Is Star as good as gone?

[tukafan21]

It seems everybody is talking about how we're going to target a DT early in the draft, maybe even with our first round pick.

And I can't see Gettleman letting Short walk, almost regardless of the price it will cost us to keep him.

So it begs the question, is Star going to be the odd man out and he's gone after the 2017 season?

I may be in the minority here, but I really think he is more valuable to this team in the long run than Short, especially when you consider what each would need to be paid to stick around.

You can find pass rushers, but the key to our defense is Luke, and a MAJOR reason he is able to do what he does is due to Star just eating up blockers in the run game.

If it was one or the other, I'd much rather pay Star half the amount of money we would need to give to Short and put that money towards a DE, DB, or OL.

 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

as good as gone? no, i don't think so.  gettleman values line play and i'm sure he's going to give everything he's got to retain star.

if we draft a DT early i'd look at it more as preparation for the possibility rather than an inevitability.

[tukafan21]

Just now, 15 said:

Gettleman has said before when discussing players like Josh Norman that he does not like growing talent for another franchise. Star may get the tag in order to keep him here as long as possible but hopefully they can workout a deal. He definitely hasn't earned the type of contract Short will get, but he is still a valuable player and should get a nice pay day if he continues to get better and stay injury free.

If someone is getting tagged, it would be Short, not Star.

No way Star would be commanding a salary near the franchise tag number, but Short would.

So I couldn't see a scenario where we both pay Short and then tag Star and pay each of them $15 million or so

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

as good as gone? no, i don't think so.  gettleman values line play and i'm sure he's going to give everything he's got to retain star.

if we draft a DT early i'd look at it more as preparation for the possibility rather than an inevitability.

When we're in SB winning position, you don't draft for future possibilities.

If we draft a DT in the first round, I can't see both Star and Short being signed to long term deals as it would then mean our first round pick this year is a backup for the entirety of his first contract.

Thats is just wasting a first round pick when it could be used on an impact player and starter over the next 2-5 years

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, 15 said:

Short will be the next player to get a big contract before he can even sniff free agency. They won't use a tag on him.

That's my point....

The franchise tag number this year for a DT is $13.4 million.

If we draft a DT early this year, can you really see Gettleman paying $15-16 million for Short and tagging Star for probably $14 million a year after spending a first rounder on a DT?

I know he loves his big men, but that seems like a bad way to spend money for one position.

Star is likely in line for a $7-10 million a year contract, no way he gets the tag, too much for a run stuffing DT

[pantherj]

The whole reason Gettleman doesn't touch big FAs and bores the hell out of us during free agency is so that we can sign our core guys like Star.

[tukafan21]

1 minute ago, pantherj said:

The whole reason Gettleman doesn't touch big FAs and bores the hell out of us during free agency is so that we can sign our core guys like Star.

Yes, I get that....

But my point is the general belief around the league seems to be us targeting a DT early.

Why in the world would we be spending a high draft pick on a DT of we plan to keep both of them?

You don't draft a first or second rounder with the expectation of them being a backup for the entirety of their first contract.

[Cary Kollins]

the end of the 2017 season is a long ways away

[SOJA]

certainly not definitely, Gettleman is going to want to lock up both KK and Star for awhile - hence why we didn't break the bank for Norman 

[Ship]

I don't think we are targeting one early (1st round) unless a stud falls to us. Plus, if one does fall to us or if we take one in the first 3 rounds I wouldn't be too concerned about anyone leaving. Unless Star wants to leave or can get tons more money somewhere else I think he stays. DT is a rotation heavy position for us. Calling a guy a starter just isn't as meaningful. I think another stud can come in and rotate and we'll have an endless thrashing in the interior. We're too creative to leave a guy out too much.

It'd be great to get one in the first 3 rounds and if he blows up by the time his contract comes up, then we have a good problem. At the very least we'll always have two stud DTs and maybe three for a time.

[tukafan21]

4 minutes ago, Cary Kollins said:

the end of the 2017 season is a long ways away

eh.... yes and no

Yes, the end of the 2017 season is a long way off and anything can happen between now and then.

But....

Gettleman has shown he likes to think well into the future, as any good GM should, when he started cutting money as soon as he showed up so he could have the ability to sign Cam and Luke to long term deals last offseason.

Short will need to be dealt with next offseason regardless, whether that's a long term deal or a franchise tag, and if you tag him, then you have to deal with both Star and Short in the same offseason unless we tag him and sign Star long term next summer.

So again, it goes back to the fact that you don't spend a first or second rounder on someone you hope at best is a backup/rotational player for the first 4-5 years of their career.

If Gettleman drafts a DT in the first two rounds this year, I have a very hard time seeing a scenario in which we sign both Star and Short to long term deals outside of both of them signing VERY team friendly deals like $6-7 a year for Star and $10 a year for Short.

And even in that scenario, again, you don't draft a player in the first two rounds you don't project as a future starter during their rookie contract.

[bigskypanthersguy]

I can't see going DT in the first for one reason..this is supposed to be a deep d-line draft and there's probably better value at possibly DE, TE, RB, or oline depending on what's available.  Secondly, I think we'll draft a DT and DE or two, but it won't be til later for that reason--besides, arguably, even if we did draft a defensive tackle at 30, our rotation is such that they'd eventually be a pseudo starter anyway.

[pantherj]

18 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Yes, I get that....

But my point is the general belief around the league seems to be us targeting a DT early.

Why in the world would we be spending a high draft pick on a DT of we plan to keep both of them?

You don't draft a first or second rounder with the expectation of them being a backup for the entirety of their first contract.

I have not considered it because we have not spent a high draft pick on a DT yet. The experts have a proven track record of being HORRIBLE at predicting what Gettleman will do in the draft.

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, bigskypanthersguy said:

I can't see going DT in the first for one reason..this is supposed to be a deep d-line draft and there's probably better value at possibly DE, TE, RB, or oline depending on what's available.  Secondly, I think we'll draft a DT and DE or two, but it won't be til later for that reason--besides, arguably, even if we did draft a defensive tackle at 30, our rotation is such that they'd eventually be a pseudo starter anyway.

Anything but a RB, seriously

I'll be so angry if we spend a first round pick on a RB when we still have Stew for this year, and I fully expect him to be the type of guy to take a VERY team friendly pay cut to stick around for a few more years, and when healthy, he's very much a top 10 RB in the league and a perfect fit in this offense.

If we want to take a RB in the third round and hope he pans out as a future starter then so be it, but not a first rounder when we need more immediate help in other places.