Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Saints Sign Derek Carr to 4 year deal.


TheWiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 45catfan said:

We are signing a veteran QB, I doubt any of the rookies would be starting for us, at least not the first portion of the season.  Frank knows the first year development for a rookie QB is a monumental task, and we have a decent enough roster not to piss away winnable games while said rookie still has his training wheels firmly attached.

If we have to sign a vet because a QB we take top 10 is not ready to start, that would be disappointing. A vet like Brissett doesn’t make us a contender, play the rookie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Spotrac has the deets:

image.thumb.png.69d9c98b9407b3ca4bcaeb2f3d94b998.png

What the contract could look like with maximum restructuring.

  • [2023] $7.2M cap charge
  • [2024] $13.2M cap charge after converting salary to bonus (as is the way for the Saints)
  • [2025] $33.2M cap charge with another salary to bonus restructure (assuming 2024 restructure)
  • [2026] $48.2M cap charge with another salary to bonus restructure (assuming 2024 & 2025 restructure)
  • [2027 UFA]  $48.2M dead money

If cut in March 2025, $49.6M dead money (assuming 2024 restructure). I don't think this can be split.

If cut in 2026, $46.4M dead money (assuming 2024 & 2025 restructure). This can be split over 2 years if designated as post June.

Edited by Evil Hurney
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

Looks like Spotrac has the deets:

image.thumb.png.69d9c98b9407b3ca4bcaeb2f3d94b998.png

What the contract could look like with maximum restructuring.

  • [2023] $7.2M cap charge
  • [2024] $13.2M cap charge after converting salary to bonus (as is the way for the Saints)
  • [2025] $33.2M cap charge with another salary to bonus restructure (assuming 2024 restructure)
  • [2026] $48.2M cap charge with another salary to bonus restructure (assuming 2024 & 2025 restructure)
  • [2027 UFA]  $48.2M dead money

If cut in March 2025, $49.6M dead money (assuming 2024 restructure). I don't think this can be split.

If cut in 2026, $46.4M dead money (assuming 2024 & 2025 restructure). This can be split over 2 years if designated as post June.

OTC basically has it as a 2 year $60M guaranteed deal, if they cut him in 2025 they'll owe $5.7M dead cap for 3 years which isn't horrible

Year Age Base Salary Prorated Bonus Roster Bonus   Guaranteed Salary   Cap
Number
Cap %  
Dead Money & Cap Savings
Cut (pre-June 1)Cut (post-June 1)Trade (pre-June 1)Trade (post-June 1)RestructureExtension 
Total   $111,500,000 $28,500,000 $10,000,000   $31,500,000   $150,000,000    
2023 32 $1,500,000 $5,700,000 $0   $1,500,000   $7,200,000 3.2%  
$37,200,000
($30,000,000)
2024 33 $30,000,000 $5,700,000 $0   $30,000,000   $35,700,000 13.9%  
$35,700,000
$0
2025 34 $30,000,000 $5,700,000 $10,000,000   $0   $45,700,000 16.2%  
$5,700,000
$40,000,000
2026 35 $50,000,000 $5,700,000 $0   $0   $55,700,000 18.1%  
$5,700,000
$50,000,000
2027 36 Void $5,700,000 Void   Void   $5,700,000 --  
$5,700,000
$0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jackie Lee said:

OTC basically has it as a 2 year $60M guaranteed deal, if they cut him in 2025 they'll owe $5.7M dead cap for 3 years which isn't horrible

Year Age Base Salary Prorated Bonus Roster Bonus   Guaranteed Salary   Cap
Number
Cap %  
Dead Money & Cap Savings
Cut (pre-June 1)Cut (post-June 1)Trade (pre-June 1)Trade (post-June 1)RestructureExtension 
Total   $111,500,000 $28,500,000 $10,000,000   $31,500,000   $150,000,000    
2023 32 $1,500,000 $5,700,000 $0   $1,500,000   $7,200,000 3.2%  
$37,200,000
($30,000,000)
2024 33 $30,000,000 $5,700,000 $0   $30,000,000   $35,700,000 13.9%  
$35,700,000
$0
2025 34 $30,000,000 $5,700,000 $10,000,000   $0   $45,700,000 16.2%  
$5,700,000
$40,000,000
2026 35 $50,000,000 $5,700,000 $0   $0   $55,700,000 18.1%  
$5,700,000
$50,000,000
2027 36 Void $5,700,000 Void   Void   $5,700,000 --  
$5,700,000
$0

Dead cap accelerates. All $17.1M ($5.7M x 3) goes on the cap once cut. There would also be the other $10M GTD since he would have been on the roster in 2024.

If they don't restructure (unlikely), it's a dead cap of $27.1M to cut him in March 2025.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CarolinaRideorDie said:

I don't think Carr is a terrible QB, I just don't think he has enough to get a team to the supberowl. Analytics and stats are great to go off of, but there are the "intangibles" that's not accounted for. Kirk, Rodgers, and Dak have some great stats, etc, but why do they perennial drop out of the playoffs? 

I understand. Most people think SB winning QBs are seasonsed playoff QBs with a reputation for winning. Unfortunately, this is not true. Those QBs are dynasty QBs. Look at the playoff record of any QB winning their first SB.

This century (excluding QBs drafted by their SB winning coach): Dilfer 1-1 (28), Johnson 1-3 (34), P.Manning 3-6/11-13 (30/39), Brees 1-2 (30), Rodgers 0-1 (27), Foles 0-1 (28), Brady 30-11 (43), and Stafford 0-3 (33). Average age 32/33.

Going back to the 80s, Jim Plunkett was a bust 1st round pick. He was a reserve for the Raiders for 2 years and then won his 1st of 2 SBs at the age of 33 while never seeing the playoffs. Fran Tarkenton never saw the playoffs until he was 33 after being sent packing by the Vikings and then sent back to the Vikings when the Giants gave up on him. He never won the SB, but he went to 3 SBs over 4 seasons (6-4 playoff record).

This has been consistent for QBs among every decade of the SB era.

It's the coaches that we want to have the playoff wins under their belt and been to championships.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CPantherKing said:

I understand. Most people think SB winning QBs are seasonsed playoff QBs with a reputation for winning. Unfortunately, this is not true. Those QBs are dynasty QBs. Look at the playoff record of any QB winning their first SB.

This century (excluding QBs drafted by their SB winning coach): Dilfer 1-1 (28), Johnson 1-3 (34), P.Manning 3-6/11-13 (30/39), Brees 1-2 (30), Rodgers 0-1 (27), Foles 0-1 (28), Brady 30-11 (43), and Stafford 0-3 (33). Average age 32/33.

Going back to the 80s, Jim Plunkett was a bust 1st round pick. He was a reserve for the Raiders for 2 years and then won his 1st of 2 SBs at the age of 33 while never seeing the playoffs. Fran Tarkenton never saw the playoffs until he was 33 after being sent packing by the Vikings and then sent back to the Vikings when the Giants gave up on him. He never won the SB, but he went to 3 SBs over 4 seasons (6-4 playoff record).

This has been consistent for QBs among every decade of the SB era.

It's the coaches that we want to have the playoff wins under their belt and been to championships.

two words

 

aqueel glass

 

he can lead us out of the darkness

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

Problem is we didn’t trade Burns and we have the 9th pick. We’re aren’t in the best spot to own our destiny so to speak. I like the coaching staff a lot but there are no guarantees and Carr to the Saints may make us impulsive.

I don't see Fitts or Reich as the impulsive kind. I think they're more the pragmatic planning type, considering all possible outcomes. Playing chess. I'm not worried about impulse.

Now if it was former-coach-not-to-be-named and Hurney, then I'd worry big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

If we have to sign a vet because a QB we take top 10 is not ready to start, that would be disappointing. A vet like Brissett doesn’t make us a contender, play the rookie. 

Absolutely not. So you are want to lose games while the rookie gets his feet wet?  I mean, if you want to get a QB next year too, I guess accumulating loses makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Absolutely not. So you are want to lose games while the rookie gets his feet wet?  I mean, if you want to get a QB next year too, I guess accumulating loses makes sense.

How about Marvin Harrison Jr? Joe Burrow’s first draft  after he joined the Bengals got him Chase.

We are competing for a title with a rookie. We don’t have a complete team yet. I’d rather the rookie get experience and if he loses more than a vet early, who cares?

Now, we are likely throwing all our picks in the mix so draft will be a lot less impact anyway.

Did it matter to the Bills, Bengals or Jax or LAC (Tua was hurt so can’t use him) to have them start as rookies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

How about Marvin Harrison Jr? Joe Burrow’s first draft  after he joined the Bengals got him Chase.

We are competing for a title with a rookie. We don’t have a complete team yet. I’d rather the rookie get experience and if he loses more than a vet early, who cares?

Now, we are likely throwing all our picks in the mix so draft will be a lot less impact anyway.

Did it matter to the Bills, Bengals or Jax or LAC (Tua was hurt so can’t use him) to have them start as rookies?

Did it matter to the Jets, Browns, Bears, 49ers, Jets (part deux), Giants etc, etc, etc...?  You can cherry pick all you want, I ain't biting.

You play a guy IF he's ready.  Stroud and Young could be, be I'm not sold on them.  Levis or AR will fall flat on their face if they start day 1.  They aren't ready.  

Edited by 45catfan
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just because all draft picks are a gamble doesn't mean you don't have a better chance at hitting on a better player the higher you're drafting. It would literally be like someone saying, I'll give you 1 or 2 free spins on a slot machine, and you say you'll take the 1 because you're not likely to win anything anyways with 1 or 2, so why bother? The Cowboys desperately wanted T-Mac, but because they were 4 picks behind us, they weren't able to get him.  If you told Cowboys fans that had they lost 2 more games last year in a lost season, that it would get them the player they wanted so badly, would they in retrospect go back and lose those games to get their guy? 95% of them would take that trade off in a heartbeat, and the others who wouldn't are the fans who would rather enjoy an extra win or two in a poo season to then set themselves up to be better for the next decade. I also think the fans who argue against this thinking, get too caught up in the "well that means you're going to be rooting against us late in the season even if we still have a shot at the playoffs." Which isn't true, it's saying if you're telling me right now we'd make the playoffs but lose in the first round, that I'd rather end up 8-9 or 9-8 and just miss the playoffs because in our opinion, the benefits that come along with that outweigh the benefit of the players getting 1 game of playoff experience.
    • In relation to tanking. I think you can count on one hand the number of people here who actually want us to lose football games. When accounting for it across the fanbase it amounts to maybe 2% of the entire Panthers fanbase. But you engage with some internet trolls and think haters are coming out of the woodwork and hey look at that it's all a conspiracy that leads to Bryce Young haters. Do you hear yourself sir? If it sounds ridiculous that's because it is. I mean at this point do you see Bryce haters in your dreams? As far as the culture of this franchise goes we seem to be doing better in that department via what we are building right now and with the people we have in place. But we also shouldn't just make assumptions just yet either. The rubber still needs to meet the road. And going back to previous seasons I think we can acknowledge although tanking obviously isn't a thing there were some times where we thought our culture was improving but really it wasn't. Yes I'm looking directly at some of those wins under Wilks. If the culture had truly changed we would not have lost to the Steelers who have been mediocre for years at home the way we did and they were starting Mitch Trubisky ffs. We did not change our culture for the better and we won games that ultimately meant nothing. It was just a brief mirage. We've done this for years now. The harsh truth of the matter is the Panthers have not had a winning season or been to the playoffs in going on 8 years but in those years they've been trying to convince themselves they aren't poo but in the process all they've done throughout most of that time period is squander better draft position and we were still the worst team in the league for our troubles. At the end of the day we should be able to just be adults and reconcile with that. And no that isn't being "pro tank" or any other boogeyman term it's simply recognizing reality.
    • He's an asset in a game manager role. But as soon as you have to ask him to go out there and try to make plays and not just take what the defense is giving him... well, Darnolding happens.
×
×
  • Create New...