2024 Chargers Roster Build Discussion - Transactions | News

[dmac_bolt]

Hi Malik.
This is case you are still on the board at #11.

Could be. I doubt Nabers is on the board at 11, but he could be - it’s a funny thing when draft runs get going. Look where Aaron Rogers fell to. They could be targeting Alt, or they may be deciding they can uplift the rush game with a lower cost option for RT than the #5 pick in the draft. If they want to just maul defenses on rush plays, Fuaga could be an apple of their eye. They gave Latham a close one-over, he’s got some maul in him, he’s not as good in pass pro as Alt. Alt will not be there at 11, he’s too good .

It will be interesting soon …

[Chargers8491]

Looks like the Chargers have interest in WR Tyler Boyd. If this was posted I missed it.

Report: Chargers have had 'preliminary interest' in free agent WR Tyler Boyd (msn.com)

[Boltjolt]

Looks like the Chargers have interest in WR Tyler Boyd. If this was posted I missed it.

Report: Chargers have had 'preliminary interest' in free agent WR Tyler Boyd (msn.com)

I don't think we are signing him based on this.

[Fouts2herbert]

Still counts as a FA signed. Have to lose more FAs than you sign to get comp picks.

OTC has a section that explains the formula a bit, it's based on value of the contracts that the leaving players receive vs the value of the contracts that incoming players receive...I guess when they designed the algorithm the thinking was that if you lost a player that got a 10 mil APY contract and signed one that cost 2mil you had lost a better player than what you had signed...that and the player didn't qualify if you had to release him, he had to be a player that you didn't re-sign due the old teams inability to match the value he received on the open market...that's an oversimplification of how it works, I'd have to go back and re-read the page again to see if overall number of signings vs losses weighs into the equation too, not saying it doesn't I just don't remember...

[Fouts2herbert]

No if he signed for the minimum, doesn't count. I think the minimum is like 1.9m or thereabouts

minimum salaries are based on years of service, 795k year one, 895k year two, etc...and I think for a guy with less than 3 years of service like Mason I want to say that he is still in the 900k range, had he not bounced around so much he would still be an ERFA or RFA of the Ravens because he's under 4 years of service...vested veterans I think their minimum is 1.225-1.5mil but I'm not sure, I do know that when players are older and with many years of service a team can sign them to vet minimum (1.79mil?) and they only count like 1.5mil towards the cap or something like that...

[Fouts2herbert]

The Chiefs have 71 players under contract. The Chargers have 58 with the addition of the new FB. The Chiefs are the SB favorite now and we have an incomplete roster. Not remotely the same. The Chargers do not have that much cap space considering the condition of the current roster. Every team with more cap space than us has at least 70 players signed. Does that not seem somewhat significant to you? No player is free.

cap space only affects the top 51 contracts on the roster, the chargers will sign the 90 maximum number of players by the time that the draft is over and they bring in a bunch of UDRFAs, so even after they have 90 players on the roster only the top 51 contract numbers will be taken into consideration as far as the cap is concerned...

the reason why the chargers have a lower number of players is because the new FO chose to not tender most of the ERFAs, RFAs, and practice squad players that were here under TT...they decided to clean house with that part of the roster and fill it with their own priority free agents after the draft...they were under no obligation to tender any of them and with exception of Sarrell and Dicker I think everyone else was allowed to walk, the Chargers did offer a handful of futures contracts to practice squad guys but that was before Harbaugh was even hired, guys like Dotson and Hinton I don't remember who the other 2-3 guys were...

[Fouts2herbert]

I don't think we are signing him based on this.

we are seeing the beginning stages of the WR position getting treated like the RB position, with so many universities featuring passing attacks now we have big crops of WRs coming out that are more polished because they get more reps in college than ever before...once the supply starts exceeding that demand the contracts being offered to WRs is probably going to steadily decline...

[Lone Bolt]

OTC has a section that explains the formula a bit, it's based on value of the contracts that the leaving players receive vs the value of the contracts that incoming players receive...I guess when they designed the algorithm the thinking was that if you lost a player that got a 10 mil APY contract and signed one that cost 2mil you had lost a better player than what you had signed...that and the player didn't qualify if you had to release him, he had to be a player that you didn't re-sign due the old teams inability to match the value he received on the open market...that's an oversimplification of how it works, I'd have to go back and re-read the page again to see if overall number of signings vs losses weighs into the equation too, not saying it doesn't I just don't remember...

That was my thinking...its not about the number of players, so much as the value lost or gained, calculated by contracts signed.

[dmac_bolt]

we are seeing the beginning stages of the WR position getting treated like the RB position, with so many universities featuring passing attacks now we have big crops of WRs coming out that are more polished because they get more reps in college than ever before...once the supply starts exceeding that demand the contracts being offered to WRs is probably going to steadily decline...

You think so? RB has been treated like meat for quite awhile, with a few exceptions every year that just recently started getting knocked down the scale. WR is right now #3 or #4 ish top pay., basically competes for non-QB top. How long ya think it’d take to rebalance it down to RB level - if its going to happen, that is.

[Chargers8491]

I don't think we are signing him based on this.

Yea I don't think so either. I was thinking he was going to be around 8-9M.

[Chargers8491]

You think so? RB has been treated like meat for quite awhile, with a few exceptions every year that just recently started getting knocked down the scale. WR is right now #3 or #4 ish top pay., basically competes for non-QB top. How long ya think it’d take to rebalance it down to RB level - if its going to happen, that is.

It won't rebalance unless teams switch to more run balance offense. Teams have gone more pass happy with more wr sets.

[Bolt4Knob]

Yea I don't think so either. I was thinking he was going to be around 8-9M.

My guess if they sign Tyler Boyd - it will be after the draft and after the comp pick time frame ends. And at this point, that makes sense. The draft could yield two WRs - just never know.

Post draft, when it doesn't cost a comp pick - and you can get him one year $4-5m - that is the time to circle back on veteran FAs