams should just throw those picks away).

I’m no Howie defender, but he was putting the team together as a division title contender/or better for a two-year window. Unfortunately everything imploded. The coaching. The players. Injuries. Wentz. The US’s handling of the pandemic. 

Now that it happened, Howie should pay the piper.

[austinfan]

Howie has said Slay was a mistake, that they should have started the rebuild last season.

But 2022 is not a bad year to park a lot of dead money, how many players are the Eagles going to extend?

By 2023, the new TV money and lack of players to extend, means the remaining dead money can be easily swallowed - you're not signing more than 3-4 free agents to real deals, and maybe 1 elite FA (how many hit the market?), so it's not like you need $100M under the cap, maybe $50-60M to be a player in FA.

The only FAs they should be looking at for 3+ year deals are those on their second contract from age 25-27, and there is a limited supply of these guys each year. The older players should be signed to 1-2 year deals or pass.

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Howie has said Slay was a mistake, that they should have started the rebuild last season.

But 2022 is not a bad year to park a lot of dead money, how many players are the Eagles going to extend?

By 2023, the new TV money and lack of players to extend, means the remaining dead money can be easily swallowed - you're not signing more than 3-4 free agents to real deals, and maybe 1 elite FA (how many hit the market?), so it's not like you need $100M under the cap, maybe $50-60M to be a player in FA.

The only FAs they should be looking at for 3+ year deals are those on their second contract from age 25-27, and there is a limited supply of these guys each year. The older players should be signed to 1-2 year deals or pass.

You are defending dumping money into 2022 because they don't have players to extend... that's Howie's fault too.   He's supposed to be able to draft talented players.   He has not.

[ManuManu]

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You are defending dumping money into 2022 because they don't have players to extend... that's Howie's fault too.   He's supposed to be able to draft talented players.   He has not.

Seriously, what a wild thing to say. I love AF, but defending Howie, his mismanagement of the cap and the lack of good players to extend is hilarious. 

[Iggles_Phan]

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

We’re going to agree to disagree. I think there is plenty of defense for that move. The contract wasn't nearly as bad as you are portraying, and the odds of hitting on a 3 or 5 aren’t particularly good (not that I think teams should just throw those picks away).

I’m no Howie defender, but he was putting the team together as a division title contender/or better for a two-year window. Unfortunately everything imploded. The coaching. The players. Injuries. Wentz. The US’s handling of the pandemic. 

Now that it happened, Howie should pay the piper.

The contract was for a top 5 CB.  I'm not 'portraying it' that way, that's a fact.  Dispute that fact all you want, but its just whistling in the wind.  Of course, the odds of hitting on a 3 or a 5 isn't great, especially when you look at Howie's drafting history, but he's been forced to play the FA and trade game, because he couldn't draft a CB to save his job... oh wait, that never seems to be in question. 

 

They built up for a division title... with limited offensive weapons, while stockpiling high priced DTs.  Great plan.  It was flawed from the beginning, and the architect didn't know what he was doing.  

[ManuManu]

Refresh my memory on the veteran benefit deal. Do those minimum deals count against the cap or do they count at a smaller number?

[Iggles_Phan]

Just now, ManuManu said:

Refresh my memory on the veteran benefit deal. Do those minimum deals count against the cap or do they count at a smaller number?

https://frontofficenfl.com/2020/05/25/2020-nfl-cba-explained-veteran-salary-benefit/#:~:text=Veteran salary benefit%3A Formerly known as the minimum,bonus%2C incentive%2C etc. — amount begins to

 

Veteran salary benefit: Formerly known as the minimum salary benefit, the veteran salary benefit allow teams to offer a "Qualifying Contract” to any player with at least four credited seasons at a reduced salary cap hit. Under this provision, a qualifying contract is a one-year deal worth the minimum base salary applicable to a player with his number of credited seasons, plus $137,500 in additional compensation (i.e., signing bonus, roster bonus, incentive, etc. — amount begins to increase in 2022). These contracts are charged against the salary cap at the rate of a player with two credited seasons that league year.

 

[ManuManu]

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The contract was for a top 5 CB.  I'm not 'portraying it' that way, that's a fact.  Dispute that fact all you want, but its just whistling in the wind.  Of course, the odds of hitting on a 3 or a 5 isn't great, especially when you look at Howie's drafting history, but he's been forced to play the FA and trade game, because he couldn't draft a CB to save his job... oh wait, that never seems to be in question. 

 

They built up for a division title... with limited offensive weapons, while stockpiling high priced DTs.  Great plan.  It was flawed from the beginning, and the architect didn't know what he was doing.  

Trading for Slay and ignoring a veteran WR are not mutually exclusive. No one made Howie choose to pay for a DT instead of WR. I think most of us in here were confused by ignoring a veteran WR. 

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

https://frontofficenfl.com/2020/05/25/2020-nfl-cba-explained-veteran-salary-benefit/#:~:text=Veteran salary benefit%3A Formerly known as the minimum,bonus%2C incentive%2C etc. — amount begins to

 

Veteran salary benefit: Formerly known as the minimum salary benefit, the veteran salary benefit allow teams to offer a "Qualifying Contract” to any player with at least four credited seasons at a reduced salary cap hit. Under this provision, a qualifying contract is a one-year deal worth the minimum base salary applicable to a player with his number of credited seasons, plus $137,500 in additional compensation (i.e., signing bonus, roster bonus, incentive, etc. — amount begins to increase in 2022). These contracts are charged against the salary cap at the rate of a player with two credited seasons that league year.

 

We’re probably gonna sign quite a few of those. 

[ManuManu]

Also, Howie trading for Slay, ignoring a veteran WR to sign a big ticket DT, then drafting a backup QB and a LB years away from being serviceable was quite the journey. It’s like he used a Mad Libs to determine his offseason. 

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Trading for Slay and ignoring a veteran WR are not mutually exclusive. No one made Howie choose to pay for a DT instead of WR. I think most of us in here were confused by ignoring a veteran WR. 

They were not mutually exclusive.  My point is, if the defense of the Slay move was to load up for the immediate push... the plan was deeply flawed by ignoring the single most glaring need on the team.  As much as the secondary has confounded and frustrated us, they have at least managed to hold teams at bay to a certain extent defensively, meanwhile the offense in 2019 was a smoke and mirrors effort carried by Wentz' refusal to be a victim of his circumstances.   In 2020, he fell prey to his circumstances and let it drag him down.

 

Regardless, the case has been built in so many facets that there's no way that Howie should still be here.   And watching the inevitable kicking the can down the road to cover the costs of his mistakes over the last 3 years is infuriating.  I knew it was coming, but that's hardly a consolation.

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Also, Howie trading for Slay, ignoring a veteran WR to sign a big ticket DT, then drafting a backup QB and a LB years away from being serviceable was quite the journey. It’s like he used a Mad Libs to determine his offseason. 

Exactly.   No discernible sign that there might have been any kind of single minded vision for roster construction.

[austinfan]

14 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You are defending dumping money into 2022 because they don't have players to extend... that's Howie's fault too.   He's supposed to be able to draft talented players.   He has not.

He gambled and lost. That was the strategy, same as the Saints. Some bad decisions, a decade's worth of bad injury luck in 3 years. Eagles had the lowest amount of "draft capital" from 2016-2019, primarily the Wentz trade, but also winning and adding veterans for draft picks. And no comp picks.

The 2017 team wasn't built for the long haul, it was a quick turnaround from the mess Chip left behind him, but needed either a re-load in 2018 (unthinkable coming off a SB), or a rebuild in 2019 or 2020. If you know you're going to have to rebuild in a few years, do you just muddle along at 8-8  or "go for the gold?" If Howie doesn't load up on dead money from restructures, not only will he be limited in the FA market, he'll have to let some of his players walk.

If you're rebuilding, what's the point of having lots of cap room to sign FAs to get you to 8-8? And draft #19 next year like the Washington team.

Now if they bring in a lot of kids, and they develop ahead of schedule, then you're 8-8 on merit and have a young, inexpensive team going forward. But that should be a by-product of good player development, not the goal for this season. That is, if Hurts becomes an above average QB, they find 4 or 5 starters in this draft, and so on, that's great. Build on that in 2022 (expect some regression to the mean) then use FA to fill in holes for 2023.

 

[Iggles_Phan]

Howie's offseason plan... 

[Iggles_Phan]

1 minute ago, austinfan said:

He gambled and lost. That was the strategy, same as the Saints. Some bad decisions, a decade's worth of bad injury luck in 3 years.

The 2017 team wasn't built for the long haul, it was a quick turnaround from the mess Chip left behind him, but needed either a re-load in 2018 (unthinkable coming off a SB), or a rebuild in 2019 or 2020. If you know you're going to have to rebuild in a few years, do you just muddle along at 8-8  or "go for the gold?" If Howie doesn't load up on dead money from restructures, not only will he be limited in the FA market, he'll have to let some of his players walk.

If you're rebuilding, what's the point of having lots of cap room to sign FAs to get you to 8-8? And draft #19 next year like the Washington team.

Now if they bring in a lot of kids, and they develop ahead of schedule, then you're 8-8 on merit and have a young, inexpensive team going forward. But that should be a by-product of good player development, not the goal for this season. That is, if Hurts becomes an above average QB, they find 4 or 4 starters in this draft, and so on, that's great. Build on that in 2022 (expect some regression to the mean) then use FA to fill in holes for 2023.

 

And when you gamble and lose, in the NFL... you get fired.   That is the piece that doesn't add up.    I get that he gambled and lost.  He gambled and lost playing extremely long odds as well.

 

You keep pointing to 2017 and using it as defense of the current situation.  I've already explained why that's a fallacious argument, as the basic structures that led directly to 2017 were completely ignored since.  Summary: 2017 - older players at low salaries and minimal commitments.  2018 and beyond - older/injured players at high salaries and massive commitments.

They didn't have to 'rebuild' in 2018, what they needed to do was bring in new pieces to replace the pieces that they were losing... replacing Torrey Smith with Desean Jackson looks great on paper, right?   But, Jackson is 4 years older, more injury prone, and most costly, both to acquire and to pay.  Jackson cost a draft pick and bigger salary and forced them to keep him around for a 2nd year after a failed first year, and will still be paying for him in 2021 while he's not on the roster.   Grade: F-.  Bad plan to start with, worse in reality than many who were against the move initially feared.  Meanwhile, that same amount of money could have been given to a YOUNGER, speed WR to do the same job as Smith, without the draft pick costs, without the extensive injury history.    AND... the trade for Golden Tate further illustrates this stupid move... giving away a 3rd round pick for a rental that added NOTHING to the offense.  They didn't need another slot WR.  (Yes, I know... a full year later, they got back a 4th round pick... which was a round and a half later than the pick they gave up, AND a year later... essentially a 5th round compensatory pick in the equation, as having to wait a full year for a pick basically lowers its value by a full round.)

[ManuManu]

Yiiiiiiikes. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, NVeagle said:

They forgot Jason Avant!

 

Thanks, was just coming to post this.

[EaglePhan1986]

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Yiiiiiiikes. 

College coaches are treated as Gods so they act as such. It’s human nature.