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!

     

Cap space update for all 32 teams


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/31/2023 at 5:38 PM, Soul Rebel said:

I'm guessing they've got $7-8M on the table for Floyd or Ngakoue. Maybe another $5-6M for a training camp cut CB and then ~ $10M for draft picks. Still gives us about $3-5M on the conservative side to float through the year, or roll over to '24. 

We need a little over $12 million for our draft picks based on the picks we have right now.

So have about $15 million in actual cap space at the moment, although technically we could eat into that amount we need to save for the rookies before they actually sign the deals and then get a Burns extension done to get the room back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 4:42 PM, Mr. Scot said:

Second only to the Bears...

(don't ask me how) 😳

 

How are there 4 teams with less than 2 million in cap, before the draft, and half the teams have less than 10 million. This league is heading towards a major cap crisis. The next negotiations aren’t going to be pretty. Edit: Actually before the next negotiations cause they are 10 year apparently. 

Edited by Harbingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harbingers said:

How are there 4 teams with less than 2 million in cap, before the draft, and half the teams have less than 10 million. This league is heading towards a major cap crisis. The next negotiations aren’t going to be pretty. Edit: Actually before the next negotiations cause they are 10 year apparently. 

I think large QB contracts are widespread now to the point other positions will feel the squeeze. Lots of 1 year deals for guys hoping for more somewhere next year. Next year may not be any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2023 at 11:00 PM, tukafan21 said:

We need a little over $12 million for our draft picks based on the picks we have right now.

So have about $15 million in actual cap space at the moment, although technically we could eat into that amount we need to save for the rookies before they actually sign the deals and then get a Burns extension done to get the room back.

No we don't have to . Contracts are backloaded and signing bonuses are prorated so the cap hit can be as little or as large as we want. Last year the number one pick had a 4 year deal 37 million. So if we gave him a 16 million dollar signing bonus and a 1 million salary for 2023 our cap hit would be 5 million. Or with 27 million in cap space we could make the hit bigger this year. But the cap isn't a limiter to what we can do. If we signed Burns to a huge 5 year deal for 125 million our cap hit could be as small as 8 mil this year if we give him a 40 million dollar signing bonus and a 2 million dollar salary for 2023. The guaranteed money is the biggest thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

A chart that lists teams in a more logical order along with a comment from Jeremy Fowler...

 

 

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

People keep posting crap like this like Samir is some sort of magician.

Using future cap space is really some sort of genius move? DJ Chark will still be counting against our cap in 2027! He signed a 1 year deal.

At the end of the day cap space is cap space and what doesn’t get used can be rolled over anyways but using multiple void years isn’t smart 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

 

People keep posting crap like this like Samir is some sort of magician.

Using future cap space is really some sort of genius move? DJ Chark will still be counting against our cap in 2027! He signed a 1 year deal.

At the end of the day cap space is cap space and what doesn’t get used can be rolled over anyways but using multiple void years isn’t smart 

Stfu, samir is a walking two 3rd round picks, he is a genius and if you disagree you are SELF SABOTAGING!

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

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...