Austin Howard tendered (2nd round level)

[Greenseed4]

Jets extended a second-round tender to restricted free agent RT Austin Howard.

New York was in limbo trying to decide whether to tender Howard at the first- or second-round level, but they went the cheaper route. We wouldn't expect any team to give up a second-round pick for the one-year starter, but the Ravens have been mentioned as a possibility. Howard excels as a run blocker.

 

 

Source: Rich Cimini on Twitter

 

 

 

This makes me feel fuzzy inside. 

[Bleedin Green]

Makes sense, glad to hear it.  He may not have been All-World, but Howard was certainly one of the Jets' most pleasant surprises last year.  With both starting guards set to walk tomorrow, the Jets didn't exactly need to be opening up any more holes on the OL.

[Sperm Edwards]

Thinking about a 1st or a 2nd? What was there to think about?

 

They couldn't possibly be worried about losing him for a 2nd rounder. 

 

Pretend we have 2 picks in round 2.  Would the Jets really be thinking about using one of those two 2nd rounders to acquire RFA Austin Howard with no contract past 2013? I didn't think so.

 

 

The right level to tender the player is the pick you would happily surrender the player to acquire.  Or in reverse, the level is the first amount you would NOT spend to acquire that player.  The Jets would only offer him a 1st round tender if they were willing to spend a 2nd rounder to get him if he was someone else's RFA.

 

Hopefully Cimini is just making this up or someone in the organization is just having fun with him.  If Idzik, even for 1 minute, was seriously thinking about giving him a round 1 tender then we've got GM problems.

[#27TheDominator]

Thinking about a 1st or a 2nd? What was there to think about?

 

They couldn't possibly be worried about losing him for a 2nd rounder. 

 

Pretend we have 2 picks in round 2.  Would the Jets really be thinking about using one of those two 2nd rounders to acquire RFA Austin Howard with no contract past 2013? I didn't think so.

 

 

The right level to tender the player is the pick you would happily surrender the player to acquire.  Or in reverse, the level is the first amount you would NOT spend to acquire that player.  The Jets would only offer him a 1st round tender if they were willing to spend a 2nd rounder to get him if he was someone else's RFA.

 

Hopefully Cimini is just making this up or someone in the organization is just having fun with him.  If Idzik, even for 1 minute, was seriously thinking about giving him a round 1 tender then we've got GM problems.

 

My feeling was that they were trying to lock him up longer term on a team friendly deal and then decided to tender him.  They are better off locking him up for 2 or 3 years rather than having him hit the market in 2014 when they have money, but won't want another hole to fill. 

[Bleedin Green]

My feeling was that they were trying to lock him up longer term on a team friendly deal and then decided to tender him.  They are better off locking him up for 2 or 3 years rather than having him hit the market in 2014 when they have money, but won't want another hole to fill. 

 

It's probably a combination of this and them really debating between 2nd round tender and the low-level (with the idea being that they'd either save some money on the tender or might happily match a deal another team would be willing to give him).  There was never any concern over them losing him for a 2nd.

[Greenseed4]

The Ravens' 2nd round pick is more like a really good 3rd rounder, considering Baltimore needs depth at the position and has history with Howard, I could see what gave Idzik pause. 

[Il Mostro]

The Ravens' 2nd round pick is more like a really good 3rd rounder, considering Baltimore needs depth at the position and has history with Howard, I could see what gave Idzik pause. 

 

 

Good point. 

[Maxman]

Totally agree, there is no way they considered a 1st round tender.

 

A 2nd round tender is good.  It means he will be back and the Jets can now focus on solidifying\upgrading the guard position for next year.

[Sperm Edwards]

My feeling was that they were trying to lock him up longer term on a team friendly deal and then decided to tender him.  They are better off locking him up for 2 or 3 years rather than having him hit the market in 2014 when they have money, but won't want another hole to fill. 

 

I don't know. Aside from any desire to lock him up for longer, the way I read it is that they were deciding between a 1st or a 2nd round tender.  I can't understand how there was even anything to think about.  If someone wants to give up a 2nd round pick for him then they can have him.  

 

Given his body of work through the 2012 season, I wouldn't give up a 2nd round pick for Howard.  Therefore I would gladly take someone else's 2nd rounder instead of bringing him back for another year.

[Sperm Edwards]

The Ravens' 2nd round pick is more like a really good 3rd rounder, considering Baltimore needs depth at the position and has history with Howard, I could see what gave Idzik pause. 

 

I would take the Ravens' 2nd round pick instead of 1 more year of Austin Howard. 

[#27TheDominator]

I don't know. Aside from any desire to lock him up for longer, the way I read it is that they were deciding between a 1st or a 2nd round tender.  I can't understand how there was even anything to think about.  If someone wants to give up a 2nd round pick for him then they can have him.  

 

Given his body of work through the 2012 season, I wouldn't give up a 2nd round pick for Howard.  Therefore I would gladly take someone else's 2nd rounder instead of bringing him back for another year.

 

You read the article.  I don't pay much attention to the speculation of these mooks.  I prefer the speculation of this mook and this mook thinks they were trying to sign him to a multi-year deal.  If they were deciding on the tender, it is just as likely that they were deciding on 2nd vs. low where they'd still have a chance to match.

[whodeawhodat]

I would take the Ravens' 2nd round pick instead of 1 more year of Austin Howard. 

 

exactly what I was thinking.  John Clayton and Bit has us getting a 2nd for Revis for fvcks sake...

[Sperm Edwards]

exactly what I was thinking.  John Clayton and Bit has us getting a 2nd for Revis for fvcks sake...

 

Not only would I do that, but I'd send you over there to blow everyone in the Ravens' FO every day for a month. That's how thankful I'd be.

[Sperm Edwards]

You read the article.  I don't pay much attention to the speculation of these mooks.  I prefer the speculation of this mook and this mook thinks they were trying to sign him to a multi-year deal.  If they were deciding on the tender, it is just as likely that they were deciding on 2nd vs. low where they'd still have a chance to match.

 

I didn't read the article.  I only read the first post in the thread.

[whodeawhodat]

Not only would I do that, but I'd send you over there to blow everyone in the Ravens' FO every day for a month. That's how thankful I'd be.

 

heh, that was a good one, i am kinda speechless and traumatized all at once...

[#27TheDominator]

I didn't read the article.  I only read the first post in the thread.

 

I thought that was the article.  It was just a Cimini tweeter.  Doesn't that constitute an article now?

 

heh, that was a good one, i am kinda speechless and traumatized all at once...

 

You'll get over it.  It gets easier after the first one.

[Greenseed4]

I would take the Ravens' 2nd round pick instead of 1 more year of Austin Howard. 

 

Not me.  Howard finished out the year on a nice note, and is better from a cost perspective than anything we'll find in free agency.  I'd rather keep as much continuity on the line as possible and he's still a young pup, so his sticking around for a while seems feasible.  

 

We'll already have to deal with one and a half new additions to the OL, why mess with a good thing?

[Sperm Edwards]

Not me.  Howard finished out the year on a nice note, and is better from a cost perspective than anything we'll find in free agency.  I'd rather keep as much continuity on the line as possible and he's still a young pup, so his sticking around for a while seems feasible.  

 

We'll already have to deal with one and a half new additions to the OL, why mess with a good thing?

 

If we had a pair of 2nd rounders this year you would give up one of them for 1 year with Austin Howard (in a rebuilding year, no less)? By turning down a 2nd rounder, that is what you are effectively saying.

[#27TheDominator]

If we had a pair of 2nd rounders this year you would give up one of them for 1 year with Austin Howard (in a rebuilding year, no less)? By turning down a 2nd rounder, that is what you are effectively saying.

 

There is a way the first round tender might make sense.  If they thought somebody might give one up for him.  I know it's a huge longshot, but it is possible they thought that a winning time might be willing to part with a late first for him and were hoping to get it...  Nah, I think the whole idea of the high tender was just Cimini bullsh*t.  

[Greenseed4]

If we had a pair of 2nd rounders this year you would give up one of them for 1 year with Austin Howard (in a rebuilding year, no less)? By turning down a 2nd rounder, that is what you are effectively saying.

 

A top-ten pick in the second round would've made me feel better about the rebuilding year argument.  The Ravens have the last pick in the 2nd round, and were the other team linked to Howard.  For that pick, I would prefer to keep Howard, yes.  

 

He actually graded out pretty well for a RT...I'll have to find the link, but I thought he was graded in the top-ten at year end. 

[Sperm Edwards]

A top-ten pick in the second round would've made me feel better about the rebuilding year argument.  The Ravens have the last pick in the 2nd round, and were the other team linked to Howard.  For that pick, I would prefer to keep Howard, yes.  

 

He actually graded out pretty well for a RT...I'll have to find the link, but I thought he was graded in the top-ten at year end. 

 

A 2nd round pick.  For one year of Austin Howard.

 

lol

 

Dozens of teams wouldn't give that up for 1 year of Darrelle Revis.  But for 1 year of Austin Howard we'd bypass the #62 pick.  The #42 pick maybe, but not the #62 pick.  Not for Austin Howard.  THE Austin Howard.

[Greenseed4]

A 2nd round pick.  For one year of Austin Howard.

 

lol

 

Dozens of teams wouldn't give that up for 1 year of Darrelle Revis.  But for 1 year of Austin Howard we'd bypass the #62 pick.  The #42 pick maybe, but not the #62 pick.  Not for Austin Howard.  THE Austin Howard.

 

You're a (far) better numbers guy than I am, what with all these funny OL stats.

But what I found was this:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

Our overall run-blocking grade was #5 overall (this doesn't account for the RB, meaning teams with a superior RB will grade higher; teams with lesser RBs will grade lower), and our overall pass protection grade was #30 overall (determined by adjusted sack rates which include intentional grounding for would-be sacks).  I'd say considering our RB talent, our run-blocking could have actually graded out higher.  

 

In "ALY" Adjusted Line Yards, the Jets ranked 5th overall.

Broken up: we were ranked #3 on runs to the right tackle, and #2 on runs to the right end.  I'm sure this includes swinging OGs, RBs and TE help (but lets face it, our LG swinging, RBs and TEs weren't a major run-blocking strength of ours)

 

The third table shows the pct. of runs ran at the aforementioned directions... 15% to the right tackle, and 5% to the right end.  I guess this could mean 80% of our runs excluded THE Austin Howard, but according to the second table, runs in his direction were greatly effective.

 

Howard was actually a great run-blocker for us.  At (6'7, 333) that's no easy feat.  He's still young (25) with four years of NFL in him, and he started all 16 games for us last season.  Signing him to a tender doesn't prevent us from signing him to a long term deal as the year wears on...in fact, I expect we will.  

 

We signed him to the tender, so if a team DOES take him, we get the pick compensation.  Like you've pointed out, that seems an unlikely happenstance; which is why we did it.  It cost the team the difference between the restricted tender and the second round tender to ensure we kept him on our roster.  (this is your area of expertise, but) I think that's in the neighborhood of $700K.

The real question isn't whether Austin Howard is worth a 2nd round pick (whichever one it would be), the question is "Was it worth $700K to not have to gamble on getting a replacement RT through the draft and/or FA'? 

 

With the holes already on file, and the new one's with Pouha/DeVito moving on, I think maintaining some semblance of continuity on the OL was well worth it. 

[Sperm Edwards]

You're a (far) better numbers guy than I am, what with all these funny OL stats.

But what I found was this:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

Our overall run-blocking grade was #5 overall (this doesn't account for the RB, meaning teams with a superior RB will grade higher; teams with lesser RBs will grade lower), and our overall pass protection grade was #30 overall (determined by adjusted sack rates which include intentional grounding for would-be sacks).  I'd say considering our RB talent, our run-blocking could have actually graded out higher.  

 

In "ALY" Adjusted Line Yards, the Jets ranked 5th overall.

Broken up: we were ranked #3 on runs to the right tackle, and #2 on runs to the right end.  I'm sure this includes swinging OGs, RBs and TE help (but lets face it, our LG swinging, RBs and TEs weren't a major run-blocking strength of ours)

 

The third table shows the pct. of runs ran at the aforementioned directions... 15% to the right tackle, and 5% to the right end.  I guess this could mean 80% of our runs excluded THE Austin Howard, but according to the second table, runs in his direction were greatly effective.

 

Howard was actually a great run-blocker for us.  At (6'7, 333) that's no easy feat.  He's still young (25) with four years of NFL in him, and he started all 16 games for us last season.  Signing him to a tender doesn't prevent us from signing him to a long term deal as the year wears on...in fact, I expect we will.  

 

We signed him to the tender, so if a team DOES take him, we get the pick compensation.  Like you've pointed out, that seems an unlikely happenstance; which is why we did it.  It cost the team the difference between the restricted tender and the second round tender to ensure we kept him on our roster.  (this is your area of expertise, but) I think that's in the neighborhood of $700K.

The real question isn't whether Austin Howard is worth a 2nd round pick (whichever one it would be), the question is "Was it worth $700K to not have to gamble on getting a replacement RT through the draft and/or FA'? 

 

With the holes already on file, and the new one's with Pouha/DeVito moving on, I think maintaining some semblance of continuity on the OL was well worth it. 

 

You're over-thinking.  A player is worth what a player is worth.  During a rebuilding season, where we have no shot at winning a superbowl, that should only become more apparent because we can't rationalize overpaying for someone during a narrow window of opportunity like we did in the past.  

 

Since we haven't been able to (or haven't attempted to) lock him up beyond that, realize that he's a UFA after 2013.  So if we had a pair of 2nd round picks, would you trade one of them for 1 year of Austin Howard at $1.927M during a rebuilding season? You're probably the only person who would.  If someone gives up a 2nd rounder for Howard, I will stand corrected.

 

And the 2nd round RFA tender amount is not $700K.  It's close to triple that amount.

 

Lastly, if we were to get a pick for him in this draft, the strength of this draft class is supposed to be in the middle rounds.  So a 2nd round pick - even the lowest 2nd round pick - would seem to get one of the very best of those players, or even a regular solid 2nd rounder.  As a team with a need at RB, for example, I'd hate to think we passed up on a MJD or Leshon McCoy or Ray Rice or Jamal Charles or Frank Gore because we wanted 1 more year of run-blocking continuity from a very sub-par pass-blocker, on a line where we already will have discontinuity on both sides of the OL (RG,LG), in a rebuilding year where we still have no shot at a SB no matter what anyone says.

 

Austin Howard was a bargain last year.  He was great value for what we paid to get him (nothing) and paid him to play (next to nothing).  He's not a bargain anymore if you forgo a 2nd round pick for him.

 

Take Santonio Holmes for example.  We got him for a 5th round pick for 1 season (minus the first 4 games when he was suspended) at low dollars.  That was a great bargain.  Even if he got himself re-suspended again 2 weeks later the risk was well worth it and I'd make that move with our 5th round pick every year.  Once the season was over, giving up a large contract ($9M/year) with high guaranteed money made him a bargain no longer.  We were now paying top dollar for him meaning on our team it's Holmes or some other pro bowl level player who would warrant a $9M/year salary.

 

The expression that comes to mind is take the money and run.  Walk away a winner instead of doubling down to risk losing it all.

 

Howard was great value picking him up off the scrap heap and paying him relative peanuts.  If no one tries to take him away from us, even the 1 year tender of just under $2M is still excellent value for a starting RT for a year.  But if someone tries to sign him away, matching that contract is no longer good value.  Now we're paying him even more than that plus we're also forgoing a 2nd round pick for him as well.  For a rebuilding team in particular, that's bad value.  For a team with a realistic shot at a SB ring this year, who suddenly finds themselves with a hole at RT and can ill-afford to take a shot on a rookie, his value is higher.

[Greenseed4]

You're over-thinking.  A player is worth what a player is worth.  During a rebuilding season, where we have no shot at winning a superbowl, that should only become more apparent because we can't rationalize overpaying for someone during a narrow window of opportunity like we did in the past.  

 

Since we haven't been able to (or haven't attempted to) lock him up beyond that, realize that he's a UFA after 2013.  So if we had a pair of 2nd round picks, would you trade one of them for 1 year of Austin Howard at $1.927M during a rebuilding season? You're probably the only person who would.  If someone gives up a 2nd rounder for Howard, I will stand corrected.

 

And the 2nd round RFA tender amount is not $700K.  It's close to triple that amount.

 

This was a good post.  But let me clarify my stance a bit better.

 

You have established the strategy to determine his tender value by equating it to what we would be willing to trade to get his services.  From that perspective, would I trade a 2nd round pick to get Austin Howard?  No I wouldn't, not even the #64 pick, because like you point out a lot of great quality players can be drafted in the middle rounds at a great discount. But that is exactly why we tendered him at that value. 

 

The initial twitter "article", written by Cimini says the Jets were debating between tendering him at the first round ($2.88M) and the second round ($2.02M) level.  But this just isn't true.  The Jets also had the ability to tender him at the original round level which as an undrafted free agent was ($1.33M).  The difference between where he was signed at what would have been a logical (cheapest possible) tender in a rebuilding year is $700K...that's where that number came from. 

 

So the questions became:

1. Do we aim low, save $700K with the original round tender, and hope nobody signs him, BUT, risk opening up another hole on our roster (for zero compensation)?

or,

2. Is it worth it to spend the additional $700K with the 2nd round tender, to keep him, and/or be compensated a 2nd round pick if he signs elsewhere?

 

I think we made the right choice.  Not only is $2.02M extremely reasonable for a starting RT, but it doesn't prevent us from signing him to a longer deal.  Yes he's an UFA after 2013, but by then we'll be in a better position to determine if we want to extend his services with the team, and whether or not we can afford them.  For now, we've maintained 3.5 out of 5 positions on the O-line, Ducasse being a "half-known" and we haven't hamstrung the team with another need/expense. 

 

 

 

 

Got my tender amounts from this article:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/1/15/3880908/nfl-free-agency-2013-rfa-tender-amounts 

[j4jets]

Decent tender. If Jets are offered a 2nd rounder for Howard, they will jump all over it in a heartbeat. Howard played ok, but not spectacular.

[Sperm Edwards]

This was a good post.  But let me clarify my stance a bit better.

 

You have established the strategy to determine his tender value by equating it to what we would be willing to trade to get his services.  From that perspective, would I trade a 2nd round pick to get Austin Howard?  No I wouldn't, not even the #64 pick, because like you point out a lot of great quality players can be drafted in the middle rounds at a great discount. But that is exactly why we tendered him at that value. 

 

The initial twitter "article", written by Cimini says the Jets were debating between tendering him at the first round ($2.88M) and the second round ($2.02M) level.  But this just isn't true.  The Jets also had the ability to tender him at the original round level which as an undrafted free agent was ($1.33M).  The difference between where he was signed at what would have been a logical (cheapest possible) tender in a rebuilding year is $700K...that's where that number came from. 

 

So the questions became:

1. Do we aim low, save $700K with the original round tender, and hope nobody signs him, BUT, risk opening up another hole on our roster (for zero compensation)?

or,

2. Is it worth it to spend the additional $700K with the 2nd round tender, to keep him, and/or be compensated a 2nd round pick if he signs elsewhere?

 

I think we made the right choice.  Not only is $2.02M extremely reasonable for a starting RT, but it doesn't prevent us from signing him to a longer deal.  Yes he's an UFA after 2013, but by then we'll be in a better position to determine if we want to extend his services with the team, and whether or not we can afford them.  For now, we've maintained 3.5 out of 5 positions on the O-line, Ducasse being a "half-known" and we haven't hamstrung the team with another need/expense. 

 

 

 

 

Got my tender amounts from this article:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/1/15/3880908/nfl-free-agency-2013-rfa-tender-amounts 

 

I wasn't disputing the wisdom of tagging him with a 2nd-round tender.  I think it was the right move.  I was mocking the "decision" as to whether to make it a 1st round tender or a 2nd round tender.  

 

I agree that the lowest level-tender (where we get nothing if we decline to match a competing offer) is shortsighted, particularly if they think there might be a long-term future for him with the team.  For another year tryout, it's worth $700K.  $2M is really like $1.6M anyway, since any warm body we replace him with has to make at least the NFL's bare minimum salary of $405K.

 

I was looking elsewhere and thought the 2nd round tender was something like $1.9M.  It appears it is $2.02M.  I thought you were referring to the 2nd round tender as being only $700K, and it's never been that low (since the 2nd round tender is only a recent invention).