2016 NFL Coaching Carousel

[Stitch01]

They've got three early picks on the OL that they probably are wedded to trying for at least another season. Sure, they can go out and add help there, but Id probably add that to Goff in the "you probably want to be high on these guys if you take this job" list.

I don't think this is the tire fire that is the Niners job or anything, but I do think its a situation where you need to be pretty high on young players (particularly Goff) who have been pretty terrible so far for the job to be attractive because if those guys suck you are probably getting fired before you get a chance to upgrade. I think that's different from other jobs where you'll be able to clear out more of the roster or at least are walking into fewer question marks about the existing talent.

If you are high on Goff and think the OL on the roster can develop, sure, its a decent situation.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

They've got three early picks on the OL that they probably are wedded to trying for at least another season. Sure, they can go out and add help there, but Id probably add that to Goff in the "you probably want to be high on these guys if you take this job" list.

I don't think this is the tire fire that is the Niners job or anything, but I do think its a situation where you need to be pretty high on young players (particularly Goff) who have been pretty terrible so far for the job to be attractive because if those guys suck you are probably getting fired before you get a chance to upgrade. I think that's different from other jobs where you'll be able to clear out more of the roster or at least are walking into fewer question marks about the existing talent.

If you are high on Goff and think the OL on the roster can develop, sure, its a decent situation.

In all seriousness, outside of Denver which is a clear abberation (although a strong case could be made that that is a "setup to fail" situation in a lot of ways) from the norm, which job would allow you to clear out more of the roster or walk into fewer question marks of the openings currently out there? I don't see any of the current openings not having a huge chunk of that too. The Rams seem to be the quickest turnaround by a pretty decent margin to me. While the Rams have a QB who, statistically, is more likely to succeed than not, almost all of the other alternatives have massive question marks at the position or guys who are real old.

 

[Stitch01]

Id take every job except SF. SD and Buffalo are arguable for different reasons, but I still like those situations better.

Id bet on Goff being a bust. Whoever does take the job is going to have a different view.

I don't think whoever takes the job is going to have a statistics-oriented view on Goff. That's a valid approach for us to take, whoever takes the job is going to have a more definitive view of the player

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

So you would rather walk into:

Blake Bortles (although with $64MM in cap space) and a team with a ton of holes
Paxton Lynch/Trevor Symien pu-pu platter with John Elway as your boss, in a division with the Raiders and the Chiefs
Tyrod/EJ/homeless guy pu pu platter with $25MM in cap space, although playing in a division that, in 2-3 years, might be winnable with a 5-11 record.
The Phillip Rivers decline in a division with the Raiders and Chiefs,

than LA because a guy played mediocrely in 7 games playing for a dead team, under a horrible coach, behind a line that was appalling??

I'm not sure you have thought this one through. There is, to me, no cause for QB optimism in any of the other situations (unless you look at Lynch and think he could be great, which would not be unreasonable.....but if Lynch then why not Goff?). At all.

 

[garlan5]

With SF you have 2 serviceable quarterbacks. I was really surprised Chip didn't get more out of them especially Gabbert. He played well the prior year with Kap hurt. The niners had a much better offense under Tomsula to be honest. Kelly did turn it around some during the second half.

As far as Denver the expectations are going to be very high and that actually might not be a good thing for a new coach trying to put together his roster on offense

 

[mauf]

With SF you have 2 serviceable quarterbacks. I was really surprised Chip didn't get more out of them especially Gabbert. He played well the prior year with Kap hurt. The niners had a much better offense under Tomsula to be honest. Kelly did turn it around some during the second half.

As far as Denver the expectations are going to be very high and that actually might not be a good thing for a new coach trying to put together his roster on offense

San Francisco is the worst QB situation in the league -- Kap and Gabbert are both lousy, and both are too old to expect much improvement. I'll be shocked if next year's Week 1 starter is someone on the current roster; even Ryan Fitzpatrick would be a significant upgrade.

I think the consensus view of the Denver job is based on an expectation that they'll trade for a better QB (likely Tony Romo). If that doesn't happen, then I agree it's a trap.

 

[twibnotes]

While the Rams have a QB who, statistically, is more likely to succeed than not, almost all of the other alternatives have massive question marks at the position or guys who are real old.

What stats? His college ones? By that metric, why isn't tebow still out there? The stat geeks loved him.

Even if you are right about high qb picks panning out often (and I think earlier posts dispelled that notion), we are talking about a guy who started the year 3rd on the depth chart (unheard of for top qb picks) behind two shitty QBs. We are also talking about a guy who has looked pretty awful so far in his short career. Not much precedent for a guy with that kind of start turning into something good. He seems far more likely to be ryan leaf or jemarcus Russell than Peyton Manning.

 

[coremiller]

San Francisco is the worst QB situation in the league -- Kap and Gabbert are both lousy, and both are too old to expect much improvement. I'll be shocked if next year's Week 1 starter is someone on the current roster; even Ryan Fitzpatrick would be a significant upgrade.

I think the consensus view of the Denver job is based on an expectation that they'll trade for a better QB (likely Tony Romo). If that doesn't happen, then I agree it's a trap.

Gabbert sucks. I still think Kaepernick could be a useful player on the right team. He has real limitations, the biggest being his accuracy is too poor/inconsistent for him to really be a great player, mostly because his footwork isn't good. But he also has real assets: arm strength, running ability, low turnover rate. He'll never be the guy he was for 10 weeks in 2012, defenses have adjusted to him and figured him out too much. And he's never going to be a guy who will carry a team. But I think he could get back to close to his 2013 level, and with the right team you can win a lot of games with that guy.

I don't think he's coming back to the 49ers though. Management has been leaking BS about him to the press for years, and he restructured his contract and gave up guaranteed money just so he could get out of there at the end of the season. If I were him, I'd want to get the hell out of there as fast as I could. It will be interesting to see where he ends up.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

What stats? His college ones? By that metric, why isn't tebow still out there? The stat geeks loved him.

Even if you are right about high qb picks panning out often (and I think earlier posts dispelled that notion), we are talking about a guy who started the year 3rd on the depth chart (unheard of for top qb picks) behind two shitty QBs. We are also talking about a guy who has looked pretty awful so far in his short career. Not much precedent for a guy with that kind of start turning into something good. He seems far more likely to be ryan leaf or jemarcus Russell than Peyton Manning.

By the stats I mentioned in the post. And let's say that you guys DESTROYED my argument.....50% of your numbers showed multiple Pro Bowls, another 10% in one, and another 10% ended up being/have a better than 50% chance of being decent. And that is with your "dispelled that notion" data. So again.....70% chance of being at least, decent. (Sidebar.....you say a lot of stuff that is just plain wrong - about cards not going on the field, about the Big Ten saying they made a mistake with calls, I could go on and on. Your emotions get too high and you manufacture the point to claim evidence on your side. If you continue this I am going to have to put you on ignore. Stop doing this.)

He started the year #3 because Fisher was keeping him tucked down to develop him. He literally said that he was going to do that shortly after the draft.

He has played 7 games behind a line that was ranked 27th in the league by FootballOutsiders. He played under a coach who was a terrible coach in general, but specifically terrible on Offense. He played after they had pretty much been eliminated from contention.

You want him to be terrible and in truth, there is a chance he will be. But it is nowhere near as likely as you perceive.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I think the consensus view of the Denver job is based on an expectation that they'll trade for a better QB (likely Tony Romo). If that doesn't happen, then I agree it's a trap.

Romo would be a perfect fit. Let Lynch develop under him and Denver would be in a nice spot.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Gabbert sucks. I still think could be a useful player on the right team. He has real limitations, the biggest being his accuracy is too poor/inconsistent for him to really be a great player, mostly because his footwork isn't good. But he also has real assets: arm strength, running ability, low turnover rate. He'll never be the guy he was for 10 weeks in 2012, defenses have adjusted to him and figured him out too much. And he's never going to be a guy who will carry a team. But I think he could get back to close to his 2013 level, and with the right team you can win a lot of games with that guy.

I don't think he's coming back to the 49ers though. Management has been leaking BS about him to the press for years, and he restructured his contract and gave up guaranteed money just so he could get out of there at the end of the season. If I were him, I'd want to get the hell out of there as fast as I could. It will be interesting to see where he ends up.

Great post.

I think - think - that the award(s) the team gave Kap at the end of the season might have been done as an olive branch, but you may be right, it may be too little too late.

 

[mauf]

Romo would be a perfect fit. Let Lynch develop under him and Denver would be in a nice spot.

Off topic, but there are surprisingly few plausible landing spots for Romo. He has a huge cap number next year ($25mm, though a trade might alter that), so the Cowboys' ability to get decent value for Romo likely depends on him agreeing to restructure his contract. He's not likely to do that to facilitate a trade to a non-contender, which limits Jerrah's options. Besides Denver, KC might be interested , especially if they don't reach the AFCCG. Maybe Minnesota too, if TBW is going to miss a big chunk of next season. Washington might make sense if they don't want to make a long-term commitment to Cousins, but no way the Cowboys trade him there. Where else?

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Off topic, but there are surprisingly few plausible landing spots for Romo. He has a huge cap number next year ($25mm, though a trade might alter that), so the Cowboys' ability to get decent value for Romo likely depends on him agreeing to restructure his contract. He's not likely to do that to facilitate a trade to a non-contender, which limits Jerrah's options. Besides Denver, KC might be interested , especially if they don't reach the AFCCG. Maybe Minnesota too, if TBW is going to miss a big chunk of next season. Washington might make sense if they don't want to make a long-term commitment to Cousins, but no way the Cowboys trade him there. Where else?

I think it goes:

Denver
Texans ($25+MM in cap, but cutting Osweiler would hurt......man the Texans have killed themselves by overpaying for FA QBs)
Miami ($40MM in cap, although cutting Tannehill would leave a mark)
Vikings
Cardinals

Maybe in that order? The Chiefs don't have a lot of cap space, but maybe they grab him?

Jerry might just hang on into next season and hope that another Sam Bradford-like deal comes up, where someone desperately needs a QB.

 

[mauf]

I think it goes:

Denver
Texans ($25+MM in cap, but cutting Osweiler would hurt......man the Texans have killed themselves by overpaying for FA QBs)
Miami ($40MM in cap, although cutting Tannehill would leave a mark)
Vikings
Cardinals

Maybe in that order? The Chiefs don't have a lot of cap space, but maybe they grab him?

Jerry might just hang on into next season and hope that another Sam Bradford-like deal comes up, where someone desperately needs a QB.

No matter how this season ends, the Cowboys will enter training camp expecting to contend again. I can't imagine they'll sink $25mm into the backup QB spot instead of spending it on upgrades.

The Texans are an option I hadn't considered. Wonder if JJ would trade Romo to Houston.

If I were Romo, I wouldn't facilitate a trade to Miami. Too many better options.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

No matter how this season ends, the Cowboys will enter training camp expecting to contend again. I can't imagine they'll sink $25mm into the backup QB spot instead of spending it on upgrades.

The Texans are an option I hadn't considered. Wonder if JJ would trade Romo to Houston.

If I were Romo, I wouldn't facilitate a trade to Miami. Too many better options.

I am not sure what Romo wants though. On the one hand you like to think "Oh yeah, he wants a ring" and he probably does. But if a team like the Dolphins were to give him 3 years and decent money in the hope that Tom Brady slips in the shower, does he go for that? He might. No state taxes, decent weather and a fan base that will support him if he is successful, but leave him alone if he struggles (NB...I don't consider this to be an admirable quality in a fan base, just noting the difference between Miami and many other locales). That isn't a bad gig and the Dolphins might be a Tony Romo away from long playoff runs.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

No matter how this season ends, the Cowboys will enter training camp expecting to contend again. I can't imagine they'll sink $25mm into the backup QB spot instead of spending it on upgrades.

I don't disagree, I do think it is unlikely they would carry him into next season. In fact, given their cap situation he is almost certainly getting cut. But I would need to better understand his deal. If they cut him, how much dead money is on their books?

 

[E5 Yaz]

I am not sure what Romo wants though. On the one hand you like to think "Oh yeah, he wants a ring" and he probably does. But if a team like the Dolphins were to give him 3 years and decent money in the hope that Tom Brady slips in the shower, does he go for that? He might. No state taxes, decent weather and a fan base that will support him if he is successful, but leave him alone if he struggles (NB...I don't consider this to be an admirable quality in a fan base, just noting the difference between Miami and many other locales). That isn't a bad gig and the Dolphins might be a Tony Romo away from long playoff runs.

He's probably at an age where he won't want to go there, but another spot that offers those same amenities (w/o having to worry about the Brady shower accident) is Jacksonville. They've got some pieces on defense, some offensive parts, a weaker division to play in, and if a coach takes that gig who Romo respects, it could work.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I don't disagree, I do think it is unlikely they would carry him into next season. In fact, given their cap situation he is almost certainly getting cut. But I would need to better understand his deal. If they cut him, how much dead money is on their books?

His cap hit next year is $24.7. His dead cap hit would be $19.6. If they time it right they could split it over two seasons, which is what I imagine they will end up doing. No one is trading for him without a restructure, as the Cowboys sold their salary cap souls when they restructured him. His base on remaining years is $14/$19.5/$20.5.

 

[twibnotes]

He started the year #3 because Fisher was keeping him tucked down to develop him. He literally said that he was going to do that shortly after the draft.

He has played 7 games behind a line that was ranked 27th in the league by FootballOutsiders. He played under a coach who was a terrible coach in general, but specifically terrible on Offense. He played after they had pretty much been eliminated from contention..

Very fair re the line, but I'm betting he's a sub par player based on more than the stats. He was far from a consensus top pick (concerns about his hand size, college system, among other things), and he has looked BAD on the field. I just don't see what he does especially well that makes him project to be a decent qb.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

His cap hit next year is $24.7. His dead cap hit would be $19.6. If they time it right they could split it over two seasons, which is what I imagine they will end up doing. No one is trading for him without a restructure, as the Cowboys sold their salary cap souls when they restructured him. His base on remaining years is $14/$19.5/$20.5.

That isn't a bad QB contract at all for a trade partner. $14M the first year and then you can cut him for free if he gets injured or sucks.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

That isn't a bad QB contract at all for a trade partner. $14M the first year and then you can cut him for free if he gets injured or sucks.

Fair point, but he's also going to be 37 and has played 5 games in the last two seasons. I'm not sure anyone is giving up much draft capital for that privilege. .

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

His cap hit next year is $24.7. His dead cap hit would be $19.6. If they time it right they could split it over two seasons, which is what I imagine they will end up doing. No one is trading for him without a restructure, as the Cowboys sold their salary cap souls when they restructured him. His base on remaining years is $14/$19.5/$20.5.

Yes, reading up on a bit this morning I think what you describe is the most likely scenario.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Fair point, but he's also going to be 37 and has played 5 games in the last two seasons. I'm not sure anyone is giving up much draft capital for that privilege. .

See, I think that the teams i cited could be tempted into giving up a first rounder for him as all of them - with the possible exception of the Dolphins who could, possibly, be comfortable with Tannehil - might consider themselves a "good Tony Romo" away from a SB run with their current personnel.

GMs be crazy, although Elway might do it so people would run the "no rings then redemption" story a little more. (I'm joking.....kind of)

 

[mauf]

I definitely think Denver would cough up a future 2nd rounder if Romo restructured to get his 2017 cap hit down to a 7-digit number. Their window is wide open, Trevor Siemien isn't getting it done, and unless Washington doesn't get a deal done with Cousins, there's no other quick fix available.

 

[Super Nomario]

So you would rather walk into:

Blake Bortles (although with $64MM in cap space) and a team with a ton of holes
Paxton Lynch/Trevor Symien pu-pu platter with John Elway as your boss, in a division with the Raiders and the Chiefs
Tyrod/EJ/homeless guy pu pu platter with $25MM in cap space, although playing in a division that, in 2-3 years, might be winnable with a 5-11 record.
The Phillip Rivers decline in a division with the Raiders and Chiefs,

than LA because a guy played mediocrely in 7 games playing for a dead team, under a horrible coach, behind a line that was appalling??

I'm not sure you have thought this one through. There is, to me, no cause for QB optimism in any of the other situations (unless you look at Lynch and think he could be great, which would not be unreasonable.....but if Lynch then why not Goff?). At all.

This is a fair point - 11-5 teams aren't typically hiring new coaches. I do think there are a few things to dislike about LA's situation:
1) If you weren't a Goff fan coming out, you might prefer the opportunity to pick your own QB, which you might have in other places but won't have in LA.
2) Even if you were a Goff fan coming out, as you note, the offense around him was awful. Because of the Goff trade, they didn't have another pick until the fourth round to help, and the skill players they took (Higbee, Cooper, Hemingway, Thomas) showed little. They didn't take an offensive lineman, either. And they don't have a first and third this year. Their best WR (Britt) is a FA. Bottom line: this was a horrible offense in 2016, and even with some improvement by Goff it figures to be a terrible offense in 2017. I'm not sure they will have enough ammo between now and then to make things a lot better even in 2018. There's a reasonable chance of Goff getting David Carr'd here.

The receiver situation in each of the other four spots is better; OL isn't great anywhere (though Buffalo is pretty decent) but the Rams might be the worst. If I can bring on my own guy, at least I'm pairing him with a better supporting cast.
3) I don't think the front office situation is healthy. It's not even clear if Snead will stay on. What is the org structure? I don't understand what they're trying to do. Do they think they're close to competing? If yes, why trade so much for a rookie QB and then sit him? If no, why are you firing your head coach after 10 games? What was up with the extensions they gave Fisher and Shead but didn't announce? I would need pretty strong assurances from the front office that they understand that this is a bad football team (particularly on offense) and that they will have the patience for a turnaround.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

His cap hit next year is $24.7. His dead cap hit would be $19.6. If they time it right they could split it over two seasons, which is what I imagine they will end up doing. No one is trading for him without a restructure, as the Cowboys sold their salary cap souls when they restructured him. His base on remaining years is $14/$19.5/$20.5.

Can they split the hit if they trade him, or only if they release him?

A couple Cowboy fans I know are expecting a release, because they are under impression they can't split the hit if they trade him. I haven't looked, and do not know that they are right about that.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Can they split the hit if they trade him, or only if they release him?

A couple Cowboy fans I know are expecting a release, because they are under impression they can't split the hit if they trade him. I haven't looked, and do not know that they are right about that.

According to this - http://overthecap.com/looking-cowboys-options-tony-romo/ - they don't get to split the cap hit when trading him. I suspect that's because the $19.6M cap hit is the bonus that was paid to Romo that were to be prorated over the 2018 and 2019 season; when traded, that amount gets accelerated immediately.

 

[Devizier]

Let's be honest. None of the coaching vacancies are great opportunities. That's why they're vacant. But there are advantages to each position and that discussion is probably a little more interesting than listing their myriad deficiencies.

 

[Bosoxen]

Can they split the hit if they trade him, or only if they release him?

A couple Cowboy fans I know are expecting a release, because they are under impression they can't split the hit if they trade him. I haven't looked, and do not know that they are right about that.

According to this - http://overthecap.com/looking-cowboys-options-tony-romo/ - they don't get to split the cap hit when trading him. I suspect that's because the $19.6M cap hit is the bonus that was paid to Romo that were to be prorated over the 2018 and 2019 season; when traded, that amount gets accelerated immediately.

Right. Really, the only way to split the hit would be to release him after June 1, which would be way too late to get any meaningful cap relief for 2017 anyway. They'd "save" $14 million in 2017 but any potentially beneficial free agents would be long gone by then.

By the way, I agree with Yammer that the top two potential trade partners for a Romo deal would be Denver and Houston. Both teams immediately become legitimate Super Bowl contenders with that trade but the obvious cap caveats apply with a potential Houston deal.

 

[Shelterdog]

According to this - http://overthecap.com/looking-cowboys-options-tony-romo/ - they don't get to split the cap hit when trading him. I suspect that's because the $19.6M cap hit is the bonus that was paid to Romo that were to be prorated over the 2018 and 2019 season; when traded, that amount gets accelerated immediately.

Can they split it if he's traded after June 1? Otherwise I wouldn't trade for him because you've got to figure the Cowboys are going to cut him after June 1st.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Can they split it if he's traded after June 1? Otherwise I wouldn't trade for him because you've got to figure the Cowboys are going to cut him after June 1st.

Website says no, trading him after June 1 doesn't affect (or split) cap hit because the prorated bonus money is put on the cap immediately.

 

[mauf]

Can they split it if he's traded after June 1? Otherwise I wouldn't trade for him because you've got to figure the Cowboys are going to cut him after June 1st.

There will be some team (Jacksonville?) that would offer Dallas a late-round pick for Romo with no change to his contract. That gives JJ the leverage he needs to get (a) Romo to restructure his contract, and (b) Romo's preferred team to give the Cowboys a better return than they'd get from trading Romo without restructuring his contract first.

 

[Shelterdog]

There will be some team (Jacksonville?) that would offer Dallas a late-round pick for Romo with no change to his contract. That gives JJ the leverage he needs to get (a) Romo to restructure his contract, and (b) Romo's preferred team to give the Cowboys a better return than they'd get from trading Romo without restructuring his contract first.

That doesn't realy solve Dallas's problem. They have a $20 million cap hit the second they trade him or they can spread it out over two seasons if they cut him--but that can't avoid that dead money by restructuring his contract. Unless you were getting terrific value (a first round pick or more) your best best is to spread out the dead money hit over two seasons.

 

[Bosoxen]

That doesn't realy solve Dallas's problem. They have a $20 million cap hit the second they trade him or they can spread it out over two seasons if they cut him--but that can't avoid that dead money by restructuring his contract. Unless you were getting terrific value (a first round pick or more) your best best is to spread out the dead money hit over two seasons.

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Would a second-rounder be enough? What about a third and a conditional fourth?

I think it's an interesting question because Sanchez made it painfully clear that the Cowboys are going to need a backup QB if Romo is dealt or released. Some of the assets or money the Cowboys get in return for Romo's departure will need to be spent on a replacement for him (as the backup, of course). Since some of that return needs to be earmarked for that position, it further adds to the urgency to maximize value. That, to me, makes it far less likely that he'll be released since they would be stupid to cut him before June 1.

Now that I think about it, maybe we should split this line of conversation out to the Cowboys thread?

 

[Super Nomario]

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Would a second-rounder be enough? What about a third and a conditional fourth?

I think it's an interesting question because Sanchez made it painfully clear that the Cowboys are going to need a backup QB if Romo is dealt or released. Some of the assets or money the Cowboys get in return for Romo's departure will need to be spent on a replacement for him (as the backup, of course). Since some of that return needs to be earmarked for that position, it further adds to the urgency to maximize value. That, to me, makes it far less likely that he'll be released since they would be stupid to cut him before June 1.

Now that I think about it, maybe we should split this line of conversation out to the Cowboys thread?

FWIW, teams can designate a small number (two, I think) of cuts prior to June 1 as "Post-June-1" cuts and divide cap charge accordingly. So they can cut Romo the day after the season and spread his cap hit onto two seasons. I don't think they can designate trades as post-June-1 though.

 

[Shelterdog]

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Would a second-rounder be enough? What about a third and a conditional fourth?

I think it's an interesting question because Sanchez made it painfully clear that the Cowboys are going to need a backup QB if Romo is dealt or released. Some of the assets or money the Cowboys get in return for Romo's departure will need to be spent on a replacement for him (as the backup, of course). Since some of that return needs to be earmarked for that position, it further adds to the urgency to maximize value. That, to me, makes it far less likely that he'll be released since they would be stupid to cut him before June 1.

Now that I think about it, maybe we should split this line of conversation out to the Cowboys thread?

While it varies a bit team to team and I don't know the Cowboy's cap situation all that well, for a competitive team I've got to think that deferring 10 million (of a roughly 20 million) cap hit one year is porobably worth about a second round pick. That 10 million gets a team three pretty solid veterans on short term deals. (3 to 4 million gets a good team guys like Matt Forte, Ben Watson, Chris Long, Alan Branch, and a number of them are available pretty late in the free agency as well). So say you get three veterans,. it's about fifty fifty on each whether they pan out, you're getting about two seasons worth of solid play--that's about what you get from the average second round pick, so that's a wash.If you are particularly cash strapped it's a better deal, if you havea ton of cap space the value is probably less.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Would a second-rounder be enough? What about a third and a conditional fourth?

I think it's an interesting question because Sanchez made it painfully clear that the Cowboys are going to need a backup QB if Romo is dealt or released. Some of the assets or money the Cowboys get in return for Romo's departure will need to be spent on a replacement for him (as the backup, of course). Since some of that return needs to be earmarked for that position, it further adds to the urgency to maximize value. That, to me, makes it far less likely that he'll be released since they would be stupid to cut him before June 1.

Now that I think about it, maybe we should split this line of conversation out to the Cowboys thread?

A few thoughts on this:

1) I am still not 100% convinced that the Cowboys are dealing Romo. I would be interested in whether you think they would deal Romo if the Cowboys go out in their first playoff game with Dak really struggling. In my opinion - and I could well be wrong - if the Cowboys go with Dak in the first half and he puts them in a hole from which Romo can't recover in the second half, but Romo does play well and makes it close (I realize that this is a specific scenario, but I would be surprised if the Cowboys were to go down 2 scores in the first half and Romo were to not come in. The "Dak throws three INTs and has a fumble" scenario seems unlikely to me in the playoffs. I think Garrett will have a quick hook......but you never know), I see the Cowboys working to keep Romo as they develop Dak. What do you think?

2) This draft strikes me as the perfect "pick up your backup QB" draft. There are a ton of good QBs in this draft, but no one that jumps out as "obvious franchise guy." Maybe DeShaun Watson? Maybe Kizer? Who knows. Maybe the Senior Bowl will change this, but man oh man does this draft seem really long in "B to B-" guys.

 

[DJnVa]

Let's be honest. None of the coaching vacancies are great opportunities. That's why they're vacant.

Denver is vacant because coach has health issues. A good defense, a good front office, and young QBs is significantly better than the usual job opening. Sure there are caveats, but relatively speaking that's a good opportunity.

 

[tims4wins]

I don't think the Denver job is all that it is cracked up to be. That defense is getting older, they have a very shaky QB situation, their OL sucks, they have good WRs in Sanders and Thomas but Sanders is getting older... I think they are going to be a mediocre team for the next several years, not dissimilar to the Broncos after the 97-98 titles, or the Ravens post-2000.

 

[jsinger121]

 

[Saints Rest]

Thanks for that info. I did not know that. But it makes a lot of sense.

I still think, at least in McDaniel's case, he could ask teams to wait. But I suppose it would be too much of a risk in missing out on being a head coach.

But practically speaking, I think the world would know.

Scenario 1: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but continues to interview possible coaches.
Scenario 2: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but interviews no one else.

Do you think it would be quickly apparent who was hiring Josh?

Scenario 3: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but continues to interview possible coaches. Announces after the SB that they hired Josh thereby making it clear that all the other interviews were a sham.

 

[Saints Rest]

Thanks for that info. I did not know that. But it makes a lot of sense.

I still think, at least in McDaniel's case, he could ask teams to wait. But I suppose it would be too much of a risk in missing out on being a head coach.

But practically speaking, I think the world would know.

Scenario 1: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but continues to interview possible coaches.
Scenario 2: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but interviews no one else.

Do you think it would be quickly apparent who was hiring Josh?

Scenario 3: Team interviews Josh over the weekend. Said team makes no announcements, but continues to interview possible coaches. Announces after the SB that they hired Josh thereby making it clear that all the other interviews were a sham.

 

[Captaincoop]

I don't think the Denver job is all that it is cracked up to be. That defense is getting older, they have a very shaky QB situation, their OL sucks, they have good WRs in Sanders and Thomas but Sanders is getting older... I think they are going to be a mediocre team for the next several years, not dissimilar to the Broncos after the 97-98 titles, or the Ravens post-2000.

Working for John Elway doesn't sound great to me.

 

[tims4wins]

That too

 

[Winger 03]

Redskins fire their D Coordinator along with 3 other coaches.

 

[Bosoxen]

FWIW, teams can designate a small number (two, I think) of cuts prior to June 1 as "Post-June-1" cuts and divide cap charge accordingly. So they can cut Romo the day after the season and spread his cap hit onto two seasons. I don't think they can designate trades as post-June-1 though.

I did not know this. This must be fairly new because this is the first I've heard of that.

This certainly changes things a bit, particularly with Brandon Carr's bloated salary no longer being a detriment.

A few thoughts on this:

1) I am still not 100% convinced that the Cowboys are dealing Romo. I would be interested in whether you think they would deal Romo if the Cowboys go out in their first playoff game with Dak really struggling. In my opinion - and I could well be wrong - if the Cowboys go with Dak in the first half and he puts them in a hole from which Romo can't recover in the second half, but Romo does play well and makes it close (I realize that this is a specific scenario, but I would be surprised if the Cowboys were to go down 2 scores in the first half and Romo were to not come in. The "Dak throws three INTs and has a fumble" scenario seems unlikely to me in the playoffs. I think Garrett will have a quick hook......but you never know), I see the Cowboys working to keep Romo as they develop Dak. What do you think?

2) This draft strikes me as the perfect "pick up your backup QB" draft. There are a ton of good QBs in this draft, but no one that jumps out as "obvious franchise guy." Maybe DeShaun Watson? Maybe Kizer? Who knows. Maybe the Senior Bowl will change this, but man oh man does this draft seem really long in "B to B-" guys.

Aye, #1 is the rub, innit? Also, seeing that drive Romo put together in Philly really drove home the point that I've always maintained about Prescott: he doesn't really stretch the field. Granted, the Cowboys don't really need a vertical passing game but there will be times when it would be nice to air it out to back safeties the fuck off the line of scrimmage (the game in NY being the perfect example). This worries me going forward and it will be on full display in the playoffs. As diverse as the Dallas offense is, that's one element that just isn't there and it will be their undoing. So, yeah, though I have come to terms with Romo being gone as a foregone conclusion, I'm not really on board with it unless it comes with a Herschel Walker-type deal.

As far as #2 is concerned, that certainly changes the calculus in determining an acceptable return. Particularly since any team that acquires Romo (other than possibly Denver) would then likely turn right around and draft one of those QBs, meaning a draft pick could lose a little bit of its value - for the purposes of drafting a backup QB anyway.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

This is a fair point - 11-5 teams aren't typically hiring new coaches. I do think there are a few things to dislike about LA's situation:
1) If you weren't a Goff fan coming out, you might prefer the opportunity to pick your own QB, which you might have in other places but won't have in LA.
2) Even if you were a Goff fan coming out, as you note, the offense around him was awful. Because of the Goff trade, they didn't have another pick until the fourth round to help, and the skill players they took (Higbee, Cooper, Hemingway, Thomas) showed little. They didn't take an offensive lineman, either. And they don't have a first and third this year. Their best WR (Britt) is a FA. Bottom line: this was a horrible offense in 2016, and even with some improvement by Goff it figures to be a terrible offense in 2017. I'm not sure they will have enough ammo between now and then to make things a lot better even in 2018. There's a reasonable chance of Goff getting David Carr'd here.

The receiver situation in each of the other four spots is better; OL isn't great anywhere (though Buffalo is pretty decent) but the Rams might be the worst. If I can bring on my own guy, at least I'm pairing him with a better supporting cast.
3) I don't think the front office situation is healthy. It's not even clear if Snead will stay on. What is the org structure? I don't understand what they're trying to do. Do they think they're close to competing? If yes, why trade so much for a rookie QB and then sit him? If no, why are you firing your head coach after 10 games? What was up with the extensions they gave Fisher and Shead but didn't announce? I would need pretty strong assurances from the front office that they understand that this is a bad football team (particularly on offense) and that they will have the patience for a turnaround.

I don't disagree with what you have written above, but I think there are a few points to consider:

On (1), there is the somewhat unique situation of none of the openings having the first pick in the draft, only 2 have a top 5 pick. In addition, none of the QBs coming out right now looking like franchise QBs. WITH THAT SAID.... there is a LONG way to go before these things start to get more definitive. This year's crop still has to go through the senior bowl and other evaluations. I personally think that Watson can be a top third of the league NFL QB, but a lot of the draft evaluators have him, Kizer and Trubisky as reaches in the first round and definitely reaches in the top 10......but who knows. I loved Dak Prescott to the Eagles in the middle of the first round last year and Mark Schofield thought he sucked. I would like to remind everyone of that forever. (NB: Mark did a really nice job evaluating the other QBs in the draft last year and will probably do so this year as well).

On (2) the O-line is really painful. They let Brooks leave last offseason and it seems that they have just really drafted poorly there. Now.....they CAN add O-linemen who are better than what they have through Free Agency and OL is one of the few spots on the field where Free Agency seems to work fairly well (in terms of value for dollars spent and low risk of significant drop off). But to your point......a shitty O-line sucks.

3) Is tough. I think you can say that about all of the options available, even Denver. Does Elway think that Lynch is the QB of the future? Would you ever want to work with Doug Whaley in Buffalo? Jacksonville may have the most stable and acceptable situation with Caldwell, but how much faith do you have in him? Holy Moley, San Diego and Jacksonville aren't buying houses in their respective cities. I absolutely agree that Snead is not a GM who you are jacked and pumped to work with......I just don't know if that is a huge differentiator for any team.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I did not know this. This must be fairly new because this is the first I've heard of that.

This certainly changes things a bit, particularly with Brandon Carr's bloated salary no longer being a detriment.

Been around since 2006.

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/02/june-1-used-to-be-a-big-deal-in-the-nfl/amp/?client=safari

 

[Bosoxen]

Been around since 2006.

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/02/june-1-used-to-be-a-big-deal-in-the-nfl/amp/?client=safari

Thanks.

That article is really weird. It talks about it like it's a new development and then goes on to make you feel like you've been living under a rock because that designation had existed for nine years prior to that article. Either the Dallas media sucks more than I thought or this wasn't broadcast a whole lot. I swear I'd never heard of this until now and I'd like to think I'm not an uninformed fan.

 

[soxhop411]

More firings

“@alexmarvez: Source tells @sn_nfl that @Saints have fired assts Joe Vitt, Bill Johnson, Greg McMahon, Stan Kwan & James Willis”