Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Management Philosophy


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
57 replies to this topic

#37 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:19 AM

The salary cap was 124 million but our payroll was much less at 112 million in 2009 which was 11th on the list. That dead salary cap of 29 million is totally irrelevant since there is no cap and that money was already paid in previous years. For 2010 it is projected at the same 112 million despite all the guaranteed money which puts us 17th on the list. So compared to other teams we did spend less this year than last and only have 60 million so far committed to next year. and if you take out Jake's guaranteed which they had no choice in, we would rank in the bottom five this year. Which if you look at the teams down there we would be in good company.

Here is a list so you can see how the money got distributed.

http://content.usato....aspx?year=2009


http://www.altiusdir...fl-salaries.php



I've already seen both of those but you are 100% incorrect when you say that the dead money is irrelevant and has all been paid in previous years. It's payroll = all paid this year. Not salary cap hit from excelerated signng bonus hits. Better than half was guarantees such as Jake's. Add that to the fact that Jerry and other owners have stated they will operate within a budget just like there was a salary cap and it shows why we aren't charging out to throw money at big names. The money isn't there. Some owners are trying to buy a Lombardi and put a higher payroll limit than Jerry.

Edited by Savoir Faire, 17 September 2010 - 11:22 AM.


#38 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,206
  • Reputation: 15,702
SUPPORTER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:20 AM

don't have a problem with the panthers philsophy(just the execution of it) when was the last time the steelers signed a big name free agent from another team? they compete at the highest level on a regular basis even tho they've changed several coaches and front office people over the years. they draft players who fit their system & sign middle market free agents to fill needs.they went from contenders to champions once the found a true franchise qb(something that will hold the panthers back until they find one)

For this philosophy to work, you have to be very good at drafting. Very good.

So are the Panthers there yet?

As I recall, the figure was that something like 35 or 38 members of the team's 53 man roster this season were draftees. That's pretty good. Steeler good? Jury's still out, but it's decent.

They're better with Don Gregory than they were with Tony Softli. Of that much I feel certain.

#39 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,847
  • Reputation: 474
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:24 AM

Still wating on player to produce is that a part of this process too?

#40 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,743
  • Reputation: 8,017
Moderators

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:00 PM

I don't buy that team leadership would do anything just for the sake of proving themselves right.

They really believe this is the right way to build a perennial contender. And yeah, there's evidence to support it.

i see that. he proble that i have with it is getting so fixated on it that philosophy and so determined to stick with it that you could very well miss out on some key cogs that can help you reach your goals of creating a perennial winning team.
I never believe that just one exact way is the only way. i look at broad strokes giving yourself some freedom to move within the lines.

i just don't think staying hard core on their path will get them to their desired goals. at least they are making things a little more unnecessarily complicated than they need to be.

#41 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,660
  • Reputation: 2,308
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:15 PM

Yes, but you can't say that that number is irrelevant because the Panthers came out very early and said that even though there wasn't a cap this year they were going to still operate as if there was one. Other teams like the Pats, Steelers, Eagles, Cardinals all came out and said, and done, the same thing this organization did.


Your right. They didn't talk about a cap but about a budget. Which by the way is actually the way they do it every year. The cap is just a number they have to use some creative accounting to get under. The yearly budget is what they actually spend and either adds or subtracts from the bottom line.

#42 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,660
  • Reputation: 2,308
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:36 PM

I've already seen both of those but you are 100% incorrect when you say that the dead money is irrelevant and has all been paid in previous years. It's payroll = all paid this year. Not salary cap hit from excelerated signng bonus hits. Better than half was guarantees such as Jake's. Add that to the fact that Jerry and other owners have stated they will operate within a budget just like there was a salary cap and it shows why we aren't charging out to throw money at big names. The money isn't there. Some owners are trying to buy a Lombardi and put a higher payroll limit than Jerry.


Dead cap space is irrelevant because there is no cap plain and simple. You can call jake's salary dead cap space for the point of argument but without a cap it is meaningless. Plus his actual salary is already reflected in the 112 million for this year. That is why cutting him was not a financial decision.

When guys like Kemo and Lewis were cut, not paid the 5 million payment in the offseason which everyone acknowledged wouldn't have happened anyway, their contracts became 1 year deals. This is the area where the cap and payroll diverge. They were paid nothing so they had no salary. But the cap hit accerelerated and is part of that dead cap space which boosted the figure you quoted to 124 million. BUt the point that is irrelevant is that the money spent on them has already been accounted for in past payrolls.

As for the money not being there, that is crap as well. They spent 112 million last year. They spent 112 million this year. They raised ticket prices and received the same TV money. Add it up and it clearly shows they had more money this year than last but didn't spend it all.

Edited by panthers55, 17 September 2010 - 12:38 PM.


#43 GRWatcher

GRWatcher

    visiting from Kepler-186f

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,418
  • Reputation: 651
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:44 PM

It is so easy to create a philosophy in hindsight and say it always was the intention of the team to follow it. I don't believe it.

So my question is, when do they stop the "youth movement"? Every year has a draft class plus undrafted rookies and every year you can keep only 53 players. Even if you assume that we never sign another outside FA and that we draft extremely well, we will lose at least 10 or more of our "youth" every year. And they are our "best". They'll no longer be our "best" next year? There's no logic or look to this scheme that tells the fans or anyone else that the Panthers are built to win each year. That, after all, is the goal each year of 32 NFL teams and their fans.

In any other industry it would be age discrimination.

Besides, the Panthers are doing their youth a great disservice by not having veterans on the team (even as backups) for them to learn from. For a youth movement of this type to be successful, we would need 53 superstars. That's simply not the case. How much better would Matt Moore have played the Giants if he had a veteran QB on the sideline like he did last year instead of 2 rookies? How much sooner would it had been realized that he was consussed, because he isn't going to take himself out of the game?


Steeler good? No way, and not anytime soon; no jury needed. I looked at the Steelers' roster. They have 17 at 30 or older and only 1 is a kicker. 28 Steelers have 6 or more years of experience. Those are veterans that their youth will learn from. That is part of the Steelers' team philosophy and that is why their version of a "youth movement" works: it's not all at once and they count on veterans to help. Hines Ward admitted that much last year, that part of his job is now to help the younger players. FYI, they have 8 rookies on their roster.

I do agree that the Panthers will not do anything in FA this year. But not because of some overall team philosophy.

:leaving:

#44 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 15,613
  • Reputation: 1,639
SUPPORTER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 01:19 PM

building a roster through FA is the best approach.. there is no doubt about this.. we have been rather successful as well (in recent years anyhow)..

expecting the FO to go out into FA and bring in players would be surprising considering that isn't their philosophy.. no one should be surprised..


what is surprising is when we fail to draft in one particular position the entire duration of the FO tenure... and never bring in a quality professional when available...


my frustration comes in, when in 5 years, we'll have a Smitty at the end of his career and no draft picks who ever made anything of themselves..


If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow... but there is no reason to believe otherwise.. :)

and I'm usually one of the few optimists.. but reality strikes hard when it comes to the WR position.. there is nothing to be optimistic about based on the last 8 years.. that is a huge time line to judge by..

Edited by bleys, 17 September 2010 - 01:22 PM.


#45 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,847
  • Reputation: 474
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:57 PM

My question with this philosophy is your almost force too give a player chance after chance because you drafted him and you don't want too look like a fool by giving up on him. Plus you wasted a high pick.

#46 Achilles

Achilles

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 434
  • Reputation: 98
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:49 PM

The Hurney and Richardson philosophy is not the problem. It seems like a good philosophy for setting the Panthers up for success in about 2 years. Fox and the complacent, inexplicable play calling is the problem.

My biggest issue with what I see going on this year is just that it certainly seemed in the Giants game that Fox simply did not care to make any scheme or personnel adjustments at halftime or throughout the second half.

I am so SICK of hearing..."well we were behind so we had to throw the ball...anytime you're in that position its tough..."

WHY THE HELL WERE YOU BEHIND IN THE FIRST PLACE???

I don't want to jump to conclusions...but it seems like the coaching staff really phoned that one in. I mean 3 INC passes with 1st and Goal from the 4 and it ends in an INT. THat reeks of complacency.

If they're not TRYING to win the game, then maybe the handwriting is already on the wall on Fox's time with the team.

Maybe the Top Brass is covetting the idea of grabbing a Top 5 draft pick.

Is it concievable that Richardson kept Fox on because he wanted the captain to go down with the ship...grab a high draft pick...and install a new coach and be called a genius when its all said and done?

To me...Fox is looking like the scapegoat and maybe that's what he wants, too).

#47 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:54 PM

Dead cap space is irrelevant because there is no cap plain and simple. You can call jake's salary dead cap space for the point of argument but without a cap it is meaningless. Plus his actual salary is already reflected in the 112 million for this year. That is why cutting him was not a financial decision.


There is no "official" cap, that's undeniably true, but the Panthers have stated along wiht other teams that they are going to operate on a budget just like there was a cap. It appears as though the number from last year is the budgeted amount. Almost 10% (10.7 million) of that was used to pay off Jake as a "non exercise fee" when they chose not to pay him 12 mill + to extend 1 year. (But we do still owe 2 million more.) They're sticking to their budget while some fans would rather they spend freely to buy a Lombardi.

When guys like Kemo and Lewis were cut, not paid the 5 million payment in the offseason which everyone acknowledged wouldn't have happened anyway, their contracts became 1 year deals. This is the area where the cap and payroll diverge. They were paid nothing so they had no salary. But the cap hit accerelerated and is part of that dead cap space which boosted the figure you quoted to 124 million. BUt the point that is irrelevant is that the money spent on them has already been accounted for in past payrolls.


Nothing pertinent. Cap doesn't exist, payroll budget does. Not everybody gets to act like our government and set budgets only to keep extending them. Some folks have to stick to them.


As for the money not being there, that is crap as well. They spent 112 million last year. They spent 112 million this year. They raised ticket prices and received the same TV money. Add it up and it clearly shows they had more money this year than last but didn't spend it all


No it's not crap. They have their money budgeted for salaries. Also some for other expenses including stadium, FO staff etc. As much as everybody is homing in on the NFLPA statement that the owners still get paid by TV contract even if no games are played, the reality is that eventually, there will be a year when they have to put a product on the field without getting that money, or possibly reduced payments over several years. They have to make some pretty big payouts even without player salaries next year. The tv money will make it easy to cover that but eventually,. they'll need to pay salaries without it.

#48 MrBubba

MrBubba

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,719
  • Reputation: 212
HUDDLER

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:04 PM

Two Words, 'Drew Brees"

Or how about the other FAs and trades the Saint's made for players that made them contenders and Super Bowl Champs. No you can't buy your way to a Super Bowl, you need a balanced approached. Sometimes FAs don't work out, but neither do Draftees, cough Eric Shelton, cough. If you have a hole on your team, try and fill it with the best guy you can find and who will come here. No one expects Jerry to go the Dan Snyder approach, but we don't want Snyder's opposite either. At least show you are serious about building a winning team. When you have a major hole at WR and you don't even sniff around some of the available vets; it doesn't scream "serious". When agents say they can't even get returned phone calls for the possibility of signings, it doesn't look good.

I want to resign our Vets, Beason, Kalil, Williams; and I was distressed to Gannt's tweet last week that they might let Williams walk in F.A. Even though we are grossly below the former salary cap level.

I hope they turn around and resign Williams and that a new agreement will get Jerry off the cross for the NFL. It can't be denied Jerry and Co. have gone cheap this year and it appears to be all in the name of owner unity. Other owners are making signings, not all but some. I hope an agreement can be made with the owners and union, and then Jerry will loosen the purse strings.