Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

that the problem with over emphasizing stats in general, they don’t reflect the actual impact. Pass rushers do more than just get sacks. Just to name a couple other ways they impact, pressures lead to bad throws (incompletions and interceptions). Double teams lead to other players being able to make an impact.  There’s a lot more to it than “they get a sack .028% of the time”.  It’s also why DTs can command high salaries despite usually not getting much on the stat sheet, and why even ones who aren’t Donald are still extremely valuable and expensive despite not showing up on the stat sheet much. 

well, as a team lead by Burns last year. 

we were bottom half of the league in pressure %, knockdown %, hurry %

 

[JawnyBlaze]

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

well, as a team lead by Burns last year. 

we were bottom half of the league in pressure %, knockdown %, hurry %

 

I would argue the team was lead by Rhule. Just like the years our offense was bad under Cam wasn’t because he’s not a great QB. There’s only so much that players can compensate for shitty leadership. 

[carpanfan96]

57 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Are those your numbers or are you reading/hearing that somewhere?

My expected numbers

[CRA]

27 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

 

There's only a few teams with a well built roster. 49ers and Eagles come to mind.

 

That's what happens when you draft well every year. You simply have to pay your elite stars on your team. Burns happens to be the best player on the team. Pay him and get it over with. We are in no position to lose our best player right now.

I would say there are a lot more than 2 well built rosters in the NFL. 

[Martin]

20 minutes ago, CRA said:

I would say there are a lot more than 2 well built rosters in the NFL. 

How many of those teams have let their best pass rusher leave?

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Martin said:

How many of those teams have let their best pass rusher leave?

burns is leaving?  For nothing?

[CRA]

1 hour ago, Martin said:

How many of those teams have let their best pass rusher leave?

Denver has a well built defensive roster.  It’s why they could let Von Miller go and became a top 10 D with him at Rams.   And why they could let Chubb go in season the next year after letting Von Miller go….and still finished as a top 10 D.  

Being well built should be the priority.   Not dependent on one dude.   Burns knee could go out tomorrow and you would have 120+ guaranteed sitting there if some got their way. 

and I’ve always been willing to part with anyone if and when the time comes.  Which is never popular around here in the moment.  We should of taken those picks.  You got to take deals when they are too good.  I clearly want Burns.   But it doesn’t mean there aren’t limits to wanting him. 

[Martin]

6 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

burns is leaving?  For nothing?

Not sure where you’re coming from here, but context matters. I was making the case for people talking about other well managed teams and how essentially all of them pay their best pass rusher. So being against paying market value for Burns (real market value, not huddle logic and spreadsheet value) and at the same time admiring other teams doing the exact same thing makes no sense.

[AU-panther]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Then you restructure a few guys and get under the cap again like New Orleans did this year to sign Carr.

Again the cap is just a number that teams get around a dozen ways. The idea that you can't manipulate it to get who you want is the myth.  So yeah it isn't the big impediment that you and others here think it is.

But there is a limit and you are making it sound like their isn’t.

It’s true that often times teams can restructure a few players and fit people in but the cap is unlimited.  Here again why does a team like KC let Hill go or why does any team let a star player.  Why hasn’t an owner like Jerry Jones just paid to have an all pro at every position? 
The cap is real, those that say otherwise just don’t understand it. 
Speaking  of restructuring we actually had a year during DH gentleman’s tenure where pretty much every player with a significant salary had been restructured.  Basically every credit card was maxed. 

[frankw]

16 hours ago, UnluckyforSome said:

Do you happen to read Peter King's column anymore? If not, he has a line in this week's that goes along the lines of how great it is CMC is finally in a system that can maximize him as a player. If you feel that's a bit of a slight or an insult, you should, since he became the 3rd player to have a 1000/1000 season on one  of our awful 5 win teams. No mention made of that though.

7 winning seasons in 27 years and people are still talking about that one 5 win season where McCaffrey set some records lol

[RJK]

It’s awesome how fitt likes to overpay every jag on the roster then play hardball with the best player 

[Cdparr7]

10 minutes ago, RJK said:

It’s awesome how fitt likes to overpay every jag on the roster then play hardball with the best player 

Sir Ian Thomas is not having his contract negotiated.

[Ricky Prickles]

30 minutes ago, CRA said:

Denver has a well built defensive roster.  It’s why they could let Von Miller go and became a top 10 D with him at Rams.   And why they could let Chubb go in season the next year after letting Von Miller go….and still finished as a top 10 D.  

Being well built should be the priority.   Not dependent on one dude.   Burns knee could go out tomorrow and you would have 120+ guaranteed sitting there if some got their way. 

and I’ve always been willing to part with anyone if and when the time comes.  Which is never popular around here in the moment.  We should do taken those picks.  I clearly want Burns.   But it doesn’t mean there aren’t limits to wanting him. 

What would you sign him for realistically if you were GM? I realize he doesnt have to accept but what would you personally offer him if it was your call?

[Stuart Smith]

14 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

Nobody is arguing that the NFL could be what it is without their fans, that would be asinine.  The discussion is about whether the money spent by fans on merchandise and products from advertisers goes towards paying the players, which it doesn't, no matter how much or little they spend.

It's only about the number of fans who watch, period.

First, every team gets about $300 million a year from the TV deal while the salary cap is set off that and is about $225 right now.  That's why no matter how much is spent on merchandise, absolutely none of it goes towards the players, that goes towards everything else to run the franchise and why some have better stadiums, facilities, perks, etc, than others.

But I'm glad you brought up another American sport, because it kinda proves my point about why what we spend on advertiser's products doesn't matter either.

First you have to remember, that TV money is paid by the networks, not the brands.  The networks then charge the brands for ad space during the games just like they do for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. 

Those leagues all basically have the same group of advertisers, as they have basically the same target market as the NFL.  More people amongst them regularly watch, which is why the networks charge more for the ad space during NFL games than other sports.  Because TV ad space is sold on ratings, and ratings are based solely on eyeballs, not dollars spent.

So the same group of people are buying the products, the same amount of money being spent on them by said group of people... but these brands are paying significantly more for NFL ad space than in any of the other leagues by a wide margin, hence why the networks pay the NFL so much to get those rights.

Which is why for NFL games you generally only see ads from massive brands in the major categories like autos, phone, movies/tv, daily household items (your P&G stuff), as they're the brands who make so much money that it's a tiny drop in the bucket for them to spend the cost of the NFL ad space.  The NFL is huge and as a collective bring in stupid money, but the amount spent by brands there is a small fraction of their overall ad budgets.

Ford makes $170 Billion in revenue, AT&T $120, Disney $90, P&G $80 etc.... that is why those companies can afford to pay the NFL/networks good money for that ad space.  

Hence why, back to the original point.... saying the fans are paying for the player's contracts with their money spent on the products of their advertisers, is a fallacy.  Those brands are succeeding with or without the NFL advertising, they can just afford to spend the cost of the ad space that the networks charge.

If you want to say the fans interest in the game, sure, that's fair, but not their money spent directly.

Interesting that baseball and the Yankees were brought up. The Yankees consistently outspend the small market teams (as do the Mets) who cannot afford the payroll and go over the cap. Yet, it has been a while since either won a World Series. This is not the same as football, there are some differences I know. However, there are some things to think about. The ability of the front office to recognize and retain key players while managing payroll is equally important in any sport. This is for all intent and purposes Fitterer’s team. How this team performs this year is a reflection of his (Fitterer’s)  ability. It will be interesting to watch.