Roll the dice on cam this year, if he plays well or not our first pick next year will likely be 7-15 range where we can select our left tackle of the future if he isn’t deserving of a long term deal

---

Has there been much basis for optimism the last two decades?

Perhaps not but expecting to remake an entire roster in two or three days is just not realistic. In any case, I've always maintained that free agency is fool's gold. Once in a blue moon do you manage to land a Calais Campbell. In most other cases, you're overpaying for somebody else's castoffs. Free agency does serve a purpose which is backfilling some spots with some potentially better (and in some cases younger) talent.

That's the way I see it.  Use free agency to get some reliable veterans to fill holes in your roster, so you can have maximum flexibility in the draft.

---

Y’all wish we got Trent for that money? Looks like franchising Cam was the right move.

As someone who has been dying to get Trent Williams, I can honestly say no. I would not have signed him to a contract like that. I have no opposition to the guaranteed money, but the length of the deal is ludicrous. Williams is 32 years old and this is a 6 year deal. Not every OT is Andrew Whitworth and can play to a high level into their late 30's. This is a huge risk for the Niners. Unless those last 3 years are voidable without much dead money being added to the team's cap, I definitely wouldn't have done this. I was all for making Williams the highest paid OT in NFL history, but I would have maxed out on a 4 year front loaded deal with the final year being voidable. I can't believe any team in their right mind would have made such a deal. If Williams was 25 or 26 years old, I would have no problem with such a deal, because he is one of the best players at his position. At 32 years old though, I'll take a pass. 

With that said, I still hate franchising Cam. No one can convince me that making a below average OT one of the highest paid players at his position is a good idea, even on a 1 year deal. I don't want below average players protecting our long term investment at QB. We've waited for the last 20 years to get a franchise QB, so let's protect him with at least, average players. With Williams off the market, I'd turn my attention to Riley Reiff. He'd be a huge upgrade over either of our OT's. He's certainly no Trent Williams, but he is a very good starting OT with the flexibility to play either OT position. I'd also look at RT Dennis Kelly if the money is right. He'd be a very significant upgrade at RT over Taylor. If that cannot be done, I package picks #25 and #33 to move as high as I can in the draft to take one of the top 3 OT's (Sewell, Slater or Darrisaw.) I'll even include Taylor in the deal if I have to. All three rookies show much better footwork and quickness than either one of our current OT's. 

I'm not asking to build Rome in a day, but we have both starting OT's who are below average. Can we just find a replacement for one? That would make most of the fans feel a lot better.

Agreed.

I thought signing Trent Williams would not only provide optimal protection for TL, but free up the draft and not force the issue chasing a guy at 25 who may not be worth it.

But when the team franchised Cam, something had to be up.  Either the team had an idea of what Williams' contract demands were, or that there would be so much demand for his services a bidding war would make him cost prohibitive.  I knew there was insurance value with Cam, which is why I didn't trash that particular aspect of things. 

While Riley Reiff is tempting and may not command as much as Trent Williams, I can't think he will come at any real discount. 

We gotta find guys in the draft.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Perhaps not but expecting to remake an entire roster in two or three days is just not realistic. In any case, I've always maintained that free agency is fool's gold. Once in a blue moon do you manage to land a Calais Campbell. In most other cases, you're overpaying for somebody else's castoffs. Free agency does serve a purpose which is backfilling some spots with some potentially better (and in some cases younger) talent.

That's the way I see it.  Use free agency to get some reliable veterans to fill holes in your roster, so you can have maximum flexibility in the draft.

I think there were a few players that would fill holes but could also be in the long term plans due to their young age.

Samuel, Lawson, Henry.... these were just a few that didn’t sign massive contracts, are young and would be an immediate upgrade to the team.

Overall, day 2 was much better than day 1. I’m happy with what’s happened so far. I was talking with my brother in law (Ravens fan) and he loves what the Jags are doing because it’s going the Ravens route. Don’t go crazy on day 1 (like the Pats did) and find value the next few days. It’s definitely not like the Jags to do this and I understand why so many fans were freaking out 2 days ago.

Oh. And Trevor.

---

As someone who has been dying to get Trent Williams, I can honestly say no. I would not have signed him to a contract like that. I have no opposition to the guaranteed money, but the length of the deal is ludicrous. Williams is 32 years old and this is a 6 year deal. Not every OT is Andrew Whitworth and can play to a high level into their late 30's. This is a huge risk for the Niners. Unless those last 3 years are voidable without much dead money being added to the team's cap, I definitely wouldn't have done this. I was all for making Williams the highest paid OT in NFL history, but I would have maxed out on a 4 year front loaded deal with the final year being voidable. I can't believe any team in their right mind would have made such a deal. If Williams was 25 or 26 years old, I would have no problem with such a deal, because he is one of the best players at his position. At 32 years old though, I'll take a pass. 

Why front loaded?  What's the advantage in that?

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

---

That's the way I see it.  Use free agency to get some reliable veterans to fill holes in your roster, so you can have maximum flexibility in the draft.

I think there were a few players that would fill holes but could also be in the long term plans due to their young age.

Samuel, Lawson, Henry.... these were just a few that didn’t sign massive contracts, are young and would be an immediate upgrade to the team.

Overall, day 2 was much better than day 1. I’m happy with what’s happened so far. I was talking with my brother in law (Ravens fan) and he loves what the Jags are doing because it’s going the Ravens route. Don’t go crazy on day 1 (like the Pats did) and find value the next few days. It’s definitely not like the Jags to do this and I understand why so many fans were freaking out 2 days ago.

Oh. And Trevor.

Lawson is a 4-3 end and signed 15 mil, per year. Thats a massive contract and I'm glad we went with players that will fit our scheme and especially not overpay for guys who doesnt

---

Why front loaded?  What's the advantage in that?

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

---

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

Hence why NE and every other team is doing it lol.  It's funny how some complain when they don't even know what they're talking about

---

Day 2 Grades

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-f...up-losers/

Winners: Jacksonville Jaguars

First-year head coach Urban Meyer has begun to shape his roster down in Jacksonville. To start things off on Tuesday, the Jaguars agreed to terms on a three-year, $40 million deal with former Seattle Seahawks cornerback Shaquill Griffin. Despite missing four regular-season games in 2020, Griffin recorded a career-high three interceptions, 12 pass deflections and 63 combined tackles. The Seahawks passed on utilizing the franchise tag on him, and now have paid the price.

Hours later, the Jags made a bigger splash by snagging former Detroit Lions wide receiver Marvin Jones -- reportedly giving him a two-year deal worth $14.5 million. While he just turned 31, Jones caught a career-high 76 passes for 978 yards and nine touchdowns in 2020. He's also the only player in the NFL who has caught at least nine touchdown passes in each of the last two seasons.

To cap things off, the Jaguars traded with the New Orleans Saints for defensive lineman Malcolm Brown, according to Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network, who was set to be released as a cap casualty. The defensive tackle had been a consistent presence on New Orleans' defensive line, and should play a role in stuffing the run with Jacksonville immediately.

---

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

Day 2 Grades

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-f...up-losers/

Winners: Jacksonville Jaguars

First-year head coach Urban Meyer has begun to shape his roster down in Jacksonville. To start things off on Tuesday, the Jaguars agreed to terms on a three-year, $40 million deal with former Seattle Seahawks cornerback Shaquill Griffin. Despite missing four regular-season games in 2020, Griffin recorded a career-high three interceptions, 12 pass deflections and 63 combined tackles. The Seahawks passed on utilizing the franchise tag on him, and now have paid the price.

Hours later, the Jags made a bigger splash by snagging former Detroit Lions wide receiver Marvin Jones -- reportedly giving him a two-year deal worth $14.5 million. While he just turned 31, Jones caught a career-high 76 passes for 978 yards and nine touchdowns in 2020. He's also the only player in the NFL who has caught at least nine touchdown passes in each of the last two seasons.

To cap things off, the Jaguars traded with the New Orleans Saints for defensive lineman Malcolm Brown, according to Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network, who was set to be released as a cap casualty. The defensive tackle had been a consistent presence on New Orleans' defensive line, and should play a role in stuffing the run with Jacksonville immediately.

Looks damn good to me..

---

Day 2 Grades

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-f...up-losers/

Winners: Jacksonville Jaguars

First-year head coach Urban Meyer has begun to shape his roster down in Jacksonville. To start things off on Tuesday, the Jaguars agreed to terms on a three-year, $40 million deal with former Seattle Seahawks cornerback Shaquill Griffin. Despite missing four regular-season games in 2020, Griffin recorded a career-high three interceptions, 12 pass deflections and 63 combined tackles. The Seahawks passed on utilizing the franchise tag on him, and now have paid the price.

Hours later, the Jags made a bigger splash by snagging former Detroit Lions wide receiver Marvin Jones -- reportedly giving him a two-year deal worth $14.5 million. While he just turned 31, Jones caught a career-high 76 passes for 978 yards and nine touchdowns in 2020. He's also the only player in the NFL who has caught at least nine touchdown passes in each of the last two seasons.

To cap things off, the Jaguars traded with the New Orleans Saints for defensive lineman Malcolm Brown, according to Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network, who was set to be released as a cap casualty. The defensive tackle had been a consistent presence on New Orleans' defensive line, and should play a role in stuffing the run with Jacksonville immediately.

I haven't seen a more universally lauded free agency move this year than our signing of Marvin Jones.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

But any garden variety accountant can project the cap hit from these contracts.   It's really easy.   It's like when Coughlin got us into cap hell and took all the blame.  It wasn't just Coughlin.  It was Weaver and Michael Huygue and everyone else who said, okay, let's roll the dice, go for it, and worry about the consequences later.  TC gets to be the scapegoat, just like Baalke, because I am 100% certain that the ownership in San Fran knew what was going to happen.  

Besides, in your scenario, your player is going to quit after year 3 and demand a new contract.  So what you've done is instead of giving the guy a 5 year $80 million contract, he's taken a 3 year $66 million contract and now you have a disgruntled player who is refusing to play.

---

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

But any garden variety accountant can project the cap hit from these contracts.   It's really easy.   It's like when Coughlin got us into cap hell and took all the blame.  It wasn't just Coughlin.  It was Weaver and Michael Huygue and everyone else who said, okay, let's roll the dice, go for it, and worry about the consequences later.  TC gets to be the scapegoat, just like Baalke, because I am 100% certain that the ownership in San Fran knew what was going to happen.  

Besides, in your scenario, your player is going to quit after year 3 and demand a new contract.  So what you've done is instead of giving the guy a 5 year $80 million contract, he's taken a 3 year $66 million contract and now you have a disgruntled player who is refusing to play.

I never thought about that, what you said in your last sentence.  That makes a ton of sense and just another reason teams are setting up contracts like that.  The salary cap will be going up next year as well.  There are more and more reasons now why teams are doing it like this

---

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

But any garden variety accountant can project the cap hit from these contracts.   It's really easy.   It's like when Coughlin got us into cap hell and took all the blame.  It wasn't just Coughlin.  It was Weaver and Michael Huygue and everyone else who said, okay, let's roll the dice, go for it, and worry about the consequences later.  TC gets to be the scapegoat, just like Baalke, because I am 100% certain that the ownership in San Fran knew what was going to happen.  

Besides, in your scenario, your player is going to quit after year 3 and demand a new contract.  So what you've done is instead of giving the guy a 5 year $80 million contract, he's taken a 3 year $66 million contract and now you have a disgruntled player who is refusing to play.

When you are GM, you should expect to take the hit when that happens. It's your job to structure contracts that are beneficial to the team. You can try to assign the blame elsewhere, but it ultimately will fall on the GM. The ownership may know what is going on, but they hired the GM to take care of it and Baalke failed. 

Maybe he does in year 4, but that's when evaluations will be made anyway. You had a star player for 3 years. Now, you take a look at the current cap space, the players' performance and go from there. I'm not afraid of holdouts. If you decide to cut or trade the player, the cap hit is significantly smaller. If you want to keep him, you structure the deal to make it beneficial to the team. It all depends on your current cap situation. Right now, we have tons of money, that's why I like front loading deals this year. It's gonna fluctuate depending on our cap status.

---

Have we totally given up on Jawaan Taylor?

---

Have we totally given up on Jawaan Taylor?

I have. If anything, he's gotten significantly worse.

---

Because we have the money to spend right now. I hate back loaded deals, because you never know what they future may bring. If Trevor is as good as advertised, he's gonna want a Dak Prescott type deal in 4 years. I don't want a lot of back loaded contracts on good players where the bulk of their money is gonna have to be paid the same time I gotta pay the QB. That creates cap issues. Baalke back loaded a bunch of contracts in San Francisco and put them in cap hell.

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

Because that cap hit in year 4 is being paid to a guy who isn't here or isn't worth it. I really liked Caldwell's strategy for his FA deals, they usually got us out at a minimal cost after two seasons. Having dead money on the books already killed this franchise once, let's not do that again.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

Because that cap hit in year 4 is being paid to a guy who isn't here or isn't worth it. I really liked Caldwell's strategy for his FA deals, they usually got us out at a minimal cost after two seasons. Having dead money on the books already killed this franchise once, let's not do that again.

Not if the contract is structured correctly. You can make the final year voidable. It's done all the time.

---

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/...38816?s=19

A massive deal, even if you think the back half is "funny money."

This contract is definitely higher and longer than I expected and would have looked elsewhere.  However, I am interested to see how it is structured.  I'm guessing the second half of this contract is complete bs and so called "funny money".  By making it 6 years instead of 3 years, SF cuts the cap hit of the pro-rated signing bonus in half for this year.  They could give Williams a $100 million salary in year 6 and it wouldn't make a bit of difference because he's never going to see that money anyway.

---