How would you spread out the money?

[Cyberjag]

Figure you're the GM, assembling the team. Obviously some positions cost more than others to put stars at. For instance, get a star WR and you're going to have to pay them a lot more than you would a star TE. On defense, CBs are worth more than Safeties (or are they?). Point is, you have to make decisions on where you want to spend the most money.

Right now, the New York Giants have a cap figure of 21.5M at QB, 6.5M at WR, and 2.6M at RB. The Panthers, by contrast, are enjoying Cam's rookie contract with a figure of 7M at QB, 11M at WR, and 14M at RB (ok, I know I just spawned a half a dozen Hurney posts, but bear with me here). That's just an example, this year the Ravens were at 7.3, 16, and 11.1 respectively, so we're not THAT out of whack with what other teams are doing.

On defense, we spend more of our money at LB than all but two teams in the league. Even with CJ's contract, at DE we're 10th, and at DT we're bottom-feeders. We spend almost twice as much on CBs as we do Safeties (which is mainly because of Gamble), but we're in the middle tier of teams around the league there.

Assuming you get your best results where you invest the most, where would you try and invest the team's money in terms of contracts? Would you dump Gamble and put his figure into getting a strong DT? Or would you move it to Offense? Right now we're going almost 50/50 on offense/defense, but not all teams do that--most are spending significantly more on offense right now.

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts, it's the boring off-season, and I figured this would be marginally better to discuss than a thread on signing Dawan Landry.

So what do you think?

[top dawg]

I am really not a numbers guy when it comes to the cap, but I would never have found myself in the position that Hurney has left us in. A couple of million here and there matter when you're trying to put the puzzle of a good team together year after year. That being said, I would dump Gamble and sign Canty at a discount, as well as try to pick up value-picks at WR and TE. I would fill in the other holes in the draft with the BPA in fitting with our needs. I would probably try and move Beason and Williams to any team that would bite. Love them, but business is business.

[Cyberjag]

Moaning about the position Hurney left us in is pointless--every team looks lopsided in areas if you examine their cap. What he left us with fits more a John Fox team than a Ron Rivera team, and part of that is influenced by rookie contracts (i.e. why our QB figure is low).

One thing that we're doing differently is spending evenly on offense and defense, I didn't really call that out much, but it seems like most teams spend more on offense than they do on defense. Seattle, for instance, is spending 78.8 million on offense next year, and only 42.2 million on defense. They're the biggest offensive spenders...

Take a look here: http://www.overthecap.com Lots of good stuff in there.

[carolina-chuck]

sign Dwan Landry

[Navy_football]

For the Panthers, I would say keep your strengths your strengths, and the fill the worst holes (RG, S and DT) with respectable FAs. Add dimensions through talent via the draft. No team has all pros at every position and neither should we.

Defense:

LB and DE are incredibly strong - like top 5 in the league. Keep it that way. DT needs an upgrade with the loss of Ron via FA - Canty. Safety may be okay with Dockery at SS and Godfrey at FS. But I would bring in a vet or draft pick to make sure (competition).

QB and RB are incredibly strong - like top 5 in the league potential (minus Chud going ape crap the first half of the season). Need, Need, Need a RG. This can not be ignored next year. Would honestly rather address via FA, but Cooper and Warmack are enticing if available via draft. TE is fine. Bring back Barnidge and use more double TE sets. The kid can play and he's improving his blocking. I think WR is good enough for now, but #1 needs to be addressed soon via draft. I don't agree with having multiple #1 WR salaries on a team at the same time (similar to the double trouble fiasco). Just too much cap invested in one position. If Steve was willing to take a paycut, I could see bringing in a guy like Mike Wallace. If not, then stick with the draft.

[panther4life]

Props on the outside the box line of thinking for a good football related thread.

I am at work so I can't invest the brainpower or time it would take to make a good followup post on my end at the moment.

One quick thought tho...When comparing our offensive spending to the Giants, they benefit from having their receivers and running backs under rookie deals much like we benefit from having Cam on his rookie deal.

[CRA]

For the Panthers, I would say keep your strengths your strengths .

I wouldn't.

For example, people claim RB is a strength we must keep strong.....

But we invest more at RB than any team in the NFL.....and they produced less for us last year than nearly any other team. So, what is pimped as a strength really is just one on paper that cost a lot of cap space/money.

I'd invest money at RG, DT, S, .......and THEN WR/CB.

S play has been much worse for us than CB play under Rivera (with or without Gamble)

[Navy_football]

I wouldn't.

For example, people claim RB is a strength we must keep strong.....

But we invest more at RB than any team in the NFL.....and they produced less for us last year than nearly any other team. So, what is pimped as a strength really is just one on paper that cost a lot of cap space/money.

I'd invest money at RG, DT, S, .......and THEN WR/CB.

S play has been much worse for us than CB play under Rivera (with or without Gamble)

I think we're actually in agreement for the most part...

Though, I do think the RB position is a strength and should stay that way, there is no reason to pay 2 backs #1 RB money. Double trouble is a fiasco in my opinion. Great when at least one was under rookie contract. But no way they should have resigned both as #1 RBs. I think you could have gone with either Williams or Stewart and kept that position a strength with Tolbert at FB. The lack of attempts and oline play is what made the position seem weak, not the positional players.

Agree that S and CB play hurt the team this year, but I think when Cam stopped pressing, the team got better as a whole.

[jarhead]

I think we're actually in agreement for the most part...

Though, I do think the RB position is a strength and should stay that way, there is no reason to pay 2 backs #1 RB money. Double trouble is a fiasco in my opinion. Great when at least one was under rookie contract. But no way they should have resigned both as #1 RBs. I think you could have gone with either Williams or Stewart and kept that position a strength with Tolbert at FB. The lack of attempts and oline play is what made the position seem weak, not the positional players.

Agree that S and CB play hurt the team this year, but I think when Cam stopped pressing, the team got better as a whole.

to have a running game you need to have a line that can push people around.We looked really foolish last year having these big $$$$ backs and such a lousy line.

[Cyberjag]

I wouldn't.

For example, people claim RB is a strength we must keep strong.....

But we invest more at RB than any team in the NFL.....and they produced less for us last year than nearly any other team. So, what is pimped as a strength really is just one on paper that cost a lot of cap space/money.

I'd invest money at RG, DT, S, .......and THEN WR/CB.

S play has been much worse for us than CB play under Rivera (with or without Gamble)

Actually, at RB we do have a ton of talent. We're not using it well, but we have it. And there are two other teams that put more of their cap towards that position than we do, the Vikings and Seahawks.

What's interesting is that from team to team, the spikes in the cap are where the higher paid veterans are. That's why New York is so high at QB, they have Eli. We have Cam under his rookie contract. So, anywhere that we chose to increase the cap figure would represent a place where we were looking at re-signing our current players, or signing them from other teams.

With that said, I would personally like a team where the defensive spending was on the line and linebackers, and just stock the secondary with good athletes who are interchangeable and easy to find. We don't need a Revis Island if we can keep the QB under pressure. And that worked well last year when Gamble went out, which is why I don't think we will miss him. Not sure how I would invest in offense, but I don't think I would put so much at running back.

Here's how we rank across the league in spending by position (with Gamble gone)

QB - 26th

RB - 3rd

WR - 19th

TE - 18th

OL - 6th

DE - 10th

DT - 26th

LB - 3rd

CB - 31st (was 16th this morning)

S - 13th

I'm not trying to make any point here, just wondering if this really means anything and is worth discussing. It -is- the offseason, you know?

[CRA]

Actually, at RB we do have a ton of talent. We're not using it well, but we have it. And there are two other teams that put more of their cap towards that position than we do, the Vikings and Seahawks.

What's interesting is that from team to team, the spikes in the cap are where the higher paid veterans are. That's why New York is so high at QB, they have Eli. We have Cam under his rookie contract. So, anywhere that we chose to increase the cap figure would represent a place where we were looking at re-signing our current players, or signing them from other teams.

With that said, I would personally like a team where the defensive spending was on the line and linebackers, and just stock the secondary with good athletes who are interchangeable and easy to find. We don't need a Revis Island if we can keep the QB under pressure. And that worked well last year when Gamble went out, which is why I don't think we will miss him. Not sure how I would invest in offense, but I don't think I would put so much at running back.

Here's how we rank across the league in spending by position (with Gamble gone)

QB - 26th

RB - 3rd

WR - 19th

TE - 18th

OL - 6th

DE - 10th

DT - 26th

LB - 3rd

CB - 31st (was 16th this morning)

S - 13th

I'm not trying to make any point here, just wondering if this really means anything and is worth discussing. It -is- the offseason, you know?

No one ever said we didn't have talent....nor that we don't spend money at RB. I said we got very little production from them.....so that makes it a strength on paper more than anything. Having talent you don't use or isn't a primary focus of your offense...makes the talent largely irrelevant.

Take the Vikings...

Min -2634 rushing yards, 16 TDs

RBs accounted for 86% of the rushing yards 81% of the rushing TDs.

Now Carolina...

Car - 2088 rushing yards, 21 TDs

RBs accounted for 51% of the rushings yards 42% of the rushing TDs

One of these teams wasted a lot of money....one team didn't.

[Thorrez]

Problem is, you cannot choose that much.

I say LT and QB are the most "unpayable". You either get lucky drafting cheap for the rookie deal then, very, expensive or you are not getting a good player. Have a lot of money to offer does not help if there are noone to offer the money.

Same applies somewhat everywhere as the "cheaper" a position is to sign the cheaper it also get to tag the player. Meaning, again, that the top players never becomes FA and it does not help you that you have and are willing to spend like $8M on a guard.

Another angle: Look at the first 2 rounds of the draft for 2006-2008 and the positions taken by a team in those will probably map very well to what positions they spend big money on now.

[iamhubby1]

I would keep my core guys strong. QB, LT, WR, CB, DE, RB. And if I can draft well, I can keep the rest of my team strong as well. That strong inner core would allow me to draft BPA to keep the talent flowing.

In the age of cap hell, you have to be able to draft to keep restocking. You only get so many big contracts. You must draft well to keep costs down, so you can pay your core. My core can beat your core because I have drafted well, and my supporting cast is better.

I would also work my asz off to keep my bigs contracts fair and equitable. Full time starters are worth more than rotational guys, specialist, and one trick ponies. (Unless you have and exceptional specialist that is. Those guys are worth a little more.) And I defintately would not overpay.

Doesn't seem that dificult to me.

[iamhubby1]

No one ever said we didn't have talent....nor that we don't spend money at RB. I said we got very little production from them.....so that makes it a strength on paper more than anything. Having talent you don't use or isn't a primary focus of your offense...makes the talent largely irrelevant.

Take the Vikings...

Min -2634 rushing yards, 16 TDs

RBs accounted for 86% of the rushing yards 81% of the rushing TDs.

Now Carolina...

Car - 2088 rushing yards, 21 TDs

RBs accounted for 51% of the rushings yards 42% of the rushing TDs

One of these teams wasted a lot of money....one team didn't.

Dude, we get it. You are not happy with our RB situation. But cherry picking stats is not the way to get your point across.

A complaint without a solution is just a bitchh. Don't get me wrong, you are good at it. It just gets old.

Sure Hurndog handcuffed us with the money he threw at DWill and Stew. You are not the only one that sees that. But you sure go out of your way to point it out.

Maybe, just maybe, Gettlemen has a plan. Naw, no way he does. He is just flying by the seat of his pants, hoping the situation will resolve itself. Or at least that is what you will have us believe.