There is no need on the team more important than the O line. Using 3 of the 7 picks on the O line would be a good idea given that's what the team needs. I know it's not quite the brilliant plan of picking up 7 QB's, but I'm behind it anyway.
Why create holes? Clark and Allen are adequate back-ups and serviceable starters; Allen has been a decent starter and might've been playing through injuries last year. You'd jettison their experience overall, as well as in this system, for two rookies? Why? To do what with the cash savings? That's monumentally stupid.
They are overpaid and terrible. Since they aren't above replacement level, why not go with a cheaper replacement level player? You are screwed anyway if they end up playing, you might as well keep the money and be able to spend it elsewhere. Let's note here that we're talking about backup players. You use the cash savings in order to give Nuk a new contract, or to throw at Romo so he can be QB for a few quarters before getting hurt, or to throw at Adrian Peterson to boost the RB tandem, or to make sure we keep Bouye, or to bring in some LB depth, or wherever else it's needed. Keeping well below replacement player quality backup O linemen at starter level pay is just stupid when you can cut them and save millions.
The Texans would literally shave more money off the cap by releasing Weeden ($1.6MM) than they would Allen (~$680M). Clark would only net you $2.75MM. Those two are roughly the same as just releasing Derek Newton, which is going to happen. As I said, it would be monumentally stupid to let two experienced linemen walk so you can plug in three rookies + a first-year starter (Martin) - all for a ~$3.4MM cap savings, which, by itself, would net you almost nothing meaningful. In fact, it'd probably be used on a guy to fill one of the two holes you just inexplicably created for yourself.
Not true, cutting Allen post June 1st would save 3.2 million. When they cut Newton post June 1st it saves 4.75 million. Put the 3 together and you've saved 10.2 million cutting well below replacement level backup O linemen or broken O linemen. That's quickly a substantial sum.
Yes, but not until June 1, so his $6.5MM '17 cap hit would still be on the books when free agency starts in March and all the way through the draft - at that point, you might as well bring him to camp and see if '16 was an exception and not the rule. And then we'd carry, what? $2.5MM of his dead salary next year?
Knowing that you are going to be able to shed that much salary would allow you to spend that money now and free it up later. You can always tell guys like Nuk or whatever that you are going to give them their new deals post June 1st and not tie that cash up then. My point is that there's no reason to keep really expensive contracts on the books for below replacement player backup O linemen especially with a hard cap. It's just wasting money for the sake of wasting money.
But the rookies aren't counting against the cap yet so you could spend the money now and just not sign your top few picks until after June 1.
http://www.sportsline.com/insiders/25779850/brock-osweiler-likely-out-as-texans-starting-qb/ Last March, the Houston Texans signed Brock Osweiler to a massive four-year, $72 million contract with $37 million guaranteed. It was an eye-opener in an otherwise lackluster free agent quarterback market. The result was a disastrous 2016 campaign in which Osweiler appeared in 15 games and tossed 15 touchdowns against 16 interceptions. That's more than $1 million per score. He was benched for backup Tom Savage in Week 15 against the Jaguars after going 6 of 14 for 48 yards with two picks. In the postseason, Osweiler returned after Savage was concussed and predictably imploded, once again tossing more picks (three) than touchdowns (two). The Texans were routed by the Patriots in the AFC Divisional Round. Bovada.lv has released odds on whether Osweiler will be the Texans' starting QB come Week 1 of the 2017 season. The Arizona State product is a -200 favorite to ride the pine, meaning you risk $200 to win $100. He's a +150 dog to start (risk $100 to win $150). One possible replacement for Osweiler is Cowboys backup Tony Romo. Armed with one of the league's top defenses, the Texans would get pegged with a double-digit win total with Romo, according to legendary bookmaker and SportsLine expert Kenny White. "Romo will be far better off in Denver because of their defense," White said. "However, he could stay in Texas and battle the Cowboys for state bragging rights if he's a member of the Houston Texans." Texans GM Rick Smith was vague on the team's plans. "We're spending the time evaluating our football team and trying to figure out where we're strong, where we're weak, and how we can go about improving," Smith told ESPN. With the free agent QB market looking grim outside of Romo, Tyrod Taylor, and Kirk Cousins, the Texans could elect to draft a QB. They pick 25th in the first round. From Bovada: Will Brock Osweiler be the Starting QB of the Houston Texans for Game 1 of the 2017 Regular Season? Yes: +150 (3/2) No: -200 (1/2)
Blasphemous posts.... you're not a real Texans fan if you don't wish upon hope that somehow Brock will get better... just like the good ol Denver days! (which were 24 starts ago... with a completely different cast of characters/coaches... with several hits and mental blows taken since then).
Wouldn't trading Brock just create a bunch of dead money? I don't see how that makes us players in free agency.
I've quietly wondered whether Kansas City would enter the Romo market. What makes them a viable threat is that they could trade for Romo (I don't think the Texans would; they'll wait for his release so they can run him through their medical protocol and talk to him, etc.) because they could conceivably recoup some (or all) of their dealt assets by trading Smith, who would have an active market. Makes a ton of sense.
Would be interesting, wouldn't it? But I think the pool of teams in on Smith would be much larger than Romo; Smith is healthy, five years younger and a perfectly above-average QB. While I'm sure Romo has told Dallas he'd accept a trade to a contender (KC certainly fits the bill); my guess is that he'd like to be in control of where he plays next and likely has the clout within the organization to get his outright release. Smith, OTOH... I don't think KC would be as accommodating. So if Chicago or Cleveland - hell, San Francisco wanted to offer up a 2 or a 3 - whatever his market is.... I think Reid would (wisely) jump all over that.
Given this, the question for the Chiefs is whether Romo is a significant enough upgrade to justify the difference in salary.
