Tyron Smith, you in?

Would you want the Pats to sign T. Smith at 2/$25MM, 15MM gtd?


  • Total voters
    119

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,752
Maine
Last edited:

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,752
Maine
I'd probably roll the dice and guarantee more of the money to try to sweeten the deal. It's a big risk, but if he's healthy, this stabilizes the line in a big way for your rookie QB.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
11,226
Somerville, MA
2 year deal I'm in. Anything longer I'm out. The financial risk of the deal is minimal, the upside is meaningful, and you can draft a replacement to develop this year or next year. Let's go.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,632
CT
Will all due respect, why would the Patriots spend the money on Tyron Smith?

Nothing about his health profile or his career arc aligns with New England, who is currently in a full scale, organization wide rebuild.
 
Oct 12, 2023
802
The Pats currently need two starting tackles

Signing Smith leaves them needing 1.5 starting tackles

Hasn’t played a full season since 2016 and has missed 38 games in the last 4 years to injury. He will be 34 years old.

I don’t see how it’s a wise use of money unless you’re pairing him up at the same spot with a Wynn or Trent Brown or similarly unreliable player and filling the other tackle with a more reliable player

Great player when healthy. But I’d rather overpay for a guy like Jonah Williams who has been durable. 17 games of mediocre performance is a better outcome than 8 games of all pro and 8 games of practice squad performance.
 

Jinhocho

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
10,308
Durham, NC
I do not really see the logic in this either. You want to try to sign guys who can be on the field, give you solid play, and are pieces you can build with.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
11,226
Somerville, MA
I do not really see the logic in this either. You want to try to sign guys who can be on the field, give you solid play, and are pieces you can build with.
Yes but you also have a ton of needs that can't all be filled through the draft, and you have ample cap space to fill some of those needs, and doing so on short-term deals that don't hamstring you in the long-run while using your major asset today (cap space) work for me. The potential downsides are that Smith could be hurt and not able to perform, or not hurt but just sucks. In either case, you are using up cap space in years where you are likely not competitive, with no other cost other than the opportunity cost of whoever you'd plug in otherwise. Unless you're drafting an OT with #3 or in a trade down scenario, Smith's upside is likely higher during the next 2 years than anyone else you can plug in, and the downside is that you waste some cap space when you have quite a bit.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
I would very much be in.
You don't rebuild your whole roster in a year, you aren't going to sign a young player who is also good at every position to a 5 year deal this year (or draft them).
Smith has injury issues, but that also means he's way cheaper than his talent.
He's basically the same as the reason we want a vet QB, he's an ideal addition to help out the young O-lineman you are almost certainly drafting this year (probably at least one in rounds 2-5). He helps your rookie QB when he's healthy, and he pushes guys like McDermott and Anderson (allegedly past his illness issue) down into 3rd, 4th, 5th tackle slots which is where they are actually good for those spots. He also helps you develop your young guards. Sticking guys like Strange and Sow between Andrews and Smith is going to really help them develop.

You need a certain number of GOOD vets in any offense to help it function, particularly on the O-line.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,863
At that price, I'd probably break my wrist writing the check. Injuries risks aside (which apply to just about every player given the nature of the sport), he would make an excellent veteran addition to what is likely to be a younger set of tackles. We have to spend money. This would send a signal to other FAs. We also need to protect a rookie QB (I hope) and put him on a productive development track.
 
Oct 12, 2023
802
At that price, I'd probably break my wrist writing the check. Injuries risks aside (which apply to just about every player given the nature of the sport), he would make an excellent veteran addition to what is likely to be a younger set of tackles. We have to spend money. This would send a signal to other FAs. We also need to protect a rookie QB (I hope) and put him on a productive development track.
Injury risk profiles aren’t the same for every player though. If you sign Smith for 12M AAV let’s say, you need to invest another 5+ in a quality backup/very low end starter to be part of a pairing at LT.

33/34 year old tackles with chronic injury issues aren’t guys you should rely on. It’s not like he’s 27 coming off a broken ankle or 30 coming off a one time torn ACL

If the key to your OL is a guy who hasn’t played a full season in 7 years, you need to spend on reinforcements because Smith’s history tells us he will almost certainly miss 4+ games next year
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,364
Somerville, MA
Anyone against Smith, I’m curious what your plan is for both OT spots? I assume Onwenu, but then start a 2nd round draft pick at LT from day 1? That’s very risky and gives you no flexibility in the draft.

If you think it’s too much money, how do you think they are going to spend $100 million in cap space?
 

RSC3000

New Member
Jan 23, 2024
32
Austin, TX
I'm in. You still need a long term answer at both tackle positions but having Smith in place upgrades the unit when he's healthy.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
Injury risk profiles aren’t the same for every player though. If you sign Smith for 12M AAV let’s say, you need to invest another 5+ in a quality backup/very low end starter to be part of a pairing at LT.

33/34 year old tackles with chronic injury issues aren’t guys you should rely on. It’s not like he’s 27 coming off a broken ankle or 30 coming off a one time torn ACL

If the key to your OL is a guy who hasn’t played a full season in 7 years, you need to spend on reinforcements because Smith’s history tells us he will almost certainly miss 4+ games next year
While injury risk is not the same, if you go into a season assuming your tackles are going to play 17 you're going to be disappointed,
Here are the teams who had at least 1 tackle start 17 games last year: Bills (both did), Bengals (both did), Jags (1 of 2), Chiefs (1 of 2), Broncos (1 of 2), Chargers (both), Cardinals (1 of 2), 49ers (1 of 2), Panthers (both), Falcons (1of2), Bucs (both), Bears (1 of 2), Lions (1 of 2), Commanders (1 of 2), Eagles (1 of 2), COwboys (1of 2)

So half the league had neither tackle start every game, and only 5/32 had BOTH tackles start every game.

You should go into every season assuming your tackles are going to miss some games. Jonah Williams is on the market, he just started 17.... he's unlikely to start all 17 next year and you shouldn't assume it.

Tyron Smith is really good, like top 5 in the league type of good when he plays. I'd much rather roll the dice on elite talent than reduce my injury risk for lesser talent. You need a 3rd tackle either way (though in this case, they have McDermott/Anderson, which with a rookie is fine for the 3-5 spots.)
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,297
Either smaller amount (may be not feasible), or even better, use their 2nd pick on a youngin'
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,514
Overland Park, KS
This is a great draft for tackles. Grab the best available tackle at 34. They have been neglecting this position since they drafted Wynn in 2018.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
This is a great draft for tackles. Grab the best available tackle at 34. They have been neglecting this position since they drafted Wynn in 2018.
I mean sure, they should do that, but he isn't going to be a good NFL starter day 1 in all likelihood, that's one of the appealing things about Smith is he'll likely take a short deal so suddenly instead of a rookie (and whatever they do at RT: Onwenu, Williams, Becton, Brown, etc.) and then McDermott/Anderson, you have and elite LT, whatever you do at RT plus the rookie and McDermott/Anderson. Or you can start the rookie on the right I guess.

Very few rookie tackles, even top prospects step in ready day 1. Especially true this year where there are a lot of high potential guys who need work in the late 1st/early 2nd area.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,364
Somerville, MA
Will all due respect, why would the Patriots spend the money on Tyron Smith?

Nothing about his health profile or his career arc aligns with New England, who is currently in a full scale, organization wide rebuild.
A rookie QB is going to learn a lot more when they have more than 2 seconds to get rid of the ball. It’s going to be incredibly difficult to spend $100 million in cap space. The OT free agent market is awful.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,974
This is a great draft for tackles. Grab the best available tackle at 34. They have been neglecting this position since they drafted Wynn in 2018.
Agreed, but that shouldn't stop them from signing a guy like Smith for the other tackle spot.

They have the cap space and they have the need. I'd be all for a 2 year deal.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,863
Injury risk profiles aren’t the same for every player though. If you sign Smith for 12M AAV let’s say, you need to invest another 5+ in a quality backup/very low end starter to be part of a pairing at LT.

33/34 year old tackles with chronic injury issues aren’t guys you should rely on. It’s not like he’s 27 coming off a broken ankle or 30 coming off a one time torn ACL

If the key to your OL is a guy who hasn’t played a full season in 7 years, you need to spend on reinforcements because Smith’s history tells us he will almost certainly miss 4+ games next year
That's fair. My point was mainly that you can't count on any player to be available for 17 games, particularly linemen. Certainly the risk profiles for each player will vary.

This team will need 2-3 new tackles in any case. The position is barren. A combination of picks plus FA pick ups is going to be a necessity.
 
Oct 12, 2023
802
Anyone against Smith, I’m curious what your plan is for both OT spots? I assume Onwenu, but then start a 2nd round draft pick at LT from day 1? That’s very risky and gives you no flexibility in the draft.

If you think it’s too much money, how do you think they are going to spend $100 million in cap space?
I’m not against Smith as part of the plan per se (although I don’t think he’d consider signing in New England) but they need to sign two passable starters + Smith + hope for a draft pick to make sense and actually pan out. I don’t see Smith as a guy you can count on to be part of the solution to “we need two starting caliber tackles” given his injury history

Anderson and McDermott aren’t guys I would consider except for camp bodies or #4 types
 
Oct 12, 2023
802
While injury risk is not the same, if you go into a season assuming your tackles are going to play 17 you're going to be disappointed,
Here are the teams who had at least 1 tackle start 17 games last year: Bills (both did), Bengals (both did), Jags (1 of 2), Chiefs (1 of 2), Broncos (1 of 2), Chargers (both), Cardinals (1 of 2), 49ers (1 of 2), Panthers (both), Falcons (1of2), Bucs (both), Bears (1 of 2), Lions (1 of 2), Commanders (1 of 2), Eagles (1 of 2), COwboys (1of 2)

So half the league had neither tackle start every game, and only 5/32 had BOTH tackles start every game.

You should go into every season assuming your tackles are going to miss some games. Jonah Williams is on the market, he just started 17.... he's unlikely to start all 17 next year and you shouldn't assume it.

Tyron Smith is really good, like top 5 in the league type of good when he plays. I'd much rather roll the dice on elite talent than reduce my injury risk for lesser talent. You need a 3rd tackle either way (though in this case, they have McDermott/Anderson, which with a rookie is fine for the 3-5 spots.)
Jonah Williams hasn’t missed a game due to injury since 2020. He’s missed 6 games (all his rookie year of 2020) due to injury. In the same span, Smith has missed 15, 6, 12 and 4 games

Yes injuries are inevitable and you can’t rely on anyone being available for 17 games. But it’s simply not a useful comparison between a 26 year old with 6 games missed over 4 seasons and 49 consecutive starts and a 33 year old who hasn’t played a full season since 2015

Trent Brown and Isaiah Wynn have been more reliable in terms of being able to suit up than Tyron Smith. I wouldn’t rely on either of those guys reliably playing either.

LT is such a critical position, it’s borderline crazy to me to entrust that spot with a guy who simply can’t stay on the field and is at an age where he’s unlikely to get more durable.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
Jonah Williams hasn’t missed a game due to injury since 2020. He’s missed 6 games (all his rookie year of 2020) due to injury. In the same span, Smith has missed 15, 6, 12 and 4 games

Yes injuries are inevitable and you can’t rely on anyone being available for 17 games. But it’s simply not a useful comparison between a 26 year old with 6 games missed over 4 seasons and 49 consecutive starts and a 33 year old who hasn’t played a full season since 2015

Trent Brown and Isaiah Wynn have been more reliable in terms of being able to suit up than Tyron Smith. I wouldn’t rely on either of those guys reliably playing either.

LT is such a critical position, it’s borderline crazy to me to entrust that spot with a guy who simply can’t stay on the field and is at an age where he’s unlikely to get more durable.
WIlliams is the outlier here though.

I guess to me the answer is... Tyron Smith is one of the best LT in the league, I'd much rather get him for part of the year than lesser players.
Honestly I think my ideal solution at T is to sign Smith and Williams and one more guy to go in the McDermott/Anderson group, then draft a tackle.
Smith when healthy gives you an elite LT, with Williams as a solid RT and depth, when/if Smith gets hurt, WIlliams slides over to LT (unless your rookie is ready) and you have one of your bench RTs slide in.

I think that when you're adding multiple bodies at OL, at least 1 of them should be the best you can get, and if that means only for part of the season... so be it. Smith managed 13 starts last year. Yes his overall numbers look bad because he had 2 surgery requiring injuries, but they were distinct injuries that don't appear to have recurred. Might he have another major injury... sure, probably a bit more likely than other players, but he's also just..... way better than those other players, and, his injury status is priced into his contract likely. Would I give him 2/36... no probably not, but 2/25... in a heartbeat.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,364
Somerville, MA
I’m not against Smith as part of the plan per se (although I don’t think he’d consider signing in New England) but they need to sign two passable starters + Smith + hope for a draft pick to make sense and actually pan out. I don’t see Smith as a guy you can count on to be part of the solution to “we need two starting caliber tackles” given his injury history

Anderson and McDermott aren’t guys I would consider except for camp bodies or #4 types
Again, who are your two guys then?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,515
NH
On those terms? In a heartbeat. And I’d still draft a Tackle at 34 and another later. There isn’t a tackle currently on this team that’s worth a damn and with what in all likelihood is going to be a rookie QB that’s a big problem. They need an influx of talent on that line… from free agency AND the draft.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,730
The Pats have so much cap room, it's stupid to be debating on $12.5m vs $10.5m vs $13.5m

I'm more concerned they won't be able to spend enough on talent they want. if they have to overpay a few million in a short term deal, who cares? They can't be stupid about it, but there's no way they spend that $100m (or $80m and save some) without overpaying. Tackle is 100% an area I'd overpay for.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
712
Depends on what they do at 3. If they elect to trade back, then we should look at next year as another rebuilding year which leads to high pick, and do the following:
  • draft one of the elite tackle prospects with the First we get back
  • go WR in Round 2
  • Zappe or cheap cheap FA at QB and feed him to the wolves
  • spend FA dollars on Onwenu and a guard who is on the right side of 30.
If they stay at 3 (my personal preference) and draft a QB (the only defensible move if they stay at 3), then by all means pony up for FA tackles, to protect Daniels/Maye and tide us over until a long term replacement can be acquired via draft, trade or FA.

FWIW, several draft-niks have opined that there is steeper drop off in talent between the tackles that project to be available Rnd 2, as opposed to WRs. I don't follow college or the draft closely enough to know if that is accurate, but it has been repeated by folks who are supposed to know what they are talking about.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,901
Oregon
I don't mind offering him the contract. I just don't see any logical reason why he'd take it ... unless he had no offers from teams with a better chance at getting him a ring
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
Depends on what they do at 3. If they elect to trade back, then we should look at next year as another rebuilding year which leads to high pick, and do the following:
  • draft one of the elite tackle prospects with the First we get back
  • go WR in Round 2
  • Zappe or cheap cheap FA at QB and feed him to the wolves
  • spend FA dollars on Onwenu and a guard who is on the right side of 30.
If they stay at 3 (my personal preference) and draft a QB (the only defensible move if they stay at 3), then by all means pony up for FA tackles, to protect Daniels/Maye and tide us over until a long term replacement can be acquired via draft, trade or FA.

FWIW, several draft-niks have opined that there is steeper drop off in talent between the tackles that project to be available Rnd 2, as opposed to WRs. I don't follow college or the draft closely enough to know if that is accurate, but it has been repeated by folks who are supposed to know what they are talking about.
Generally what I've seen is that OT should hit the big tier drop (whoever is left of the Morgan/Suamaita/Paul group being the end of it) somewhere early 2nd, WR might have a tier drop around the same spot (Mitchell/Ladd/Franklin), but its much closer to the next tier (Worthy, Pearsall, Polk, etc.)which should go into the 3rd at least.

I don't mind offering him the contract. I just don't see any logical reason why he'd take it ... unless he had no offers from teams with a better chance at getting him a ring
same reason 95% of FA contracts get signed.... most money.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,622
I'm not sure how anyone can say they don't see the value.

If you said the risk of injury wasn't worth it? Fine.

But this team desperately needs help on the line, and if you want to start your rookie QB off right, you give him time to throw.

I didn't think Tyron was leaving Dallas, so I never really put thought into him. 2 years? Give him 20m a year for 2 years, I don't care.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,901
Oregon
same reason 95% of FA contracts get signed.... most money.
I get it, but as I posted in the other discussion, he's made $115M and change over his career, and achieved every individual award possible. A guy like that, I just think that he wants to cap it with a ring.
If he signs on with the Patriots, it would be a big help if he stays healthy. It also wouldn't surprise me if we heard some version of the "I could have made more money elsewhere" line if he signs with a team closer to title contention.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,622
I get it, but as I posted in the other discussion, he's made $115M and change over his career, and achieved every individual award possible. A guy like that, I just think that he wants to cap it with a ring.
If he signs on with the Patriots, it would be a big help if he stays healthy. It also wouldn't surprise me if we heard some version of the "I could have made more money elsewhere" line if he signs with a team closer to title contention.
Sure, but "I made enough money" only makes sense to a point.

If the Pats offer him $15M a season, is he going to take half of that because he "made enough money"? And what team that's demonstrably more competitive - which it would need to be in order to turn down millions - has both the cap and the need for a LT?

Houston has cap space, but they have Tunsil. Lions have cap, but they're spending $19M on Decker. Philly has $40M in cap, but they have a LT booked at $10M this season.

I dont really see a match for the LT that needs $10M+ and wants a top team to go to.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
I get it, but as I posted in the other discussion, he's made $115M and change over his career, and achieved every individual award possible. A guy like that, I just think that he wants to cap it with a ring.
If he signs on with the Patriots, it would be a big help if he stays healthy. It also wouldn't surprise me if we heard some version of the "I could have made more money elsewhere" line if he signs with a team closer to title contention.
definitely possible, won't know until he signs somewhere..... but a lot fewer guys take less money to chase rings than people imagine.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
45,179
Mtigawi
I'm not sure how anyone can say they don't see the value.

If you said the risk of injury wasn't worth it? Fine.

But this team desperately needs help on the line, and if you want to start your rookie QB off right, you give him time to throw.

I didn't think Tyron was leaving Dallas, so I never really put thought into him. 2 years? Give him 20m a year for 2 years, I don't care.
Even if you want to make the argument it’s a rebuilding year then you can add on overspending and taking on risk not getting your young QB killed would be a wise move, even if it’s for 8 games
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,832
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Yes because we don't nave enough draft picks to draft high level players at all the positions of need. The FA WR market looks awful. The FA QB market is thin and pricey. Draft those. Sign the OL.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,384
CA
Will all due respect, why would the Patriots spend the money on Tyron Smith?

Nothing about his health profile or his career arc aligns with New England, who is currently in a full scale, organization wide rebuild.
See: Stroud, CJ.

They need to stabilize their OL. Assuming they draft a QB at #3, it is even more important. I don’t think they are viewing Smith as the starting LT on their next Superbowl team but it will matter greatly in stabilizing one of their biggest weaknesses the next 1-3 years potentially.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,891
Hingham, MA
See: Stroud, CJ.

They need to stabilize their OL. Assuming they draft a QB at #3, it is even more important. I don’t think they are viewing Smith as the starting LT on their next Superbowl team but it will matter greatly in stabilizing one of their biggest weaknesses the next 1-3 years potentially.
Right. There is a clear path to a playoff season if the Pats hit on tackle, WR, and QB. Obviously IF is doing a ton of work in that statement, but the full scale, organization wide rebuild comment is a bit hyperbolic. Does their talent suck on offense? Yeah. But they're still a good defensive team, and it only takes a couple of pieces on offense to make them competitive.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
Right. There is a clear path to a playoff season if the Pats hit on tackle, WR, and QB. Obviously IF is doing a ton of work in that statement, but the full scale, organization wide rebuild comment is a bit hyperbolic. Does their talent suck on offense? Yeah. But they're still a good defensive team, and it only takes a couple of pieces on offense to make them competitive.
More importantly I think.... even if it's to go 7-10 or 6-11, the biggest key is developing the QB, and it's a lot easier to work on things like reading the field, footwork, etc when you aren't worried that you're about to get a helmet to the spine at any moment. It's also easier for your guards to develop when they have a solid pro next to them who can be trusted to see the right play, communicate that to the guard, and rarely get beat putting the guard into a bad decision on whether to help.

Every team needs some good vets in the mix to teach good habits, shore up areas and help the kids be able to focus on doing their job. And O-line is probably the one spot you most want that on the whole roster (maybe secondary/LB too).
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
20,011
Somewhere
Yes, and it seems like the Patriots are interested. I'm guessing they'll have to attach a premium to ensure that Smith feels likewise.