Sgt Schultz

4 hours ago, woahfraze said:

Part of the reason this is true is because there are fewer players under contract after this coming year.  Every single NFL team has more cap space the further you look into the future.  You can't just look at the number in dollars; you have to evaluate that against how many players are on your roster.  $100MM with only 30 players under contract isn't good.  You'd rather see a $50MM is you had 45 to 50 players under contract.

So while what you said may be true, on general principal, I wouldn't necessarily want to be "kicking the can down the road" with guaranteed money unless you truly, truly needed the space in any given season.  That's partly how Hurney got us in trouble (his initial contracts were a bit of a problem too of course).

Exhibit A:  Look at the Atlanta Falcons cap space the next couple of years.  Then compare the number of players going into their "top 51" vs. everybody else's, especially those who appear to be in worse cap shape. 

Spoiler alert: Some teams below them in cap space are in better shape than they are.

55 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

So last year wasn't rebuilding time but this year is? Wtf? Waste of a year. Also if we are "Rebuilding" There's no way Watson is coming here and we shouldn't be giving up a poo ton of picks. This don't make no sense.

You may be correct in that conclusion.  Whatever we gained last year in terms of talent could be given up in that or a similar deal and the "rebuild clock" reset.

Getting Watson is a value proposition, like any other decision, complete with opportunity costs and unintended consequences.  Just because people don't recognize that does not make it less so.  Just because they try to shout down people who point that out also does not make it less so.

I'm certainly not opposed to putting him in a Panther uniform.  What I don't want to do is achieve that in a manner that has us describing our offensive philosophy with "we have Deshaun Watson" as a result.  We did that with Cam, only this time instead of pure stupidity it would be pure inability because we handcuffed ourselves.  Regardless of why, not much gets added to the trophy case that way.

What is going in our favor is that it is totally in character for the Texans to play this hand into a complete washout for them.  That is assuming they decide to play it at all.

I am on the year 1.1 train of thought here (even sillier than 1.5).

Yes, on the calendar it is year two.  But, most new regimes are hired AFTER the cratering year.  Rivera took over at the bottom of the fall, not during the fall.  He didn't have to ride the team into the ground before the rebuild.

But, what happened to the roster during Fox's last year more or less happened last year.  The great purge happened under Rhule, not Rivera or an interim. 

Then add to the picture there was a lot of things that simply could not happen because of the pandemic response, and it is hard to call 2020 a "full year."

The added .1 (or maybe it is around .25) is from our draft last year and a stray signing or two.  It was too well orchestrated to not consider it at all in this equation.

I don't see us cutting ties with Paradis for the reason many have said.  Having to start 3 new OL is tough enough without replacing the center with somebody completely new, as well.

I'm not sure why we would restructure him, either.  He is 32, on the last year of his contract, and it is almost inconceivable that we would extend him or resign him beyond this year.  Whatever we would save this year, when our expectations are not all that high, only gets turned into dead cap next year or later, when we might be in contention.

That came up in some other random thread a few days ago.  The Falcons have a lot of money tied up in relatively few players.  2022 is not great for them, either.  If people just look at the cap space numbers, they look okay.  Then you look at how many players are making up their cap number, and they have some work to do. 

Spotrac has them at 26th in terms of "top 51 cap" for 2021.  Not great, but not panic mode.  But, their "top 51" is composed of 39 players.  They are probably only ahead of the Saints and the Eagles in terms of the actual cap condition.  The Eagles woes are due to a lot of dead cap, almost all of it tied to Wentz.

So, they have to add players to get to 51 despite their cap deficit, they have fewer players to maneuver to get cap relief, and they have a couple that even when their dead cap is surpassed by their cap hit staying on the roster, the dead cap is still enough to choke a horse.  It is a heck of a mess in Atlanta.

Based on their history, if ESPN is saying Watson will be a Panther, my fear is the one thing Watson will not be is a Panther.

1 minute ago, Leotiger said:

Well played 

And not for nothing, but welcome to the board. 

Given the fact that your posts on this thread have been rational, I assume you are new!

10 minutes ago, Leotiger said:

Ageeed he would be down the priority list .. but to outright say no when your current QB is teddy bridgewater is like a homeless man scuffing at someone trying to give a tiny home 

It's more like saying no to a tiny home with a leaky roof, broken windows, broken heat, inoperative plumbing, and precariously perched on a hillside that is sliding.  Sleeping under the bridge sounds pretty good.

Ben has already hung on a year or so too long.  We would be talking about bring in a broken down QB based on what he did years ago, and putting him behind an OL that could barely protect TB for 2.5 seconds a drop back.  What could possibly go wrong?

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

No Brain Trust?

Brainless Trust?

Braindead Trust?

Brain Mistrust?

The answer probably depends on which day/game/move/contract we are talking about.  There are many to choose from.

They probably all apply to a certain day in February 2016.

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

I think this guy (Fields) is a smaller Cam as his downside--but he has the tools to be more accurate as a passer.  Not saying he has the athleticism or running ability of Cam, but he does not lack it on a different level.  Cam's problem was that his running ability always bailed him out, so his arm was looking to pass while his feet were looking to run--that caused mechanical issues. Rivera, instead of developing his mechanics, decided to let him run it.  That was like saying, "We hope to get 8-10 years out Cam."  It was tragic. If Fields can become a better passer than Cam, and if we can give him better blocking and weaponry, I see why we like him.  He could be very special. 

People get mad when I mention Cam and how he was wasted by Ron Rivera and Marty Hurney/Dave Gettlemen.  But he was.

 

Cam was wasted by our brain trust (using the term very loosely). 

In a way, being smaller than Cam might be an advantage for Fields.  Cam had no problem taking on linebackers because of his size.  That takes a toll, which is why RBs have limited shelf lives.  Not having a size and weight advantage over many of them might cause Fields to be a little less likely to think "bring it on" when he is running the ball. Getting down and "living to fight another day" is not a bad trait in a QB.

29 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Pick #3 might be the early favorite.  

I’m not positive the Texans will deal Watson and I’m even if they do I not sure if we can outbid the Jets, if the Jets want to be aggressive.

I could actually see Miami being more interested in CMC than the Texans if he was part of a deal.  Would be a nice weapon if they are trying to develop Tua.

 

There is a definite link between what we can offer and what the Dolphins need.

Everything I read has two of the Dolphins big needs being RB and WR.  Given there are three potential marquee WRs in this draft (Chase, Smith, and Waddle), the Dolphins could make that trade and wind up with an established, versatile RB and a top-notch WR. 

I've also seen them mentioned with Sewell.  If he is their primary interest, we can fuggedaboutit.  The good news is so can everybody else. 

I don't think they would want to move too far down in the first round, because they are probably eyeing one of those three receivers or Sewell.  Moving to #8 would allow them to grab one of the WRs mentioned and wind up with CMC which would check a couple of their boxes early in the draft.

The problem we have is our offense becomes a lot less QB friendly without CMC and Samuel.  We would have to address that as well as the boat anchor called our OL.  And that is just on the offensive side, and does not include the TE position.

2 hours ago, bababoey said:

The problem with Ryan and Jones numbers for this year is right now they are about 30 million over the cap.  If they take some of the base salary and turn it into signing bonus, which is the easy way to cheat the cap, it makes them even harder to cut in 22 or 23 because they will have more dead money involved.  

So the Falcons need to free up about 30 million while not touching Ryan's or Jones contract so they can cut them in 22 or 23.  Good luck.

Absolutely.  That really shows up when you look at their cap numbers, and then look at the number of players they have signed to get to that cap number.  They appear to be in $42M better shape than the Saints next year, but they also have 16 fewer players in their number.  Factoring in number of players vs. cap, they are arguably in the second worst shape of anybody (behind the Saints). 

Nobody has fewer players signed for 2021 than the Falcons, and the next lowest is Tampa at 44 (Atlanta has 42).  The difference is the Bucs are in the black by almost $28M vs. the cap, instead of $23M in the red.

So, they have to cut their losses while adding players to the overall number.  They are pretty far under water to pull that off.

9 hours ago, SOJA said:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falcons/matt-ryan-3983/

 

I mean in comparison to a dead cap hit of 49 million (!!!!!!) this year, I suppose 26 mill is chump change. That would still be far and away the biggest dead cap hit a team has EVER paid for a player to get cut

Their situation reminds me of an old Three Stooges short.  Our three heroes are on a golf course, and it is covered in huge digits from their efforts.  The greenskeeper comes out screaming at them, and Moe's response was for him to relax, they were getting better......the pieces are getting smaller.

It is a heck of a predicament.  He costs them almost $42M of cap to keep in 2022, and "only" $26.5M to cut loose.

The 2021 and 2022 numbers are major reasons I believe they may try one more run with Ryan and Julio.  Julio's numbers in 2022 are less ominous ($19.25M cap hit/$15.5M dead money) but still not trivial.  

Apparently, they thought all this was Monopoly money.  His contract would make Hurney proud.

24 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I acknowledge the possibility.

The longer we go though, the more sources I see taking seriously that the Texans might actually drag this fight out over an entire season. Albert Breer was talking about just that not long ago.

Honestly, the thing I feel most comfortable saying is that whatever happens, the Texans are going to handle it badly.

You could assemble the greatest minds in football, even if you had to dig them up from the grave, and give them the task of coming up with and implementing a plan to screw this situation up in the most extreme way imaginable.  My bet is that group would be outdone by the Texans.  And it probably would not even be close.

6 hours ago, stbugs said:

I agree. They are inviting trade ups. They didn’t say anything more than GM speak if you will. Every roster spot is a competition type talk and making it seem like they could take a QB. They limit their trade down opportunities if they say, no QB you just need to trade with Cincy. 

When you look at the Falcons, they have two options: one last run with Ryan and Julio or rebuild.  Honestly, either option involves their defense.

If they want to make one more run with the current core, it was not that group that has consistently let them down.  No lead is safe with their defense.

If they want to rebuild, they are pretty much stuck with Ryan and Jones next year.  In 2022 they could get out from under both.  It won't be cheap, but it will be cheaper than hanging onto them.  They could part ways with Ryan but hang onto Julio, depending on how 2021 goes.

Trading down for multiple quality picks serves their immediate need for either case.  Sure, they are bypassing their shot at a one of the "Big Four," but they may not be interested in all of them and trading up only hampers their need to address other holes.

They are in worse shape than we are.  I think their odds at "one more run" are slim, their roster is not exactly young, and the only reason their salary cap situation is not on everybody's mind is the Saints and Eagles numbers are much worse.  Problem is the Falcons only have 42 players chewing up theirs.

I'm sure there have been inquiries with the Dolphins about what they would want to move the pick.  I would be surprised if they gave a halfway firm answer to any of them, unless they want a king's ransom.  Given how close they look to being a playoff team, they may not want to move it at all.  Even if they are fine with their QB situation, how often are they going to have a shot at a Sewell, Chase, Smith, Waddle, or pretty much their pick to address their relatively few needs?  Remember, they have it this year thanks to the skillful maneuvering of the Houston Texans.

WR is one of the Dolphins' needs, from what I read.  That actually could work in our favor if we are going after their #3 pick.  There are three potential marque receivers.  The Dolphins probably very much want one of them and don't want to go too far down the board for fear of losing that shot. Again, the Texans don't come along every year offering up what turns out to be a #3 pick.

I said this before, but the Foreskins would have lost to the '76 Tampa Bay Buccaneers that week. They were that terrible, and while most of it was on Haskins, they made a few other boneheaded plays to add to the fun.  We really didn't do much to win that game, but they dug a hole and then could not get out of their own way enough to salvage a win against a team stuck in neutral.  But, while we were in neutral, they were in reverse.

She look's quite good, especially for her age.

The return is not irrelevant, it is the point of the entire matter.

Let's go back to the Jets and Wilson deal.  The moment I make that deal, how many picks do I have in the first round that year?  The answer is zero.  I have Wilson, but I did not pick him, I traded for him.

If that trade takes place before they select Wilson, how many picks do I have the moment the deal is final?  The answer is 1, just a higher pick than I had before. 

All we did was swap picks, with them being compensated for having the better positioned one.  It cost me a pick to trade picks. 

In 2004, San Diego picked Eli Manning, who said he did not want to play for them.  The Giants later picked Rivers.  They then traded the two players, and the Chargers also got a 3rd round 2004 pick, plus 1st and 5th round pick in 2005. 

Did the Giants trade 3 picks and a player to get Manning, or did they trade 4 picks?  Since the 1st round 2004 pick had a name, Philip Rivers, they traded 3. Had they made the trade before they picked Rivers, they would have traded 4.

6 minutes ago, panthers320 said:

Again how is it any different giving up 2 1st to draft wilson or 2 1st to trade for watson. Either way you are giving up multiple 1sts to get 1 back. 

But you aren't getting 1 pick back if that pick already has a name.  You are getting a specific player, even though he may have only been in the NFL for 2 minutes. 

If they call 15 minutes earlier and offer to trade us their #2 pick for our #8 and next years first rounder, what we did literally is swap picks and add in another as compensation for theirs being higher this year.  We can select anybody with their number 2 pick: Wilson, Fields, Sewell, or anyone. The choice is ours, even if we opt for Wilson.

The pick offers more flexibility than a specific player, even if ultimately they wind up being the same thing. 

That is, unless your GM is Marty Hurney.  He may use that #2 pick to select Drew Seers, LB, Lindenwood College.  If he is your GM, you probably do not want flexibility.  You probably don't even want the pick in the first place.

2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

He is a draft gemologist.  That is what he is.

No doubt.  No one mines pyrite like he does.  Absolutely no one.

17 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

There were some of what I consider fairly smart posters on this site last year criticizing me for warning them that you can see a pause or even a drop in the salary cap...they insisted I was an idiot, and that was a dumb way to look at extensions.

I think there are some GM's out there that had that same mentality.  It burned us once...this time we are going to fare much better.  However, not as well had we started the rebuild in earnest when everyone with an eyeball knew it was time.

Funny, I used to hear their same argument about real estate......"it can't go down."   Until it does.

11 hours ago, MHS831 said:

The reduced cap is going to hurt some feelings in free agency.  I think there could be some cheap value at the end of free agency--we should sit back and bargain shop during week 2 of free agency.

People compare the 2021 numbers (rumored) to this year, but that is really not the issue.  The real number is what 2021 turns out to be compared to what teams expected 2021 to be.

Compared to 2020, it is expected to be a loss of about $13M or shy of 7%, which is not good, but not horrendous.  However, based on the year-over-year numbers, teams were probably expecting a number around $210M in 2021.  That roughly doubles both of those numbers.  Depending on how much of that they spent up front, you have some teams whose plans went up in flames, not just smoke.  Some teams do commit to what the project, not what they have in their hand.  That works, until it doesn't.

Given where we are in the process of of starting over, it smarts but we can adjust.  There are some teams in deep kimchi, and some of those are teams who drive up salaries during FA.

I would not want to be an agent trying to drum up big money deals for non-marquee players this year.  Their best advice might be to look for a shorter-term deal and try again when the economics recover.  I would not be surprised to see a lot of one and two year deals this FA season.  

Samuel is in the tier of players who that may apply to. 

2 hours ago, saX man said:

We wouldn't be shipping Theodore there and Mariota's contract is 8.8/yr.  Unsure how it all widdles down but that's more than the savings post-dead money hit in the event we release Teddy.  Doesn't make sense $$$ wise.  He's also a mythical creature.

I started to comment earlier that I was in favor of giving Mariota a look last year, largely because he probably could be had for cheap and I was not convinced he had been given a reasonable shot to succeed in Tennessee. 

When I thought about extending that to this year, especially given our one-layer deep QB depth chart, I looked at the cap numbers.  I could not come to terms with the numbers, either.

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah but at least they came away with actual hardware. We didn't.

I was trying to avoid that subtle difference!  The fact that they were a yard and a dumb offensive play call away from turning their loss to a win, and we were a few of turnovers and a missed field goal away was bad enough.

34 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I have heard that for 2 years now.  Not sure they know what they are doing

They don't. 

Gruden could have Rodgers, Mahomes, and Brady in the QB stable and he would want to unload all three, in order of who started last.  I think he uses the philosophy about QBs that he is not happy unless he is not happy.  Or, perhaps if he stops complaining about his QB, somebody might get the idea the problem is him. 

It is another level of "missed opportunities."