Skip to content

Special Monday 10-pack: Winners and losers in free agency

628x471 Getty Images

Only six days ago, the free-agent market opened.  One of the biggest classes of veteran players, with some of the biggest names, landed on the market.

Apart from the Peyton chase, much of the dust has settled.

And so now we’re required by the laws of football analysis to tell you who won and who lost, even though we won’t really know the answer until they start playing games.

Which, you know, will feature winners and losers.

1. Winner:  Eagles.

Last year, with a compressed offseason and a new defensive coordinator who had been an offensive line coach for 14 prior seasons, the Eagles foolishly embarked on a spending spree, bringing in a bunch of big-name players and setting the stage for a Wonderlic pick-sixer blurting out the dreaded “Dream Team” label.

Apart from the challenge of getting a bunch of new employees on the same page quickly, the move surely caused some of the men already under contract to wonder why they weren’t getting a share of the free-agency windfall.

This year, the Eagles have focused on taking care of their own, which is a much better way to ensure that a true spirit of team will take over the locker room.

Perhaps most importantly, the Eagles have set the stage for receiver DeSean Jackson to turn back the clock to 2009, when he wasn’t concerned about staying healthy and/or getting paid.  The Eagles have addressed those concerns via a long-term deal that, in comparison to some of the too-heavy contracts given to lesser receivers and in light of Jackson’s rocky recent history, looks like a win-win.

Maybe that means “win” will be a more common term in the term’s vocabulary this season.

2.  Winner:  Packers.

G.M. Ted Thompson rarely makes a big splash in free agency.  The biggest exception came in 2006, when at the very public urging of quarterback Brett Favre the team signed cornerback Charles Woodson.

Other than that, the Packers under Thompson take a very conservative approach, building through the draft and using free agency on a limited basis, with low-cost talent addressing specific needs.

It’s not sexy this time of year.  But this isn’t the time of year when championships are won.  Unlike downtrodden organizations (such as the Packers themselves in 1993, when Reggie White chose Green Bay from a long list of suitors), the Packers don’t need to do anything to fire up the fan base or breathe life into the franchise.

It’s the right approach for this specific team.  The Packers have won, once again, by doing nothing.

3.  Winner:  Bills.

Speaking of downtrodden organizations, no team needed a big-ticket free agent like Mario Williams more than the Bills.  And they went all in, pulling out all the stops and persuading Williams to spend two nights in town and eventually getting the job done.

It gives Buffalo and the Bills a major boost, igniting intense local interest and legitimate national attention.  It also makes good football sense; defensive coordinator Dave Wannstedt now has a player around whom the team’s new 4-3 defense can be built.

It wasn’t cheap, and it may prove to be a mistake.  But it was a risk the Bills needed to make if they ever hope to become relevant again.

4.  Winner:  Patriots.

At first, it looked like the Pats would follow the Pack’s “closed for business” approach to the early days of free agency.  But with needs at receiver, they’ve added a player in Brandon Lloyd who’ll have a far bigger impact than Chad Ochocinco (then again, the bar is low), and they’ve given Wes Welker a little cause for concern by landing a candidate to play slot receiver in Anthony Gonzalez.

They’ve also addressed an area of need on defense, adding the once-promising Trevor Scott to the rotation of recently underachieving pass rushers.

The Pats could still use a true deep threat to clear out all the underneath traffic.  But even if Lloyd is the biggest addition, the team that nearly won the Super Bowl in 2011 will be contending again in 2012.

5.  Winner:  Chiefs.

Yes, they were denied admission to the Peyton chase.  But let’s not forget that, despite all the dysfunction and key injuries of 2011, the Chiefs weren’t far away from winning the weakest division in the NFL.

Unlike most teams, the Chiefs found bargains even before the market softened, adding running back Peyton Hillis to a one-year, fire-under-butt-lighting $2.6 million contract, tight end Kevin Boss for three years and $9 million, right tackle Eric Winston, and backup quarterback Brady Quinn.

Hillis and Quinn played for offensive coordinator Brian Daboll in Cleveland, adding some familiarity to the new Romeo Crennel regime.  Winston addresses a key area of need, and Boss gives the Chiefs a second pass-catching tight end, which apparently is now a mandatory requirement for any team that hopes to be highly successful in the passing game.

Next up, don’t be surprised if Crennel lures another former Brown to Kansas City, with linebacker Kamerion Wimbley on the market.

6.  Loser:  Dolphins.

Peter King of SI.com chronicles a decade of bizarre personnel moves by the Dolphins, but the organization is now developing another troubling reputation:  anyone with options won’t opt for Miami.

It began last year with owner Stephen Ross clumsily pursuing coach Jim Harbaugh, which painted a vivid picture of disloyalty to coach Tony Sparano.  It continued in 2012 when Ross tried, and failed, to lure coach Jeff Fisher to town.  And it spread to the ranks of players in 2012, with Peyton Manning showing tepid interest at best in joining the team (even though some believed it was a done deal that he’d be a Dolphin).  Then, Matt Flynn’s decision to play for the Seahawks instead of former Packers coordinator/Dolphins head coach Joe Philbin did more than raise eyebrows — especially when followed by Steelers safety Ryan Clark proclaiming that “no one” wants to play for the Dolphins.

It’s possible that Philbin simply wasn’t all that interested in Flynn, and that Philbin knows  Flynn’s pair of high-end performances (one in 2010 and one in 2011) won’t translate to being an effective week-in, week-out starter, once opposing defenses have a chance to study enough of his film and figure him out.  If that’s the case, the Dolphins shouldn’t have even brought him to town for a visit.  By doing so, it creates the impression that they wanted him — and that yet again they failed to get their man.

Correct or not, there’s now a perception that no one of significant consequence wants to work for the Dolphins.  And the harder Ross tries to turn the page by making a “big splash,” the more likely it is that he’ll continue to swing the bat and hit himself in the face with it.

7.  Loser:  Saints.

With Bountygate lingering, the Saints had even more reason to work out a new, long-term deal with Drew Brees.  And yet the Saints continue to fail to find a middle ground with their franchise quarterback.

There’s a chance Brees simply wants too much.  But here’s the problem:  He deserves it.  The best NFL quarterback of the last six years, if he wants to max out his contract, then he should.

And as to the idea that he needs to leave some money behind so that the Saints can field a competitive team given the salary cap, here’s one important point:  It never stopped the Colts from being competitive when Peyton got every last dollar he could.

And while it’s good that the Saints kept receiver Marques Colston, they lost Robert Meachem.  And while it’s good that they lured Ben Grubbs away from Baltimore, the lost Carl Nicks.

More importantly, they’ve yet to do anything to address needs on defense, which could become even more significant once the suspensions come down.

8.  Loser:  Vikings.

Good teams can afford to sit on the sidelines in the early days of free agency.  The Vikings are not a good team.

With plenty of cap room and a tenuous stadium situation and a fan base that may choose to do things other than attend or watch Vikings games this season, the franchise needed to make a splash.  Not a Mario Williams cannonball; but something more significant than a John Carlson dog paddle.

It’s doesn’t mean the Vikings should go hog wild.  But they should have made it a priority to land one big-name player, even if it meant overpaying a little.

The offseason is about selling hope.  Teams like the Packers, Patriots, Giants, and Steelers can afford to do nothing in March; the hope is implied.  For teams that have fallen, March is an opportunity to prove that they’re at least trying to get up.

9.  Loser:  Ravens.

The Ravens had four players in the PFT Hot 100 free-agency list.  Three already have bolted for greener pastures:  defensive end Cory Redding, linebacker Jarret Johnson, and guard Ben Grubbs.

To make matters worse, guard Evan Mathis opted to stay with the Dream Team in lieu of joining a team that, on paper, seems to have a better chance of making its dreams come true.

Then there’s the lingering possibility that someone will make restricted free agent cornerback Lardarius Webb an offer the Ravens can’t afford to match.

Though there’s a long way to go before September, it’s hard not to think that, at least for now, the Ravens have faded a bit closer to the pack in the AFC.

10.  Loser:  Bengals.

By capping 2011 with an unlikely playoff berth, it can’t be said that Paul Brown Stadium routinely was less than full due to the fact that the team was bad.  Instead, the fan base is fed up with owner Mike Brown.

Even though the team is laying a solid foundation of youthful players, Bengals fans think it’s not because of Brown but in spite of him.  And with a huge cap surplus for 2012, the Bengals haven’t done much to persuade anyone that they’re willing to spend.

The good news is that, after several days of inaction, the Bengals have gone bargain shopping, adding offensive lineman Travelle Wharton and defensive back Jason Allen.  They also managed to keep free-agent safety Reggie Nelson, who had attracted an offer from the Jets.

But this is the one playoff team that needed to at least chase a marquee free agent.  They didn’t have to land the guy.  Mike Brown simply needed to show that he’s willing to move from the nickel slot machines over to the no-limit poker table.

The Bengals may once again be competitive in 2012.  The fans won’t embrace the franchise they way they should, however, until they see large chunks of their money being reinvested in players who can help the team compete for a championship.

11.  Loser/Winner:  Redskins.

I know.  I said there would be only 10 winners and losers.  But I didn’t say anything about the team that lands in both categories.

The $36 million in unexpected cap charges for treated the uncapped year too literally makes the Redskins losers.  Their refusal to shrug their shoulders when they did nothing wrong makes them winners.

Their ability to still find a way to spend money makes them winners.  Their decision to give so much money to the likes of Pierre Garçon and Josh Morgan makes them losers.

Their willingness to move up to No. 2 and get the franchise’s first true franchise quarterback since Sammy Baugh possibly will make them winners.  Mortgaging the future by giving up three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick possibly will make them losers.

Permalink 130 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Baltimore Ravens, Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Features, Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
130 Responses to “Special Monday 10-pack: Winners and losers in free agency”
  1. arm57romg says: Mar 19, 2012 9:35 AM

    Chiefs are winners even though they lost their #2 CB and didn’t really replace him.

    But the Bucs aren’t winners??

    Wow.

  2. arm57romg says: Mar 19, 2012 9:36 AM

    Also, The Packers lost their starting C. “What the hell is going on out here?!”

  3. krycek84 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:37 AM

    Vincent Jackson, Eric Wright and Carl Nicks ???!!!

    Is it so bad ?

  4. cakemixa says: Mar 19, 2012 9:40 AM

    Let me know the last time an off-season “winner” won anything during the actual season.

  5. lanjoith says: Mar 19, 2012 9:40 AM

    Whether you love or hate A.J. Smith, this story is a joke without listing the Chargers as a winner. They have signed 3 of the top 55 PFT free agents.

  6. philwauke says: Mar 19, 2012 9:41 AM

    So they saints lost in free agency because they franchised Brees? He isn’t going anywhere.

  7. rc33 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:42 AM

    I get what Mike’s saying but it’s impossible to call the Packers a free agency “winner” to this point.

  8. steelbydesign says: Mar 19, 2012 9:42 AM

    Winning teams are built in April, not in March.

  9. oranjellojones says: Mar 19, 2012 9:42 AM

    “Their willingness to move up to No. 2 and get the franchise’s first true franchise quarterback since Sammy Baugh possibly will make them winners.”

    All due respect to Slingin Sammy, but Sonny Jurgensen would have a bit to say about that and Joey Sunshine might as well even though “he’s no Norman Einstein”.

    I can’t disagree with any of the roster points though. Hopefully RGIII makes us all forget about how much he cost just like Eli did for the Giants.

  10. educator7 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:43 AM

    Agree with everything………though Sonny Jurgenson was a the ‘Skins last franchise QB.

  11. mikea311 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:43 AM

    yawn. call me when winning free agency translates into a Superbowl.

  12. justafanofitall says: Mar 19, 2012 9:43 AM

    I’m sure Philbin wanted Flynn but Ireland wouldn’t pay what it took to keep him from going to Seattle. Reminds me of buying a car from the saleman but management won’t give you a good trade-in and screws the deal.

    Wonder if Philbin wishes he’d stayed in GB til a better job came along. Really hope it works out for him. Dolphins are screwing with peoples lives….Ireland needs to do his job…which I’m positive is to put together the best opportunity to win. Sounds like an ex-GM from Detroit. Get the heck out of dodge and get someone in there who’s has the personality and smarts to get the job done.

  13. watermelon1 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:44 AM

    You can’t say they traded up to get their first real franchise QB in a long time… But then refer to it as mortgaging the future. You can always trade to get draft picks… But theres no guarantee a Robert griffin or anything even close will be in the next 3 drafts. And really, they only give up the next two years 1st rounders. This years pick is upgraded and USED to draft griffin.

  14. bartpkelly says: Mar 19, 2012 9:45 AM

    Brees to the Browns!!! LOL

  15. xtb3 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:47 AM

    Means little in most cases. Last year’s biggest winner EVERYONE said eere the Eagles who immediately were made favorites in the NFC and more. Last year many said Giants were the biggest losers. Losing talent like Sreve Smit, Boss, O’Hara, Seubert and others adding adding only a center Bass who 48ers did not even use as theur center. How’d the Eagles and how’d the Giants do last season?

  16. bigfan2011 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:47 AM

    Carr was replaced by Routt before free agency began. If you add him to the list of free agents it makes the case even stronger.

  17. jjackwagon says: Mar 19, 2012 9:47 AM

    MF thanks for pushing the myth that the AFC West is the weakest Division in the NFL but you should check your stats. The NFC East and the AFC South both had a lower regular season winning percentage. So how do you define “Weakest”?

    @ arm57 – The Chiefs did replace their #2 CB they sign Stanford Routt for less money. Routt had almost identical numbers to Carr but had more penalties. Hopefully he will gain some discipline now that he has moved away from the Raiders squad

  18. ravenution says: Mar 19, 2012 9:47 AM

    There’s no trophy for the offseason. Right Philly?

  19. southpaw2k says: Mar 19, 2012 9:47 AM

    Kinda hard to argue with the Ravens being a loser in free agency. Losing Grubbs was definitely the biggest loss, but losing Johnson really hurt too. Johnson’s a very underrated player since he plays alongside Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, and Haloti Ngata, so I’m happy he got paid and hope he does well in San Diego. It’s just a bummer that the team has such little cap space to even keep those guys, much less lure new names to the team. Between the losses in free agency and a tough schedule for next season, I’d be surprised if the Ravens win more than 10 games in 2012.

  20. paulsmith107 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:48 AM

    So the two teams that were the most active ie cowboys and Tampa get no love and the bengals and browns surely should have been listed as losers

  21. slowclyde86 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:49 AM

    The last point(s) about the Redskins is pretty silly. Which is it in your opinion—overall good or bad? The team will only have one record, not two.

  22. camdenyard says: Mar 19, 2012 9:49 AM

    So the Ravens are “losers” in free agency on March 19. Interesting. Even though Grubbs is the only one of the those that left that they really made a serious attempt to keep.

    I guess you haven’t been paying attention to how Ozzie Newsome manages things this time of year.

  23. germaine93 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:50 AM

    Hey arm57, actually chiefs picked up a good number 2 cb is routt from oak, so they did replace car at waaaay less money. We didn’t overspend and got quality players. A def win

  24. xpensivewinos says: Mar 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    Ireland is the much bigger problem. A talented GM can cover up the mistakes a novice owner makes.

    Miami is a pathetic joke and to make things worse, the team is completely devoid of talent on offense, three straight losing seasons with no hope of winning their division and they had virtually zero salary cap space. That’s on the GM. He’s not evaluating talent (or contracts) properly. The Harbaugh deal is uglier for Ireland because he should have had the stones to tell Ross it was wrong and not to do it. He betrayed a friend, an employee of the team he was joined at the hip with and most importantly, destroyed any credibility Sparano had with the team internally. No way, someone who is as negatively perceived by the public as Ireland could ever recover from that.

    It would be great if Ross sold the team, but he won’t. They will continue to circle the drain as long as Ireland is GM. My pontificating is irrelevant. When in the history of the NFL has another player come out (like Clark did yesterday) and said something like that about another organization and more specifically, it’s GM. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

    There’s essentially 31 teams in the league…..

  25. cob2127 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    seriously the Bucs sign 3 of you top 30 free agents on you list you add to every post, all positions of need and they cant crack the top 5 but teams that havent done jack are in there dumbest list ever

  26. airstreamtex says: Mar 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    Redskins did what they had to do…vikings need to sign michael bush and LaRon Landry but need to be recognized for addition by subtraction. Kalil will allow the entire o-line to get where it needs to be…ala lose average left tackle, gain solid left guard by sliding Johnson over. defense scares me…laron brings a presence. bring him and Melvin Bullitt in with Cook and Winfield and the secondary suddenly isnt high school caliber. and like everyone has mentioned…until the games are played, these moves dont really mean squat yet.

  27. nxneva says: Mar 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    The ‘skins have “won” the offseason enough. Please calls us loosers so we can get on to winning games.

  28. nyhealingpoints says: Mar 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    This seems more like an episode of “mean girls”. Let’s just pick winners if the current cool team and call the not cool teams losers. Re we that desperate for reactionary judgement calls?

  29. sprtly says: Mar 19, 2012 9:55 AM

    How do you not consider the 49ers a huge winner thus far? They managed to resign all of their major fee agents, plus picking up a few receivers to boot.

    Peyton or not, the niners Baalke did a great job signing and most importantly – resigning.

  30. vbe2 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:55 AM

    Special Monday 10-pack: Winners and losers in free agency

    Posted by Mike Flunkio on March 19, 2012, 9:32 AM EDT

    “Mortgaging the future by giving up three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick possibly will make them losers.”
    ==================================

    They ‘gave up’ two first round picks. They still have a first round pick in 2012.

  31. racerx1225 says: Mar 19, 2012 9:59 AM

    Chiefs def a winner. Also they got Stanford Routt CB form the Raiders. They are a vastly improved team on both sides of the ball already.

    The Pats signing Trevor Scott is a plus? The guy , who I loved as a Raider, is nowhere near his old form and they’ve done nothing to address the pass rush yet. FAIL!

  32. yevrag3535 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    Ray Lewis should habg it up. He’s “ACT” is old and not any good anymore. He is a liability on the team, he is past his prime. All the re game dancing and yelling doesn’t scare anyone.

  33. bleed4philly says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    Yay, we won!

  34. scottdragosnai says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    And what about the ones asleep at the wheel i.e.
    Cleveland, NEP, Jets etc??
    Scott Dragos NAI

  35. benacci says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    How’s is the Patriots getting Gonzalez winning, and how is he a threat to Welker?

  36. mikewhorio says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    Way too early to determine the free agent winners. Ironically, the losers will probably be the teams that have already bought a bunch of free agents because they likely overpaid. The real winners will be in the coming weeks when the good values are there.

  37. Steeley McBeam says: Mar 19, 2012 10:00 AM

    I’d say the Steelers could be considered winners based on the fact they took a gamble on Mike Wallace which looks like it will pay off after the 9ers picked up Moss and Manningham and the Pats Lloyd. Saved them $7 mill in cap difference using the tender not the franchise.

    Funny seeing the Ravens in the ‘losers’ category considering their fans swear up and down Oz know all and the players they lost dont mean anything.

  38. fwippel says: Mar 19, 2012 10:02 AM

    The Vikings should be at the top of the loser list. For a team with so many holes in the secondary, the OL, and at WR, they’ve done NOTHING the first week of FA to improve themselves.

    Furthermore, they spend $11 million guaranteed on a backup TE who hasn’t been healthy since 2008, despite the fact that they don’t need another TE, with two young studs already on the roster.

    If this is all the action this team is going to take during FA, they can forget selling out their games this year. For a team trying desperately to get a new stadium built, you’d think they’d at least make an effort to put a quality product on the field.

  39. thraiderskin says: Mar 19, 2012 10:02 AM

    Fair enough on the Redskins, naturally time will tell.

  40. racerp194 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:03 AM

    It’s funny that he said the ravens are losers but the packers are winners when both teams use the same approach in free agency. Losing grubbs sucks but ozzie has a good track record of letting players who are past their prime go. The ravens have some quality young players ready to make a splash,let’s see how they do before calling them losers. Remember the eagles were big winners last off season, but how did that turn out?

  41. biglare3421 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:04 AM

    Didn’t you say on Paul Allen’s radio show before the start of free agency that it’s a mistake for the Vikings to over pay in free agency for a big name? Didn’t you accuse PA of being a fantasy football type fan and wanting go for that big name guy and then saying that’s the wrong approach?

  42. 4tigerbait says: Mar 19, 2012 10:04 AM

    I think the Saints have done OK all things considered. Once Drew was Franchised we expected to lose Colston and Nicks. We lost Nicks, but signed Pro Bowler Grubbs. The saved money allowed us to keep Colston.

    As far as Drew, problem is his agent Tom Condon. We are trying to pay him like Brady and Vick, but with more guaranteed money. Condon wants Paytons contract that he signed with Colts. How well did that work out for Payton???

  43. tinkletinkleonyourstar says: Mar 19, 2012 10:06 AM

    who on the eagles roster from last year got let go making them no longer the “dream team”?

    just because they failed miserably last year doesn’t mean that they’re not the same “dream team”!!

  44. savocabol1 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:08 AM

    In what messed up world does landing Brady Quinn mean you won?

  45. ahostiletakeover says: Mar 19, 2012 10:09 AM

    You guys are idiots for running this, free agency isn’t even over yet…technically it won’t be over until the ’12 season is. So call it what this really is: Making assumptions less than 2 weeks into free agency based on which teams have the most and least cap space.

  46. jasonvining says: Mar 19, 2012 10:10 AM

    What a terrible article, all around. The title is “winners & losers of FA,” yet the top 2 “winners” did next to nothing in FA. You should add yourself to the list of born losers.

  47. gabe77 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:12 AM

    I’m not sure how anyone can consider the Eagles to be free agency winners. Yes, they signed some core players to longer terms deals that keep those players in Philly under relatively team friendly deals but let’s be clear that this team is not winning. Owner Jeffrey Lurie went in front of the media and proclaimed that last year’s results were unacceptable, certain things needed to change and that Andy Reid specifically needed to do a better job. All we have seen so far is Andy’s complete and total unwillingness to change. Sure, they swapped out DB coaches but let’s be honest, that was not why this team failed to meet expectations last year (or in any of Andy’s 13 seasons). It is the same old story, year after year. They’ll win 10+ games and make the playoffs and everyone will praise Andy for staying the course, being so committed to his system and all of the much nicer ways of saying he’s a stubborn mule. Then they’ll lose in the 1st round. Same old, same old. There’s a reason why Andy has a ~ .430 winning percentage against teams with a .500 or greater record…

  48. frozengolf says: Mar 19, 2012 10:12 AM

    So the Vikings are losers for not signing any big name free agents? Have they not done that the last, what, 8 years and not won anything? You praise Ted Thompson for building through the draft, but when the vikings start to try and model their rebuild on the Packers, you label them losers. Give them credit for trying something new.

  49. myvickinabox14 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:13 AM

    So the Redskins may or may not play some type of sport or football or engage in some type of physical activity sometime in the future maybe, with some people

  50. bigred12 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:15 AM

    Vikings needed a WR and now there’s nothing left on the market. Way to go, Spielman.

  51. vegaskid21 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:16 AM

    Don’t forget; there is a team in Tampa Bay.

  52. henson58 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:16 AM

    the Bengals don’t need to land a big name they are just fine. they’ll sign Michael bush. they’ve got nelson back added some depth in the secondary with Allen. I think u just wanna hate on mike brown cause he did nothing wrong last year he’s built this team for short and long term success.

  53. ezmagic says: Mar 19, 2012 10:18 AM

    How about the bucs mike? Or is it too obvious they are the top winner?

  54. bucforever says: Mar 19, 2012 10:19 AM

    I think the Bucs are big winners so far and when / if they land Curtis Lofton they should be at the top of your next “list”. Go Bucs!

  55. r2dtox says: Mar 19, 2012 10:19 AM

    This was dumb on so many levels.

  56. chiefsfan88 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:19 AM

    Well Stanford routte would be carrs replacement so someone doesn’t pay attention to football but yet still find a need to make themselves look stupid in front of everyone

  57. brooks07 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:21 AM

    As several have said before me, the exclusion of the Bucs from the winners list really makes this whole article useless.

  58. zn0rseman says: Mar 19, 2012 10:23 AM

    Interesting how the “big winners” in free agency are always the big losers when football starts up.

  59. giantsamongmanning says: Mar 19, 2012 10:25 AM

    I don’t understand why people are still arguing how many 1st round picks the ‘Skins gave up. They gave up their 1st round pick in 2013, that’s one (1), they gave up their 1st round pick in 2014, that’s two (2), they gave up their 1st round pick in this years draft, that’s three (3).

    To be clear, they used to have the 6th pick in this years draft, they do not have that pick anymore, which means……..they gave it up. It’s really not debatable.

  60. squared80 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:25 AM

    For the Vikings, let’s not forget the players they re-signed before FA began, and their own players they plan to still resign. Next year, we have a LOT of players’ contracts coming up, and let’s not forget… under the new CBA, we can carry any cap space over to the following year.

    Am I happy with the signing of sir drops-a-lot and attitude problem Carlson? Nope. Do I wish they would’ve signed Nicks, Grubbs, Carr, or Finnagan? Yep. But I can see where they’re coming from.

    THE VIKINGS ARE NOT ONE BIG FREE AGENT AWAY FROM CONTENDING.

  61. jrcoop says: Mar 19, 2012 10:29 AM

    Ever notice how the off season winners seldom amount to much in the regular season. The list of examples is to long to type.

  62. gdeli says: Mar 19, 2012 10:29 AM

    The vikes are doomed so far. People out the door and who replaces them? time to be a packer fan? IDN trust the vikes. 50+years of nothing. wow.

  63. jeff d. says: Mar 19, 2012 10:33 AM

    LOL- Winners and Losers in free agency – according to who? Some schmo from NBC? LOL.

    Hey, weren’t the Redskins big winners with the Albert Haynesworth acquisition? What about the Eagles last year? The Dream Team…

    Stupid. Winners are the teams who don’t overspend on someone elses trash.

  64. ibangrocks4fun says: Mar 19, 2012 10:34 AM

    No such thing like an Eagles article without using the two magical words. Can you guess them? Yeah me neither.

  65. 611jmp says: Mar 19, 2012 10:35 AM

    Winner Chiefs?? If luring former Browns to your team makes you a winner, I suppose…

  66. rufustfireflyjr says: Mar 19, 2012 10:35 AM

    The ‘Skins have been “off-season champions” a number of times during Dan Snyder’s tenure as owner, and what has it gotten them? A decade – plus of mediocrity, with over-the-hill players and malcontents getting small mountains of money.

    However, since Shanahan and Allen have taken over, the team’s approach to free agency has changed. Now we go after younger players with upside (Bowen, Cofield and Josh Wilson last year, Garcon and Morgan this). Granted, Garcon’s and Morgan’s production to date has not warranted the contracts that they signed. But you don’t get bargains in the first few days of free agency, and they’re being signed as much for their potential, anyway. At 25 and 26 (or thereabouts), they are just entering their primes and figure to improve.

    Plus, they are young enough so that they still figure to be capable players when RGIII hits his stride as a QB. The development of these players over the next few years will tell the tale as to whether the ‘Skins were winners this offseason.

  67. glenne81 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:35 AM

    The Vikings have done nothing to indicate that they are even attempting to be a .500 team this year.

  68. vincentbojackson says: Mar 19, 2012 10:37 AM

    You can’t win in March, but you can certainly lose in March if several of your own starters and role players decide to leave.

    If you’re not getting better, you’re getting worse.

  69. claypigeon49 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:37 AM

    “Mortgaging the future by giving up three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick possibly will make them losers.”
    ==================================

    They ‘gave up’ two first round picks. They still have a first round pick in 2012.

    ==================================

    And when they use that pick to draft RG3, they will have used three first round and a second round picks to do so.

  70. quizguy66 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:40 AM

    Jury is still out on free agency – premature to fully apply winner/loser tags.

    A lot of the list is ridiculous though. The Bengals would’ve been “winners” if they had pretended to do something instead of sticking to what now appears to be a clear game plan – don’t overpay in the first couple days of free agency. They played a game of chicken with Reggie Nelson (by franchising Nugent) and ended up winning by keeping him.

    I was very skeptical of the slow start to free agency, but it’s picked up and frankly the contracts given in the first few days were ridiculous. Only guy we lost that I would’ve taken back at the price he signed for was Fanene.

    -QG

  71. joonya33 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:40 AM

    The Bucs are CLEARLY among the winners in free agency. Not only did they get 3 of the top 10 best free agents from YOUR list, but they have gotten an apathetic fanbase once again excited about this team. They didn’t just blow money like the Eagles, either. They addressed areas of need with high quality players. I’m not saying that Tampa is back in contention. There are still many holes, but it is the start of something positive.

    Just because it is the obvious pick, doesn’t mean it is the wrong one.

  72. dolphandan says: Mar 19, 2012 10:41 AM

    Good thing the Dolphins already have a starting quarterback named Matt Moore.

  73. nfl1818 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:42 AM

    Pats signed 3 guys not listed

  74. hdahs143 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:45 AM

    The fact of the matter is, the difference between Matt Moore, and Alex Smith is a coin flip. Flynn doesn’t have enough of a resume to know. But I am comfortable in that if Philbin wanted him, they would have worked it out. The comment about “if they really didn’t want him, they shouldn’t have bought him in” is just as absurd as this article, and a good portion of the “Enquirer ” style of writing, that floods this website.

  75. rabidbillsfan says: Mar 19, 2012 10:46 AM

    Ok, any team that would have gone after Williams would have been just as likely to sign him to a 9 figure salary as the Bills, let’s not kid ourselves. Alot of people point to the fact he averages 9 sacks a year, and he does, but he didn’t have the talent around him like he does on the Bills D-line. Look what Jared Allen did in Minny while he flanked the “Williams Wall”. Also, I will point to this all season until proven otherwise, Reggie White. Williams may not be as dominant, but the Packers team didn’t have as much talent (On Defense) as the Bills do when White signed in ’93. I see a young Favre in Fitz, Gunslinger, tough as nails, and a competitor. From ’93-’96, White was the reason the Packers succeeded, not Favre. If this D can be what it’s supposed to be, that takes ALOT of pressure off of the offense to put up 35+ points a game. 9-7, Playoffs, could be a weak AFC field this year.

  76. stunzeed5 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:46 AM

    Redskins went from one of the oldest/slowest teams over the course of 2 seasons to one of the youngest/fastest w/up and comers Roy Helu, Freddie Davis, Pierre Garcon, Morgan…..even Evan Royster….and they are about to add a 22 y/o stud in RGIII. Defense is fine despite an old man at LB who will hopefully resign soon and a suddenly suspect secondary. All that equals overall = winners in the long run.

    BTW…..RGIII 22….rest of the NFC East QB’s 32+

  77. zoxitic says: Mar 19, 2012 10:47 AM

    I’m not a fan of Tampa Bay, but how do they not make the list?

    I don’t think you put enough thought into this article.

  78. keirster says: Mar 19, 2012 10:47 AM

    Still no amendment to incluse the Bucs?

  79. noquickreactionshere says: Mar 19, 2012 10:47 AM

    If your a “Winner” 1 week into free agency you will be a “Loser” 17 weeks into the regular season. Teams that have great cornerstones in place do not need to go out and spend big money week 1 of free agency and they can afford to lose a role player or two.

    My guess is the Saints and Ravens will be fine… just a hunch.

  80. chipwrecked says: Mar 19, 2012 10:47 AM

    I agree that the Chiefs are making some moves, but Brady Quinn, Stanford Routt, & Kevin Boss??? I’m not sure that they are good enough players to call the Chiefs winners. However, keeping Bowe was a nice move… and Winston is a solid (not Pro Bowl) player. They still need a QB. Cassell is average. They would have been well served keeping Orton or going after Flynn. One last thing, Chiefs fans – don’t get your hopes up about Routt replacing Carr. Bad attitude and not a team player. Lead the league in penalties.

  81. dkrause71 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:48 AM

    “Mortgaging the future by giving up three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick possibly will make them losers.”
    ==================================

    They ‘gave up’ two first round picks. They still have a first round pick in 2012.

    =================================
    They gave up three first round picks and a #2 for a first round pick. Stating anything else is just semantics for the sake of being a douche.

    Either comment is correct. They did literally trade three #1s and a #2 for the #1. They also did swap #1′s and add two #1s and a #2. That some of you continually post the latter like your clever just makes you come across as argumentative just for the sake of acting superior.

  82. stunzeed5 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:48 AM

    @stunzeed readers

    I meant “re-sign” in regards to London Fletcher, not “resign”. That word really has opposite meanings when it comes to sports! Whoops.

  83. rmc1995 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:50 AM

    I don’t understand the loser tag for a team like the Ravens that always has a plan. Grubbs is somewhat of a painful loss, but offensive lineman are overrated in today’s NFL. The Ravens love McPhee and losing Redding simply allows McPhee to take the next step. Losing Double could hurt in the locker room, but Kruger can manage OK and may give Sergio Kindle a chance to play. By losing these guys the Ravens are more likely to afford to match an offer to Webb. The Ravens draft mid to late round and sign undrafted free agents for linebacker and safety that are always in the mix. They are also willing to start a rookie on the oline drafted .

  84. sweetnlow44 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:51 AM

    Tampa Bay and Seattle.

  85. tlaw21 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:52 AM

    @airstreamtext why would you want two starting strong safeties on your team????? Especially Landry who hasn’t who hasn’t played a whole season since 2009 is below average in pass support even with 4.34 speed and in 60 career games only has 4 INTs and will go for a flying missile head hit for 15 yard penalty every time; however if he stays healthy and you have a solid center field Free safety then he would be great to let him do what he does best fly around in that box around the line of scrimmage and hit people. He hasn’t been signed yet because it’s more about the incentives and the years of the contract. He wants guaranteed money but teams wont do it because of his achilles.

  86. sgtr0c says: Mar 19, 2012 10:53 AM

    Wow, Eagles went from worst(FA last year) to first. Now, let’s see if any of this means anything when the season starts…….

    Remember, last year, GB had the SB in their pocket and the nfc west was a push over division. Funny how much NFL changes year to year

  87. mrslay1 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:54 AM

    From what I’ve seen the Cowboys have done a tremendous job along with the Cheifs.

  88. blue22ro says: Mar 19, 2012 10:55 AM

    The Bucs and the Cowboys??

  89. cowboyhater says: Mar 19, 2012 10:56 AM

    Every team in the NFL has players that have made significant contributions to their organizations that were picked up via free agency, but we seem to focus on the duds. If you go down each roster, there is a free agent that has made a huge difference on their new team, so this list is ridiculous, and you really can’t grade until the after the season is over. Oh, and yes, you just had to make another comment on the Redskins. All readers on this site, please remember the owner of this team is not a reflection of the fan base. The DC area has the most loyal fans around, which is why PFT continues to put comments about the skins on this site. If you just look at the comments, most come from the skins fans. Think about it folks.

  90. vbe2 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:57 AM

    claypigeon49 says:Mar 19, 2012 10:37 AM

    “Mortgaging the future by giving up three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick possibly will make them losers.”
    ==================================

    They ‘gave up’ two first round picks. They still have a first round pick in 2012.

    ==================================

    And when they use that pick to draft RG3, they will have used three first round and a second round picks to do so.

    **********************************************
    ==================================
    **********************************************

    They will still have their 2012 1st round pick once the draft is over though, it will be represented on their roster in the form of whoever they pick.

    So they didn’t “give up” three first round picks, they “gave up” two so that they could use and keep one first round pick. If they “gave up” three first round picks, they wouldn’t have a pick left to take Griffin.

  91. tlaw21 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:57 AM

    @giantsamongmanning they are arguing because you’re wrong they didn’t same thing you guys did with Eli. They GAVE UP 1sts from 13 and 14 but this year they SWAPPED their 6 for the 2nd overall just like the Giants gave up a 1st in 05 and swapped the 4th for the 1st overall for Eli. I can see where you and everybody is coming from but in NFL jargon they technically swapped the picks so they only gave up two firsts

  92. xxwhodatxx says: Mar 19, 2012 10:59 AM

    So let me get this right The Packs D is terrible and they did nothing but they are winners?

  93. purplengold says: Mar 19, 2012 11:04 AM

    glenne81 says:Mar 19, 2012 10:35 AM

    The Vikings have done nothing to indicate that they are even attempting to be a .500 team this year.

    Yes, circling the drain earlier than usual this season.

  94. atrophiedambitions says: Mar 19, 2012 11:12 AM

    arm57romg says:
    Mar 19, 2012 9:35 AM
    Chiefs are winners even though they lost their #2 CB and didn’t really replace him.
    ______________________________

    Chiefs did replace him with Stanford Routt who was signed early and for some reason wasn’t mentioned in this article.

  95. conormacleod says: Mar 19, 2012 11:12 AM

    The Vikings are 5-6 good players and 2 years away from competing in their division. They are poising themselves to not contend this year, but then contend for numerous years after that. But they should sign one big name to appease the fan base? So they can go what, 6-10, and miss the playoffs anyway? Appeasing the fan base will be making it back to the playoffs and possibly making a run to the Superbowl. And that is what they are lining the team up to do in the future. Everybody should realize listening to the fan base will never get you anywhere. That’s why we are fans and not running an NFL team.

  96. cincyorangenblack says: Mar 19, 2012 11:13 AM

    on gripe is during the Bengals piece:

    “The fans won’t embrace the franchise they way they should, however, until they see large chunks of their money being reinvested in players who can help the team compete for a championship”

    should read :

    The fans won’t RE-embrace the franchise they way they USED TO, however, until they see large chunks of their money being reinvested in players who can help the team compete for a championship, OR ATLEAST UNTIL OWNERSHIP PROVES THEY ARE TRYING TO WIN CONSISTENTLY”

    that being said, all 3 signings were very good and will open the draft up a little for us. Now re-sign Pacman, Sims, and B Johnson

  97. radrhatr says: Mar 19, 2012 11:14 AM

    @nfl1818 says: Mar 19, 2012 10:42 AM

    Pats signed 3 guys not listed.

    Yes they did. They also just got Denver’s TE. The DT from Cincy is good too!

  98. stunzeed5 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:15 AM

    “gave up” = nothing tangible in return
    “swapped” = tangible and improved positioning

    Redskins “gave up” a first in 13′ and 14′ and a third this year. They “swapped” for positioning in the first round this year. Even ESPN changed their head line to “Swapped in the first round and GAVE up future picks”. But people (see: tards) will try to squeeze any anti-Redskin sentiment out because it’s so 1999 to insult Snyder and the brass and they want to join the herd of brain-dead message board sheep.

    Anyone who cannot see the difference between “gave up” and “swapped” should log out of here and go update their fantasy WNBA team.

  99. ftblfan9 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:19 AM

    I loved the trade-off from V. Jackson to Meachem, factoring in $ and talent. SD was a clear winner.

  100. tiger2471 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:21 AM

    The Skins are definitely winners, they did what they had to do and that is get a franchise QB and some receivers. But they definitely need to shore up their offensive line and get a safety/corner, although free agency isn’t over and we also have the draft. I can’t understand how you call the Bills winners for giving Mario Williams $50 million guaranteed, when they have other needs, and what is also interesting is the Texans lack of trying to retain him. Obviously they knew he wasn’t worth that much money, C’mon man! How are the Patriots winners, they signed that bum Brandon Lloyd? When did Brandon Lloyd become a superstar?

  101. canedaddy says: Mar 19, 2012 11:23 AM

    So Cory Redding “bolted for greener pastures” by going from one of the best teams in the league to the worst? You guys might want to learn what that means.

  102. besdayz says: Mar 19, 2012 11:25 AM

    iT Almost like no thought went into this.

    Saints replaced nicks with grubbs, kept colston, and only really lost meachem who is very replaceable. Not signing brees is tough but it will get done so its not really a big worry. All things considered this was a decent turn to a potentially disasterous exodus.
    Think they’re about to sign Brokerick Bunkely at NT.

    Packers got worse at OL, backup QB, and didnt’ address their weak pass rush.

  103. kacapaco says: Mar 19, 2012 11:26 AM

    Jets – losers for Sanchez contract and still fail to fix anything on the rosters.
    Pats- neither winer nor loser cos biggest weakness have been on D, but fixed nothing.

  104. jdfrox says: Mar 19, 2012 11:28 AM

    Patience is a virtue my friends. And one the Ravens know well. The dust may be settling a bit, but things are far from over. Now is when the market for second tier free agents gets started and that is when the real teams supplment their rosters with solid, underpriced veterans. The Ravens have yet to make any moves because they really don’t NEED to make any moves. Could they use a veteran WR? Sure. Could they upgrade their O-line? Sure. Do they need to? Know. Bottom line is that if any of the guys they lost in free agency went down with an injury this past year, few people would have even noticed.

  105. quizguy66 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:29 AM

    LOL move the Bengals from losers to neutral/unlisted and move the Bucs to winners.

    Problem solved :)

    -QG

  106. CKL says: Mar 19, 2012 11:33 AM

    Check out Mario Williams’ new twitter account avatar @bbwolf90. Even as a Pats fan I love it, too funny.

  107. drewmca says: Mar 19, 2012 11:39 AM

    They will still have their 2012 1st round pick once the draft is over though, it will be represented on their roster in the form of whoever they pick.

    So they didn’t “give up” three first round picks, they “gave up” two so that they could use and keep one first round pick. If they “gave up” three first round picks, they wouldn’t have a pick left to take Griffin.
    *******************
    They will still have their 2012 1st round pick once the draft is over though, it will be represented on their roster in the form of whoever they pick.
    *******************
    No, no, and no. Skins fans keep playing semantic games but the facts remain unchanged. You had a #6 pick this year, and you don’t have it now. The #6 pick will not be represented on your roster. The #2 pick will. You have up your #6, next year’s 1st round, and the 1st rounder for the year after that. Plus a second. You gave them up. How do I know you have them up? Because you don’t have them anymore.

    You’re ignoring the fact that position has value. The #6 pick is more valuable than the #7. The #2 is more valuable than the #6. They’re not “swapped” because they don’t have the same value. They’re not both $20 bills. One is stock in Apple, the other is stock in Enron. If you traded a share of Enron and a bunch of other stuff for a share of Apple, you’re not just giving up the other stuff and “swapping” shares. Values are different. If it was as simple as swapping, implying the same value, you wouldn’t have needed the other picks to sweeten the pot.

    Hell, all of that is irrelevant anyway. You had the #6, you don’t now. So you gave it up. You keep trying to make this seem like a shrewd deal, or like you need to somehow make it seem less ridiculously overpaid, and you’re failing.

  108. gb4mn0 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:41 AM

    8. Loser: Vikings
    ———————————————-

    Nuff said!!!!!!!!!! LMAO

  109. umrguy42 says: Mar 19, 2012 11:45 AM

    “It never stopped the Colts from being competitive when Peyton got every last dollar he could.”

    Competitive, maybe, but it only got him one ring and one additional appearance. Brees has the ring, I think he’d like more than to just be in one more Super Bowl. (As would the rest of the Saints organization.)

  110. jimmysee says: Mar 19, 2012 11:54 AM

    What the Packers “did” to “win” in free agency was NOT to sign any overpriced over the hill free agent(s) and risk losing the two high compensatory draft picks they are likely to see for the losses of Flynn and Wells.

    Completely consistent with team philosophy.

    Worked well so far.

    Also, undrafted free agents know Green Bay is a place where they’ll get a true shot to make the team and play.

    Case in point — Tori Gurley, a wide receiver, undrafted, who spent last year on the practice squad, turned down an offer during the season from another NFL team to get on its 54 man roster, and is looking good to make the team this year.

  111. 4thqtrsaint says: Mar 19, 2012 12:01 PM

    Here’s what I love about the media. In this article, Brees is “the best quarterback in the last 6 years”. But if you ask them to rank top quarterbacks, you get Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Petyon Manning, THEN Drew Brees. In the last 6 years he’s been on MVP watch 2 or 3 times, but can’t win it.
    Saints fans know he’s that good. The media can’t make up their mind.

  112. dontouchmyjunk says: Mar 19, 2012 12:09 PM

    The redskins had hall of famer Sonny Jurgensen at QB (thanks to the eagles) decades after Baugh. One could also call joe theismann a franchise QB.

  113. noquickreactionshere says: Mar 19, 2012 12:12 PM

    The Skins are definitely winners, they did what they had to do and that is get a franchise QB and some receivers. But they definitely need to shore up their offensive line and get a safety/corner, although free agency isn’t over and we also have the draft.

    _________________________________

    How do they shore up the Oline and get a saftey/corner after paying Garcon 45 Million? They wasted half of the salary cap in Garcon/Morgan/Merriweather, not to mention the picks over the next 3 years the lost to get RGIII. Oh yea, you also have to pay RGIII so save some room there, not that he can get Sam Bradford money anymore but you still not getting away wtih 1 mil or 2 for him.

    That is why the are losers, I was hopefull that the Ravens would get Garcon thinking “He’s not the best out there but he’s a solid number 2 and they should be able to grab him for 6-9 million over a few years.” Then I saw him sign for 45 Million and my jaw hit the floor, I thought the article accedentally put his name in instead of Vincent Jackson.

    Redskins suck

  114. apm says: Mar 19, 2012 12:20 PM

    Wondering if the Packers are expecting Peter Konz to be available at #28.

  115. jimmymcnultysbottleofjameson says: Mar 19, 2012 12:22 PM

    “Three already have bolted for greener pastures: defensive end Cory Redding, linebacker Jarret Johnson, and guard Ben Grubbs.”

    ______________

    If and only if by “greener pastures” you mean money, because there aren’t many better situations in the NFL than what’s going on in Baltimore. Ravens are beast and the org is beast. Ozzie doesn’t care, he just says next man up. Just remember that we were basically in the Super Bowl with another half second of Lee Evans holding the ball.

  116. duece5 says: Mar 19, 2012 12:29 PM

    gb4mn0 says:Mar 19, 2012 11:41 AM

    8. Loser: Vikings
    ———————————————-

    Nuff said!!!!!!!!!! LMAO

    duece5 says:

    I thought the packers were the losers……at 15-1, the FIRST TEAM IN NFL HSTORY TO GET DRILLED AND LOSE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS!!!

    EPIC FAIL!!!!!

    LMAO…..

    Pukes= DISCOUNT DOUBLE CHOKE!!!!!!!

  117. jameslongstaffe says: Mar 19, 2012 12:32 PM

    San Diego Chargers are winners:) Retained Hardwick & Gaither to steady the front ranks! Robert Meachem & Eddie Royal (can help offset loss of Sproles) are tremendous additions to receivers Malcom Floyd (who was just as effective as VJ when healthy, & from what I can see has not had any major injuries) & Vincent Brown. With Ryan Mathews in the backfield, Antonio Gates & Philip Rivers… Norv Turner will be at his creative best! Added Jarret Johnson for toughness in the front 7, & addressed fullback position & strong safety with veteran additions. I would anticipate they will further address pass rush & strong safety, as well as OLine depth in the draft. Anyone that has followed the Chargers over the years, would see that they have been really close for a long time… every year has been a different story, same ending. Some of it has been tough luck for sure:( It is not easy to win a Super Bowl, just ask Peyton Manning who only has 1. Personally, I would say thank you to the Spanos family for sticking to the people they believe in, including AJ Smith & Norv Turner:)

  118. opneon says: Mar 19, 2012 12:49 PM

    This is typical for the Ravens, but Ozzie USUALLY comes through by September. In 2011 they started with an O-line that hadn’t played one game together, and then went on to embareass the Squealers in the first game. So, they won’t make a big splash like the Eagles last year, but rather will slowly & methodically get it together like Pbg, GBay, and other stable teams. And just like Pittsburgh, players leave Baltimore every year to make better money – and usually are never heard from again (especially on defense). Ray is getting old but he makes everyone around him better. But I also realize we’re nearing the end of that era. However…
    In Oz We Trust.

  119. skinsdiehard says: Mar 19, 2012 12:54 PM

    This is unbelievable! Even when the Skins fly under the radar and NOT sign splashy big-names, they get labeled as losers. They only signed two receivers. What’s the big deal? They weren’t Vincent Jackson, DeSean Jackson, Mario Manningham, Randy Moss, Brandon Lloyd or Plaxico Burress. I assume if the Skins did sign any of them, it would have been lamblasted while the teams that DID sign those players are praised. The Skins cannot win no matter what they do in cetain folks eyes. I just wish folks just stop concentrating on the Skins. They cannot prove the naysayers wrong in the offseason. They just have to win games. For a team that is not so good, we sure garner a lot of attention. PFT should focus on the Browns or Vikings or somebody else. Geez.

  120. oldbyrd says: Mar 19, 2012 1:31 PM

    Eagles need to quickly resign Manny, Moe and jack. The Pep Boys Linebackers. Please don’t tell me they are doing nothing at linebacker?????

  121. nopepper123 says: Mar 19, 2012 1:49 PM

    Packers are not Losers??? Let see, they had one of the worst defensive teams in the NFL last season and it was heavily exposed in the playoffs. Lesson was learned that you can’t just mail in a championship. I don’t think that you can be a “Winner” for doing nothing when you are not the Super Bowl Champion!!

  122. markdamack says: Mar 19, 2012 2:09 PM

    drewmca says:
    Mar 19, 2012 11:39 AM
    They will still have their 2012 1st round pick once the draft is over though, it will be represented on their roster in the form of whoever they pick.

    So they didn’t “give up” three first round picks, they “gave up” two so that they could use and keep one first round pick. If they “gave up” three first round picks, they wouldn’t have a pick left to take Griffin.
    *******************
    They will still have their 2012 1st round pick once the draft is over though, it will be represented on their roster in the form of whoever they pick.
    *******************
    No, no, and no. Skins fans keep playing semantic games but the facts remain unchanged. You had a #6 pick this year, and you don’t have it now. The #6 pick will not be represented on your roster. The #2 pick will. You have up your #6, next year’s 1st round, and the 1st rounder for the year after that. Plus a second. You gave them up. How do I know you have them up? Because you don’t have them anymore.

    You’re ignoring the fact that position has value. The #6 pick is more valuable than the #7. The #2 is more valuable than the #6. They’re not “swapped” because they don’t have the same value. They’re not both $20 bills. One is stock in Apple, the other is stock in Enron. If you traded a share of Enron and a bunch of other stuff for a share of Apple, you’re not just giving up the other stuff and “swapping” shares. Values are different. If it was as simple as swapping, implying the same value, you wouldn’t have needed the other picks to sweeten the pot.

    Hell, all of that is irrelevant anyway. You had the #6, you don’t now. So you gave it up. You keep trying to make this seem like a shrewd deal, or like you need to somehow make it seem less ridiculously overpaid, and you’re failing.

    ————————————————–

    So, I’m a Cowboys fan…and I have to say your logic is a little off.

    I don’t like the Redskins at all, but to say they didn’t “swap” their 1st round picks this year is wrong.

    If im driving a Pinto, and somebody wants it…and they give me their Porche 911….we still swapped cars. The other picks in later drafts, yes…they gave up but that has nothing to do with your argument that they didnt swap picks this year. To make it out like they didn’t swap picks this year is a little insane. Just because one is more valuable than the other doesn’t change anything.

  123. rwf1984 says: Mar 19, 2012 3:30 PM

    Tough pill to swallow (or not) but they nailed it on the head with the Vikings!

  124. tiger2471 says: Mar 19, 2012 4:04 PM

    “noquickreactionshere says: Mar 19, 2012 12:12 PM

    The Skins are definitely winners, they did what they had to do and that is get a franchise QB and some receivers. But they definitely need to shore up their offensive line and get a safety/corner, although free agency isn’t over and we also have the draft.

    _________________________________

    How do they shore up the Oline and get a saftey/corner after paying Garcon 45 Million? They wasted half of the salary cap in Garcon/Morgan/Merriweather, not to mention the picks over the next 3 years the lost to get RGIII. Oh yea, you also have to pay RGIII so save some room there, not that he can get Sam Bradford money anymore but you still not getting away wtih 1 mil or 2 for him.

    That is why the are losers, I was hopefull that the Ravens would get Garcon thinking “He’s not the best out there but he’s a solid number 2 and they should be able to grab him for 6-9 million over a few years.” Then I saw him sign for 45 Million and my jaw hit the floor, I thought the article accedentally put his name in instead of Vincent Jackson.

    Redskins suck”

    _________________________________

    Damn bruh, don’t hate, I wasn’t hatin’ on your old ass team the Ravens but since you started running your mouth I will. Hell you lost LB Jarret Johnson, DE Cory Redding, G Ben Grubbs and S Haruki Nakamura and you may lose Jamell McClain to Denver, your 1st round QB still can’t get it done and you haven’t won but 1 Superbowl and you’re hating on the Skins? C’mon man! If I were you I’d be more concerned with the Ravens than the Skins. Obviously this team is rebuilding, you should concentrate on hoping your team can win an AFC playoff game when it counts!

  125. barroomhero80 says: Mar 19, 2012 4:32 PM

    gb4mn0 ‘s mom calls him al loser everynight after she tucks him in

  126. bobnelsonjr says: Mar 19, 2012 7:38 PM

    No matter what the category, you can always list the vikings as losers:

    Championships
    Wins and Loses
    Revenue
    Ticket Sales/Attendance
    Stadium
    Franchise value
    Free Agency
    Draft

  127. 0utkast22 says: Mar 19, 2012 8:21 PM

    I understand that championships aren’t won in the offseason, but the Bucs should win some positive national attention from the media. National media would rather include the Saints in some negative light (Bountygate, losing in free agency) rather than include the Bucs in the winners list.
    This list wreaks of conspiracy to keep the Bucs down since they signed 3 of the top 30 free agents.

  128. qj1984 says: Mar 20, 2012 11:45 AM

    @tiger2471

    When did the skins last make the postseason? The Superbowl? Yeah, I thought so.

    It always amazes me that fans will throw out that the Ravens only have one Superbowl. You do realizes that the organization is not even 20 years old?

  129. noquickreactionshere says: Mar 20, 2012 11:56 AM

    Damn bruh, don’t hate, I wasn’t hatin’ on your old ass team the Ravens but since you started running your mouth I will. Hell you lost LB Jarret Johnson, DE Cory Redding, G Ben Grubbs and S Haruki Nakamura and you may lose Jamell McClain to Denver, your 1st round QB still can’t get it done and you haven’t won but 1 Superbowl and you’re hating on the Skins? C’mon man! If I were you I’d be more concerned with the Ravens than the Skins. Obviously this team is rebuilding, you should concentrate on hoping your team can win an AFC playoff game when it counts!

    ______________________________

    Thank you for your insight “Bruh” but I wasn’t “hatin” on your team, I was simply speaking the truth. First you are absolutly correct; I have not won a single superbowl and I never have. I did however, win a company kickball tournament a few years back and I make a very competitive push in softball every year. How many superbowls have you won?

    If your speaking of my favorite football team then you are wrong, they have won a superbowl. If your memory goes back far enough to remember a Redskins championship then I am sure you remember teh 2000 superbowl.

    So the skins are “obviously rebuilding”… when did this rebuilding start? The last time the skins won more than 10 games was 1991; in that time frame (20 years) they have had a winning record 6 times, one of those 6 was an 8 win season where they finished 8-7-1. They have made 4 playoff apperences in those 20 years (Ravens have made 4 playoff apperences in the past 4 years) and they have won 3 playoff games in those 20 years. Did the “Rebuilding” start when Shanahan came to town? That is what I kept hearing from deadskin fans, well the team was 6-10 followed by 5-11 the past 2 seasons with him for a total record of 11-21. Since Harbaugh (and Flacco) came to town (taking over from a 5-11 team) Baltimore is 44-20 with a division championship and two AFC Championship appearences in 4 years. They have won at least 1 playoff game every year he has been there. I think my team is doing fine, I would say your team should be a little concerned.

    You indicate players lost:
    Grubbs is the biggest loss, he missed 6 games last year and the Ravens were 5-1 in those 6. The Ravens get stuck in situations like this because they draft so well they get a lot of money tied up in Ngata, Suggs, Lewis, Yanda, Reed, etc… and can’t afford to keep everyone.

    Johnson and Redding already have replacements waiting; McPhee and Kruger. They wouldn’t have left so easy and so cheap if they didn’t believe in they guys on the roster. It happens every year, last year it was Mason, Heap, Kelly Gregg, LeRon McClain. Everyone thinks it’s the end of the world then they realize that role players can be replaced when you have cornerstones like Suggs and Ngata on your team.

    McClain had a good solid year, nobody is shedding a tear if he leaves. Would like to see him stay but how are Tavaress Gooden, Bart Scott, Ed Hartwell, or Jamie Sharper doing? This was Jmac’s first year starting in Baltimore and his is in a long line of guys who played next to Ray. If lost he will be missed, but replaced. By the way he left Denver without signing and they have already signed another LB along with this quarterback guy who kinda cost a lot of money. Not sure if JMac will be in Denver this year….

    Nakamura…… really? Depth is nice and we as a good player but we are supposed to lose sleep over losing a backup safety and special teams player? Good call buddy.

    I think the team wint a 26 year old QB and 25 year old RB both about to sign long term contracts is fine. I would guess that the team that has been to the playoffs 4 straight seasons, won the division (6-0 in the division) in arguably the best division in football is fine. My guess is that there is no, non redskin fan on this site who would say the skins are run better than the ravens. My guess is that there is a little jelousy down I-95. Don’t worry, you can keep living on those championships that were won before you were born… that will help your envy.

    So again… Skins suck

  130. trollhammer20 says: Mar 20, 2012 12:36 PM

    The Packers get on the “winners” list for doing nothing? Funny, I thought their defense was kind of horrible at times last year, and really could use some help.

    To me, the “winners” are the ones who actively make efforts to recruit new players, but are careful about getting into bidding wars and/or overpaying for talent when there are viable less-expensive alternatives available. They are not the teams who, as part of their overall strategy, choose not to be very active in the process.

    Seattle got the most-mentioned-name in QB free agency who wasn’t Peyton Manning, and they did so without commiting to a franchise-QB size contract. QB was a huge area of need, and it has been addressed without sacrificing a draft pick or hamstringing the team’s salary cap for the next six years. Also, getting Flynn instead of waiting for the draft allows the team to focus all their draft resources dealing with other areas of need. Simply put, this has to be one of the top-five moves in free-agency this year.

    It is true that Flynn may not work out….but the same is true for Luck, RG3, and every other QB in the draft.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!