Didn't Seattle just resign Locket? If so, it will be hard to move on.
I agree with the analysis that preciously few WRs remain productive long beyond 30. Larry Fitzgerald seems the obvious exception but, when it comes to assessing guys who make a living through athleticism, it's best not to be sentimental. I don't know if Lockett is in decline yet but I expect that if he's not, he will be soon. Time slows for no man.
I know it's hard to fathom the idea of letting go of a receiver as beloved as Lockett. But he's earned lots of money and will not suffer in retirement. I suspect we'll choose at least one receiver in the next draft. Wouldn't surprise me if it came with our first or second pick. Of course it depends who's on the board and our staff's evaluation.
No-E is actually one of the few movable players we have. Pre-June 1st movement nets $7mil in saving vs $20mil dead cap. Post-June 1st movement is huge $17mil saving on just $10mil dead cap. Same numbers for 2025. Puts him far more in the firing line than Diggs or Adams, akin to the savings we get from waving goodbye to Geno! - but balanced against we have another $26mil WR in DK, the #20 in JSN and usable receivers are popping up like usable RB's to go hunt a replacement.
The savings we'd get on Geno is a mirage, really. We have to field a QB. Lock is a free agent again next year. We'd either have to get substanitally worse at the position by signing someone who is cheaper (to realize any savings vs Geno), or we'd have to draft a QB later than round 1 and be able to start him (which is still probably worse at the position). Otherwise, we would have to pay a free agent more than we are paying Geno to get them, and then they'd have to outperform Geno by an amount commensurate to the amount of money more that we paid him over Geno. Geno is probably the best value at QB in the entire league. His performance exceeds what we pay for, and we'd be hard-pressed to find another QB who would be able to perform even close to him at his price tag. He is a great leader on and off the field, also evidenced by the contract he signed to stay with the team. He outperforms his contract by the numbers and by the team/family spirit.
"Tell me which numbers you’d like me to run and we’ll see if that puts 31+ year old receivers in a better light."
Ooooooo...you challenge me, sir...'cuz, while your conclusion may be correct, you have not shown whether the drop in productivity is a) unique to the position, or b) generally true across all positions as a function of age or c) due to a distinction of injury rate (or severity) between different positions, or d) due to a statistical interaction (covariance) with a new QB (or, for that matter, with any other relevant position). And, for any of those, you'd have to assess the "noise" (that is, pure randomosity of the numbers).
AT BEST, the data listed could be used (if totalled) to suggest "old guys have less aggregate production", and that's about it. But you could NOT say (based on the data shown) whether it is MORE true for WR than for any other position. Also, to make your point, show how the average productivity of 29+ compares to that of younger WRs...you'd still have to adjust for targeting (and, probably, number of snaps), ask that covariance question, and assess the randomness contribution.
Back in the day (NO! No "Once Upon a Time", here!) I used to refer to this practice as "Fun With Numbers", and my commentary thereupon used to be more...oh, what is word?....old school...Theory X...Type A Personality...none of those really work!
After some retrospection...I should not have used the expression "you cannot say".
Once upon a time (THERE it is!) I used to work with a Southern Gentleman who later became NASA's Chief Engineer. Originally from rural Georgia, he would just about come up out of his chair when that expression was directed anywhere in his near vicinity. I was a bit slow on the uptake...it took me 1-1/2 tries to get the message. Because, apparently, I could not say that and walk away from the results.
So...OF COURSE you can say that. Any time you want, any place you want, any company you want.
I think all that has to be shown is that older receivers cost more than younger receivers, tend to produce less with age, and are more susceptible to injuries than younger guys. We'll worry about other positions later.
I can’t imagine Schneider paying $27M to a 32-year receiver no matter who it is. On the other hand, he’ll wince at the idea of an almost $20 dead cap hit.
You'd put No-E on a post June 1st designation, split the dead hit to $10mil across both 2024 & 2025, and bank $17mil in instant cap saving. Although as you can only cut two players this way it'd be better to designate Adams & Geno this way. So i think we'll see No-E stick around through next season, then get moved then (unless we could find a trade partner, unlikely).
Not at all worried about Tyler. His numbers will be there at the end of the season if he stays healthy. Defenses are all different, and game plans change. Some weeks will be his, some not so much.
That's kinda always been No-E, right? You get big games and quiet games depending on the game plan and in-game adjustments. He's never been that guy that consistently gets 10+ targets per game. I feel like they force the ball to DK more than they ever do/did for Tyler. I think this is why he's constantly discussed as one of the most underrated receivers in the NFL. He's always been cast in a supporting role by design.
3 tight ends means less wide receivers. My bet is Tyler isn't always the sole WR, thus lowering his opportunities. Maybe Waldron will assign DK blocking/TE assignments in his 13 Personnel? DJ Dallas is proving to be effective at blocking. I expect we'll see this until our #1's return to the offensive line.
The guy I would DEFINITELY take is Chosen! 100% catch rate, average 68 yards, and 100% TD! That guy is a WINNER. :D
But seriously... we need at least a half season of stats even though the overall trend is clear. In Lockett's case this year, I would put the blame more on Geno than on Lockett (even though DK's completion % is up) because there really isn't any evidence on game tape that Lockett's hands are suddenly turning to stone.
In fact, I commented in the game log on one of the completions that Geno threw to DK that Lockett was open on the sideline for a much longer gain than the throw Geno completed to DK. It was a "turndown" play. I believe it was in the first half of the Carolina game but I may be mistaken about that.
Didn't Seattle just resign Locket? If so, it will be hard to move on.
I agree with the analysis that preciously few WRs remain productive long beyond 30. Larry Fitzgerald seems the obvious exception but, when it comes to assessing guys who make a living through athleticism, it's best not to be sentimental. I don't know if Lockett is in decline yet but I expect that if he's not, he will be soon. Time slows for no man.
I know it's hard to fathom the idea of letting go of a receiver as beloved as Lockett. But he's earned lots of money and will not suffer in retirement. I suspect we'll choose at least one receiver in the next draft. Wouldn't surprise me if it came with our first or second pick. Of course it depends who's on the board and our staff's evaluation.
No-E is actually one of the few movable players we have. Pre-June 1st movement nets $7mil in saving vs $20mil dead cap. Post-June 1st movement is huge $17mil saving on just $10mil dead cap. Same numbers for 2025. Puts him far more in the firing line than Diggs or Adams, akin to the savings we get from waving goodbye to Geno! - but balanced against we have another $26mil WR in DK, the #20 in JSN and usable receivers are popping up like usable RB's to go hunt a replacement.
The savings we'd get on Geno is a mirage, really. We have to field a QB. Lock is a free agent again next year. We'd either have to get substanitally worse at the position by signing someone who is cheaper (to realize any savings vs Geno), or we'd have to draft a QB later than round 1 and be able to start him (which is still probably worse at the position). Otherwise, we would have to pay a free agent more than we are paying Geno to get them, and then they'd have to outperform Geno by an amount commensurate to the amount of money more that we paid him over Geno. Geno is probably the best value at QB in the entire league. His performance exceeds what we pay for, and we'd be hard-pressed to find another QB who would be able to perform even close to him at his price tag. He is a great leader on and off the field, also evidenced by the contract he signed to stay with the team. He outperforms his contract by the numbers and by the team/family spirit.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba wasn't selected by accident
On vacation? Great, that means more down time. We expect at least two newsletters a day now!
Only joking. Have a great break Joe. You deserve it.
Have a great, we’ll deserved vacation!
"Tell me which numbers you’d like me to run and we’ll see if that puts 31+ year old receivers in a better light."
Ooooooo...you challenge me, sir...'cuz, while your conclusion may be correct, you have not shown whether the drop in productivity is a) unique to the position, or b) generally true across all positions as a function of age or c) due to a distinction of injury rate (or severity) between different positions, or d) due to a statistical interaction (covariance) with a new QB (or, for that matter, with any other relevant position). And, for any of those, you'd have to assess the "noise" (that is, pure randomosity of the numbers).
AT BEST, the data listed could be used (if totalled) to suggest "old guys have less aggregate production", and that's about it. But you could NOT say (based on the data shown) whether it is MORE true for WR than for any other position. Also, to make your point, show how the average productivity of 29+ compares to that of younger WRs...you'd still have to adjust for targeting (and, probably, number of snaps), ask that covariance question, and assess the randomness contribution.
Back in the day (NO! No "Once Upon a Time", here!) I used to refer to this practice as "Fun With Numbers", and my commentary thereupon used to be more...oh, what is word?....old school...Theory X...Type A Personality...none of those really work!
Oh...there it is! "Cranky".
After some retrospection...I should not have used the expression "you cannot say".
Once upon a time (THERE it is!) I used to work with a Southern Gentleman who later became NASA's Chief Engineer. Originally from rural Georgia, he would just about come up out of his chair when that expression was directed anywhere in his near vicinity. I was a bit slow on the uptake...it took me 1-1/2 tries to get the message. Because, apparently, I could not say that and walk away from the results.
So...OF COURSE you can say that. Any time you want, any place you want, any company you want.
I think all that has to be shown is that older receivers cost more than younger receivers, tend to produce less with age, and are more susceptible to injuries than younger guys. We'll worry about other positions later.
😵💫
As a 29 year old, we need to stop calling 30 'old'! I can't handle having a crisis about being old in just a couple of months...
Quit whining, young 'un.
Easy... i'm sure he'll get off your lawn on his own without you hollerin at him from your rocker.
He was back by the still!
Wheeeew doggy! Lawdy, yes! Tell 'im ta gimme summa dat hooch while he out dere!
At least, I think that's you on the rocker. I need to put my spectacles on.
The NFL is a cold blooded and brutal world isn't it.
Seaside Joe the 7-11 of sportswriters! May the 12s be with you and Go Seahawks!
I can’t imagine Schneider paying $27M to a 32-year receiver no matter who it is. On the other hand, he’ll wince at the idea of an almost $20 dead cap hit.
You'd put No-E on a post June 1st designation, split the dead hit to $10mil across both 2024 & 2025, and bank $17mil in instant cap saving. Although as you can only cut two players this way it'd be better to designate Adams & Geno this way. So i think we'll see No-E stick around through next season, then get moved then (unless we could find a trade partner, unlikely).
Not at all worried about Tyler. His numbers will be there at the end of the season if he stays healthy. Defenses are all different, and game plans change. Some weeks will be his, some not so much.
That's kinda always been No-E, right? You get big games and quiet games depending on the game plan and in-game adjustments. He's never been that guy that consistently gets 10+ targets per game. I feel like they force the ball to DK more than they ever do/did for Tyler. I think this is why he's constantly discussed as one of the most underrated receivers in the NFL. He's always been cast in a supporting role by design.
3 tight ends means less wide receivers. My bet is Tyler isn't always the sole WR, thus lowering his opportunities. Maybe Waldron will assign DK blocking/TE assignments in his 13 Personnel? DJ Dallas is proving to be effective at blocking. I expect we'll see this until our #1's return to the offensive line.
The guy I would DEFINITELY take is Chosen! 100% catch rate, average 68 yards, and 100% TD! That guy is a WINNER. :D
But seriously... we need at least a half season of stats even though the overall trend is clear. In Lockett's case this year, I would put the blame more on Geno than on Lockett (even though DK's completion % is up) because there really isn't any evidence on game tape that Lockett's hands are suddenly turning to stone.
In fact, I commented in the game log on one of the completions that Geno threw to DK that Lockett was open on the sideline for a much longer gain than the throw Geno completed to DK. It was a "turndown" play. I believe it was in the first half of the Carolina game but I may be mistaken about that.
KenJoe & Seaside Jay, Have Fun!