Rick Wagner - keeping him?

Nice read on the “pro” of keeping him

I’m no expert nor agree or disagree…

Trying to post things here to keep it going! :thinking::upside_down_face:

2 Likes

I agree he has not been best he could be but we as fans don’t know injuries that players have.

He would need to be replaced an is the next one going to be better an at what cost.

I am not his biggest fan but he has had good years an who knows maybe this will be his best year.

They will keep him .

I haven’t read the article but I’ve pointed out out months his dead money and no post June 1st cut designations being available this offseason made it likely he’s here in 2020.

I believe they have already said he wasn’t going anywhere. Shouldn’t preclude getting his replacement.

Liked how the author actually linked his performance to the guy next to him… synergy baby! And it wasn’t the best this yr!

Need to draft his replacement, especially with Decker looking like he is another guy who will be getting paid real money to be an average player at his position…

1 Like

It’s a deep draft at OT as well. No time like the present.

I didn’t notice any downgrade with Crosby really and the run game seemed to get better, even though Stafford was out and teams were playing closer to the LOS. I think he is a total waste of that kind of money and would send him down the road if he won’t take a significant pay cut. At least Lang made a PB for his 9M. I know PFF but show me anywhere else that observes and grades every snap other than them and I’ll surely compare. Anyway they have him as the 58th best OT and he’s playing on a top 5 contract. So let’s be real here, how much of a “hole” are you creating by losing the 58th ranked OT? If you can’t improve that in the offseason without spending 11M to do it, you REALLY suck ass.

and they made Diggs a Captain and gave him an extension. I know some of that was tude related, but…

They let Wagner go and 2 things happen. They have to admit to a mistake and they don’t save anything vs the cap. So yeah, I get why they might say one thing and do another but there isn’t anything in it for them to do so.

Wagner should be cut. Addition by subtraction if you ask me. But he won’t be. This year is not the year.

However I think BQ should be looking to draft his replacement in the mid rounds and then send Wagner packing next year.

2 Likes

He’s 30 years old and won’t be 31 until mid Oct., so given his age it IS possible that he rebounds but picking up $9 million next season he would almost have to be all pro to be retained. They actually would save money vs the cap this year, $6.1 million but I doubt it happens with no replacement on the team. If he can’t practice when OT’s start I would actually considering just cutting him loose. It’s one thing to get sub par play for the money, it’s another thing to get no play for the money.

We have Crosby now. Was he playing all that much worse than Wagner? I feel like he was actually giving us better results on the right side. If you take the 6.1M and add 5-7 to it, that is a good starter somewhere. I think you could draft a mid round OT and add a decent vet to add to the mix for not a whole lot and you put them in the mix vs Crosby. I just don’t want to hear creating a hole when we are talking about a guy who was the 58th ranked player at their position. You don’t pay huge money for that level of bad. You fix it.

Actually their MO is to pay huge amounts of money to repair things, never realizing that “repair” and “fix” aren’t the same thing.

Always changing offensive philosophies and O-line coaches hurts a position group that is supposed to play as a unit. Warford, Tomlinson look like studs playing for other teams and Reiff has been solid for the Queens. Gutting the O-line and starting over once again is a horrible plan. Unless you have someone already on the roster who can take his job it’s dumb to cut him.

1 Like

Yeah one thing I’ll never understand everyone preaches you build threw the draft but then they never wanna pay anyone when the contract is up. We’re lucky if we re reup one guy pre draft . Seems like a hard way to build a team. When when u can’t keep guys like Glasgow.

Using the word never is … never a good way to present an argument
It’s not a matter of whether they pay Glasgow
It’s a matter of priorities
Everybody has a budget — you decide spending priorities within your budget
Seems like their priorities do not include Glasgow
That is a cap management decision
Good decision or bad decision— I don’t know
They’re making their calculations on these decisions
I hope they’re getting these things right

1 Like

U are using one player, but like I said we’re lucky to reup one player per draft.
Point is u can’t build a team through the draft if your drafts are so bad you never reup a 2nd contract.

Yes and when we use a #8 first round pick on a TE & if you exercise the 5th year option on him to only resign him the following year you shit on the value of the 5th year option …If I’m a TE like Hockenson and the 4th year rolls around and my club wants to re up me, what’s the incentive to do so when the 5th year option will net you as much as most signing bonuses given to TE’s on new deals ? You refuse and play under the 5th year money via the option and re-up the following season and get another huge chunk of cash on the second deal .