Implications of the Alex Mack Offer Sheet

While I haven't seen year by year details of the Jags' offer sheet to Mack, what I have seen is concerning: 5 years/$42 million; $18 million guaranteed over the 1st 2 years; another $8 million in year 3. My guess is that regardless of whether Mack ends up in Jacksonville or Cleveland on this deal, this deal will be very much in the minds of Pouncey and his agent. My guess is that a deal of this magnitude will be the floor for what Pouncey will accept. He's probably going to be looking for more based on post season honors. Now, I have been on record as saying that I think Pouncey is overrated by the media (and a lot of fans). I think he's somewhere in the lower half of the top 10 centers in the league, and despite post season honors I think Mack is better. However, even if Pouncey was better, I just don't see the sense in tying up that kind of money (or more) in a center.

I will guess that I'm in the minority here, but if Cleveland matches the Jags offer (and I think they will), I'm on the phone to the Jags right away to see if there's a deal to be had. We may be losing Pouncey very soon anyway, and I'd much rather profit from a pick or two in this years' super deep draft than a comp pick 2 years from now. I will say that what really worries me is the thought that we may give in and sign a 5 year extension with north of $20 million guaranteed for him. I think that could start us on the same path for Pouncey that we just witnessed with Woodley. While I generally hate the idea of moving on from a good young player, I believe that this is a situation where it would be the most prudent course of action for the long term benefit of the team. It's time to move on. And if Jacksonville isn't the team, there may be another team that would be interested.

 

Cleveland matched the offer earlier.

 

Tagging Mack was a pretty foolish move by the Browns. Anyway, it doesn't hurt to make the call, but assuming Pouncey's knee recovery will be 100%, I'm not really in favor of making a play to trade him away. Pouncey's a damn good center and one you want to pay to retain, if you can manage it from a cap standpoint. Neither Valesco or Wallace is a long term answer for starting center.

 

This. Line can't afford to be made weaker.

 

Did you look at guys who are already available? There are a bunch of guys out there with NFL starts in 2013. These guys aren't world beaters, but we could find a solid player in this group for 2014. Our long-term solution is in the draft.

Kyle Cook - 16 starts for Cinci last year
Jonathan Goodwin - 16 starts for San Fran last year (5th consecutive 16 start season) - a lot of miles, but was good enough last year to start for a really good line
Samson Satele - 13 starts for Indy - I would start Wallace over him, but he can be a good backup
David Baas - 3 starts for Giants last year - injury would need to be evaluated, but not a bad player otherwise
Dan Koppen - 15 games/12 starts for Denver last year - similar to Goodwin - lots of miles, but was a solid player last year
Velasco we know is adequate if he heals

Again, there's probably nobody here that we will plug in and play for the next decade. However, there are solid football players available for the 2014 season - and possibly beyond. Personally, based on how Wallace played for us down the stretch I would be Ok with him starting in the middle, but I would want to check out this list (and others) to bring in someone to back him up in case he either gets injured or doesn't play the way he played when he got his chance last year.

Also del, with respect to your comment about Jax not wanting to trade for Pouncey and pay him - they wouldn't be starting from a clean sheet of paper on a new contract with Pouncey. They would still have the final year of his rookie deal (which is obviously a bargain), and would then have tagging rights. There would be room to work numbers differently from the Mack deal where they had to make it a tough lump for Cleveland to swallow.

 

I guess to me the $2 million in savings this year isn't that much of a factor. In fact, if I thought we were on a Super Bowl or bust track for the upcoming season, I would be very happy to keep Pouncey at his current salary and deal with the future next offseason. It's a bargain price in 2014 for any center that's in the upper half of the league, and while I think he's overrated, I do think he's still a lower half of top 10 center. However, I think too many pieces have to fall our way to be a strong contender in 2014, and looking forward I see a problem with retaining him at a reasonable financial commitment for his talent level and positional value. I am really worried about overpaying him and not seeing dividends that justify that payment in 2015 and beyond.

My mantra this offseason is to do whatever we can to contend in 2014 - as long as it doesn't hurt us in 2015 and beyond. I see the potential to build a powerhouse for the 2015-2017 time frame, and that's my #1 focus when building the roster. To me, trading Pouncey might have a slight negative impact in 2014, but would pay dividends down the road through addition by subtraction. Focus those cap dollar in 2015-2017 on positions of higher impact - pass rushers, DBs, tackles - and oh yeah - BEN

 

We definitely have to have a backup plan in case, because I have a hard time seeing Pouncey retained here after his current deal. Even though he is a really good C, he isn't as good as the money he is going to want.

That being said, we need to have a better plan in place than Cody Wallace.

Munch had Velasco in Tennessee, and they chose to draft Brian Schwenke. Not sure how Munch sees Velasco.