Skins cut Mason Foster

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He could pretty easily be washed.

Guys don't age gracefully in their 30s. There's as good a chance as any that he's not any better than Ragland at this point. If he could be brought in with no guarantees and given a shot at earning the job, sure - why not? But he's not going to be a special teams candidate so he's either a guy who wins the starting Mike gig (which may only be on the field about 30% of the time) or he gets cut outright.

Not interested in any real money for a guy like that.

If he clears waivers he should probably come pretty cheap.

There's not really a downside to the move imo. Cut Ragland if need be

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by New World Order

If he clears waivers he should probably come pretty cheap.

There's not really a downside to the move imo. Cut Ragland if need be

I think you're getting ahead of yourself by just presuming he'd be better than Ragland.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to bringing him in with no guarantees to try to beat Ragland out for a spot - ****, bring Clay in for a crack at that for all I care.

But don't have any expectations because 30 yr old LBs get pretty slow, pretty fast. Especially guys that were borderline athletes to begin with. We don't operate in an era where Marvcus Patton can hang around into his mid-30s by just slamming into FBs anymore.

If you can't move, you can't play.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think you're getting ahead of yourself by just presuming he'd be better than Ragland.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to bringing him in with no guarantees to try to beat Ragland out for a spot - ****, bring Clay in for a crack at that for all I care.

But don't have any expectations because 30 yr old LBs get pretty slow, pretty fast. Especially guys that were borderline athletes to begin with. We don't operate in an era where Marvcus Patton can hang around into his mid-30s by just slamming into FBs anymore.

If you can't move, you can't play.

if he can play and at least tackle in a base 4-3 that's a huge upgrade compared to last year.

I wouldn't offer anything crazy, but a 2.5 million dollar deal for one year is reasonable for a potential starting Mike. We have plenty of cap room.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by New World Order

I don't think we have much risk here; if he can play and at least tackle in a base 4-3 that's a huge upgrade compared to last year.

I wouldn't offer anything crazy, but a 2.5 million dollar deal for one year is reasonable for a potential starting Mike. We have plenty of cap room.

{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}

I just...I can't.

Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}

I just...I can't.

Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever.

Potential reward is worth the risk especially since we're so close to a SB.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Potential reward is worth the risk especially since we're so close to a SB.

That's a different argument.

But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.

This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.

At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's a different argument.

But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.

This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.

At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30.

I'm in agreement with you for the most part.

I have no idea what kind of deal Foster will receive. Maybe he would be open to no guarantees in order to sign with a potential SB winning team. If so, as you said, you sign him no problem.

I still wouldn't have a problem taking a bit of a risk and giving him some guaranteed money to compete with Ragland. If he beats out Ragland, then you cut him and recoup some of the money you gave to Foster.

I just don't have a good feeling about our LB corps. They are by far the worst positional group on our defense and I'm willing to gamble in order to improve that position.

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's a different argument.

But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.

This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.

At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30.

Ragland’s making $1.25M this year.

Assuming you can get Foster for, say, an extra $1M in cap space, that’s an acceptable tradeoff

https://deadspin.com/skins-wait-until-right-before-training-camp-starts-to-c-1836640301

[poolboy]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}

I just...I can't.

Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever.

unless your trying to win a super bowl now...right