Yes, my first thought on reading this was of Rich Tylski and Joe Panos.I hope this works out, but it also seems like he’d be among the early favorites for training camp retirement.
Same. The OL needed depth, but they also need guys who are good.So between Reiff, Anderson, and Cajuste's RFA tender, the Pats seem to be in good shape depth-wise at OT. But I'm not super convinced that any of these guys are going to be consistent starters.
I just edited the title so it no longer looks like it's about Pat Riley.I have no opinion of the signing but every time I see the thread title I do a double take - like what is going on with Pat Riley?
It tells me they think he's likely to start. He may get beat out by a rookie, or turn into a pumpkin and lose time to Anderson or McDermott, but I'll be surprised if they add a more expensive veteran tackle. On the other hand, it doesn't preclude a high pick at that position; I think it's pretty likely. And as you say, he could be displaced by a first-rounder in a way that, say, McGlinchey wouldn't be.The fact that there are $4m in playing time incentives makes it pretty clear they aren't sure. It seems like a reasonable structure, though. If he's good enough to start, $9m is fine to good. If he's not, he's expensive but not outlandish depth.
Probably a bit more than I'd want to do, but options seem fairly limited.
He played 543 out of 1034 offensive snaps, 52.5%.Reiff played 55% of snaps last year so I guess only the 1st $800k is considered LTBE.
That makes more sense. I was just going off his Pro Football Reference page.He played 543 out of 1034 offensive snaps, 52.5%.
Can pretty much guarantee when it's an unusual % of snaps a guy has to hit to make an incentive, the number will barely be high enough to make it NLTBE.