FA's Texans are "interested" in... [RB Miller, OL Allen, C Bergstrom Signed]

[popanot]

Originally Posted by barrett

I think RB is too easy to acquire to pay serious FA dollars for it.

I agree, but only if you already have a decent bridge RB on your roster, which we don't. I think that if you have the money to spend (a big key in my thinking here) and can fill a major hole with a young, healthy, proven commodity, then you go for it. RB is such a big need right now that we'd likely burn a high pick on one and I think Miller is better than any of the RB prospects beyond Elliott, who we'd definitely have to burn a #1 on. And Elliott might not even be there when we pick. With a bunch of cap space and Miller being a good young player, I don't have a problem with it. I'd rather we go after him than someone like Ivory for slightly less money. I think we still draft a RB, regardless. Just not until RD 4 or 5. Offensively, I think the RBs have the best talent vs. value in FA this year. And Miller is the cream of the crop, IMO, when you factor in age, mileage and skill set. The other positions are going to get way overpaid, which is my fear with Brooks.

As for Osweiler, as I stated previously, I'm not huge fan or convinced yet that he's all that good (maybe he is). However, I can see where the Texans brass would feel he's equal to or better than any option they'll have in late RD1 or late RD2. I mean, if you're OB, would you rather roll with Osweiler who has some game experience and has groomed under Manning and coached by Elway and Kubiak, or roll with Lynch or Cook? It's probably safe to say Osweiler knows what it takes to prepare and likely has a good attitude and work ethic since Elway and Kubiak were and are willing to hand him the reigns. I think the Texans still draft a QB. It would allow them to get a Hack or Prescott much later in the draft to groom for the future.

EDIT: Let me just add, I don't think giving Osweiler a deal similar in $ to Bradford's is all that unreasonable in today's NFL for a starter. That is, as long as it's framed in a way we can get out of it in 2 or 3 years if need be and we draft with a plan. If Osweiler turns out to be great, then it's a great deal and no one cares if Hack or Prescott rides the pine forever. If he fails, you eat it and hope Hack or whoever turns out to be the answer (for the next HC, LOL).

[popanot]

Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet)
3/8/16, 9:03 PM
The #Jaguars are signing RB Chris Ivory to a deal that's believed to be well above $6M per year.

Can't say I like that price tag for a guy like Ivory. If we sign Miller, I hope it's at or under $6MM.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by popanot

Can't say I like that price tag for a guy like Ivory. If we sign Miller, I hope it's at or under $6MM.

I would think Ivory's money is the floor for Miller's deal.

[popanot]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

I would think Ivory's money is the floor for Miller's deal.

You're probably right. Although, technically, Ivory had a better year last year and hopefully Miller's options are getting a bit more limited and we can work a better deal. Wouldn't shock me to see Miller get a bit more, though.

[Keith]

Travis Benjamin is headed to the Chargers, so scratch him off the list.

Lamar Miller likely to get ~$7 million/yr. Ought to find out soon. Doug Martin just got about the same to stay with the Bucs.

Wayyyy too quiet on the tight end front. The draft is terrible for the position to get an impact player this year. Ladarius Green likely to sign with the Steelers. No talk (yet) of any players on the market that the team has interest in signing.

[popanot]

Boy, might be hard to fit Miller in now that they've reached a deal with Os (have to shorten that name!).

[Keith]

Miller signed 4-yr, $26M per multiple reports. $14M guaranteed.

About to drop Hoyer's $5.25 million salary.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by popanot

I agree, but only if you already have a decent bridge RB on your roster, which we don't. I think that if you have the money to spend (a big key in my thinking here) and can fill a major hole with a young, healthy, proven commodity, then you go for it. RB is such a big need right now that we'd likely burn a high pick on one and I think Miller is better than any of the RB prospects beyond Elliott, who we'd definitely have to burn a #1 on. And Elliott might not even be there when we pick. With a bunch of cap space and Miller being a good young player, I don't have a problem with it. I'd rather we go after him than someone like Ivory for slightly less money. I think we still draft a RB, regardless. Just not until RD 4 or 5. Offensively, I think the RBs have the best talent vs. value in FA this year. And Miller is the cream of the crop, IMO, when you factor in age, mileage and skill set. The other positions are going to get way overpaid, which is my fear with Brooks.

As for Osweiler, as I stated previously, I'm not huge fan or convinced yet that he's all that good (maybe he is). However, I can see where the Texans brass would feel he's equal to or better than any option they'll have in late RD1 or late RD2. I mean, if you're OB, would you rather roll with Osweiler who has some game experience and has groomed under Manning and coached by Elway and Kubiak, or roll with Lynch or Cook? It's probably safe to say Osweiler knows what it takes to prepare and likely has a good attitude and work ethic since Elway and Kubiak were and are willing to hand him the reigns. I think the Texans still draft a QB. It would allow them to get a Hack or Prescott much later in the draft to groom for the future.

EDIT: Let me just add, I don't think giving Osweiler a deal similar in $ to Bradford's is all that unreasonable in today's NFL for a starter. That is, as long as it's framed in a way we can get out of it in 2 or 3 years if need be and we draft with a plan. If Osweiler turns out to be great, then it's a great deal and no one cares if Hack or Prescott rides the pine forever. If he fails, you eat it and hope Hack or whoever turns out to be the answer (for the next HC, LOL).

If we give Osweiller Bradford kind of money and then need to get out of it in 2-3 years, O'Brien and Smith will be gone in 2-3 years. If you are betting on Osweiller to the degree you are giving him top half starting QB money, then you are betting your job on him. I think that'd be a very poor bet.

[popanot]

Originally Posted by barrett

If we give Osweiller Bradford kind of money and then need to get out of it in 2-3 years, O'Brien and Smith will be gone in 2-3 years. If you are betting on Osweiller to the degree you are giving him top half starting QB money, then you are betting your job on him. I think that'd be a very poor bet.

I think OB and Smith's job is dependent upon how the next QB performs regardless if it's Osweiler, Wentz, Goff, Cook or Joe Schmoe. They might be looking at it as if Osweiler gives them far better odds than a rookie for the reasons I stated above. IMO, the time table is still 2-3 years whether it's Osweiler or someone else.

[HPF Bob]

Well, the Texans committed to Matt Schaub with less experience than Osweiler has. And, FWIW, the head coach got axed about the same time Schaub did.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by popanot

I think OB and Smith's job is dependent upon how the next QB performs regardless if it's Osweiler, Wentz, Goff, Cook or Joe Schmoe. They might be looking at it as if Osweiler gives them far better odds than a rookie for the reasons I stated above. IMO, the time table is still 2-3 years whether it's Osweiler or someone else.

I agree. My point was that they have no motivation to structure a deal with an easy out since they will be out with him.

[barrett]

I also think it is obvious that a rookie QB gives a 3-4 year salary advantage on the NFL since they make about $15 million less than even an unproven vet. You can pay buy a lot of football team with that money. That is part of why I am not very afraid of Indy going forward. Their braintrust wasted 4 years of cheap Andrew Luck and will now have to start gutting the rest of the roster to pay him (like Seattle has had to do the last year).

[popanot]

Originally Posted by barrett

I agree. My point was that they have no motivation to structure a deal with an easy out since they will be out with him.

True. I was thinking (hoping) more from a fan's perspective on the easy-out portion.