Free Agency Approach

[Whatever]

(02-06-2024, 08:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because of money. Top tier LTs get paid more. That's an entirely different position so that's a terrible example.

Because of money. If you can establish yourself as a WR1 you get paid more.

If you start 17 games at TE, play 80% of the snaps, and produce, it doesn't matter if you're considered the TE1 or TE2. Not to mention Hunter Henry and Gerald Everett are both going into their age 30 season. They aren't thinking about some future 3 year deal they're playing for, because it won't ever exist. If you pay them their market value, plan to use them as a full time starter, and they won't care about being TE2. They will be a bridge until the TE we draft in 2025 is ready to pair up with Schultz.


Again, Hunter Henry's last contract was him literally signing with a team to be a 2nd starting TE and one they were committing less to. So you're factually wrong that he wouldn't do it. He did it.

- - - - - -

I have more evidence that they can work 2 TEs (they started 2 TEs in 8 games in 2021) than you have evidence that they will be able to operate 11 base with Ja'Marr Chase, Trenton Irwin, and Iosivas/C Jones as their WRs.

Talking about filling more holes we need to add 2 starting WRs if we stay in 11 unless you just want to throw an unproductive depth player out there as a starter. That's more expensive than adding 2 starting TEs to go to 12. You say waste $9-10m on a TE2 but Henry is projected for 1yr/$7.5m this offseason.

You're converting to 12 so you CAN run when you want or need to, not that you would suddenly be run heavy. You still have Joe Burrow and Ja'Marr Chase, so you're still going to throw the ball, but the ability to run the ball when you want to out of the same formation you pass from would be huge in keeping the defenses off balance rather than our standard "here's our passing play personnel, here's out running play personnel" strategy.

And because of money, TE1's get paid more than TE2's.

Henry didn't sign with the Pats to be the TE2.  He was the TE1.  He was playing 68% and 72% of the offensive snaps while Smith was playing 51% and 49%.  Not to mention that he and Smith signed on the same date, March 19, '21, so he did not sign there after they already had Smith.  Plus, their APY was the same, $12.5 mil, meaning he would have a fair chance to compete for the TE1 job.

Which brings us to another huge hole in your argument.  Smith was the TE2 in a 12 heavy offense and was only playing around 50% of the snaps.  Where are you getting 80% of the snaps from?  Even the teams that are 12 base are only in it 50-60% of the time.  

Starting personnel means zilch and that can simply be a function of trying to get guys performance incentives.  Not like our 1st quarter offense inspired much confidence, anyways.  And how is this evidence?  You are simply theory crafting with guys that aren't on the roster, and even that is ridiculously flawed due to your unrealistic assumptions that we will get a TE1 caliber FA to come here and be a TE2 and that you're going to be 12 base a significantly higher % of the time than other 12 base clubs.  Not to mention you aren't investing significantly in RB's to maximize the strengths of 12, either.

You have to fill WR2 and 3, anyways, so no, you don't save money.  To your earlier example, the Pats were paying Smith $12.5 mil APY for just under 300 yards/year.  Nelson Agholar is projected at $1.5 mil APY.  It's cheaper to equivalent production from a vet WR3 than TE2.  Plus, this doesn't even take into account it's a strong WR draft and a garbage TE draft, aside from Bowers.

Then there's the elephant in the room.  You suggest this plan to Joe Burrow and  he'll likely tell you, "Cool.  I'll have my agent start phoning teams for a trade, because I'm not running this trash."

Stop trying to make 12 happen.  It's not going to happen.  If 12 was that viable, then why aren't more teams 12 base?  Fact is, the teams running a lot of 12 are some of the worst offenses in the league.