JohnC Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I think it does push the market up for Gilmore. I don't believe he will get Norman money because they hype around him isn't commensurate. However, $13m now looks a little cheap.... $13.5m - $14m a year is the range. This does raise a question about whether the Bills go that high. EDIT: Norman won't be a total FA bust but he will never justify that deal. I don't get as hung up on the amount of money a free agent gets. What the Norman addition does is strengthen a major area of weakness and allows the GM more flexibility to address other areas of need (DL and LB) in the draft and in the mid-level free agent market. As No Saint constantly points out contracts can be adjusted and roster moves can be made to comfortably fit in on the surface a gargantuan contract but in reality with a little adjustment can be comfortably managed. The Redskins under their GM is not running the Redskins in the profligate manner they used to be run. They are mostly rebuilding through the draft and making good use of the second-tier free agent market. The costly addition of Norman is not a signal that the Skins are going to deviate from the planned way they are rebuilding the roster. They planned for this type of addition by culling their roster of expensive and poor value players and are now in a position to make this type of calculated move for a talented player.
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 ..and the Saints model is basically, as I see it, to accept a few years of a painful rebuild post Brees. They keep kicking the can down the road to try and load up while they still feel they have a window. In this one, it may have been. They seem to be hitting that window. The worst of what got them recently is signing graham, gallette and browner who aren't on the team but have eaten up huge cap and Byrd who has been unhealthy. Their cap story circles around big misses more than anything right now.
GunnerBill Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 John - I wasn't criticising the Redskins for making the deal. You need some star players to win in the NFL and if one comes available at an area of need then I am fine with them signing him. I just think Norman will never have another year as good as 2015 and at 28 the number of good seasons he will have is limited to 2 or 3 for me.
26CornerBlitz Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 @AlbertBreer Reality of Redskins CB Josh Norman's deal: 2 yrs, $36.5 million, fully guaranteed; $500K in per-game roster bonuses in '17. Then, options.
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 John - I wasn't criticising the Redskins for making the deal. You need some star players to win in the NFL and if one comes available at an area of need then I am fine with them signing him. I just think Norman will never have another year as good as 2015 and at 28 the number of good seasons he will have is limited to 2 or 3 for me. Yea- saints and skins haven't hit on their splashy moves. It's hard to look at this and think they got a player that will take away 1/3 of the field for 5 years. Like you, I'd picture a couple good years and likely getting out from under paying for elite play as soon as they can. On the pro side for the skins it looks like a natural fit for their scheme so likely not a catastrophic drop but I think last year was a bubble and he will come back down some, not a situation with continued growth until physical decline at the very end like 15m needs to be.
YoloinOhio Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I don't know if he's worth that contract but he's good enough that I'm glad he's with a team the Bills don't play for 4 years.
Doc Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 (edited) teams can hugely minimize first year cap hit and a player getting 2/3 of his deal guaranteed could see money kicked into years 2-3 without fear of not seeing it too. Brees likely has terms of an extension worked out but unsigned, that would soften the cap situation. Suddenly you can give Norman upwards of 15m in year one with a cap hit as low as $3-4m You really don't understand the multiple examples and concepts I've discussed on this if you are still hung up on the idea that kaepernicks contract is outdated and will never happen again. I gave several examples at various positions with varying levels of guarantee in that discussion to demonstrate extension structures that have been given out early that would fit team and player needs potentially if they wanted to do it now. The cap is about rolling averages across several years- and single year numbers are only so important. If you prefer to be constantly surprised by teams moves instead of trying to understand the process beyond the most basic levels - that can be your thing I guess. I fully understand the cap. Suffice it to say that our differences lie in your theoretical stance of "well, they could offer the player a deal like this to get under the cap..." versus my practical stance of "well they could offer him that but it's unlikely the player would accept it." You have at best a handful of examples and not many of them are recent, and even Kaep's deal from 2 years ago is outdated and unlikely to be repeated because he left a lot of money on the table and TT's agent doesn't strike me as the type to do that. In this case, I was wondering how a team that was scrambling to cut $22M in cap space could entertain adding Norman. The easy answer is that Brees is in the final year of his deal and has a $20M base salary that could be renegotiated down. That's all you had to say. Edited April 23, 2016 by Doc
dave mcbride Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 Yea- saints and skins haven't hit on their splashy moves. It's hard to look at this and think they got a player that will take away 1/3 of the field for 5 years. Like you, I'd picture a couple good years and likely getting out from under paying for elite play as soon as they can. On the pro side for the skins it looks like a natural fit for their scheme so likely not a catastrophic drop but I think last year was a bubble and he will come back down some, not a situation with continued growth until physical decline at the very end like 15m needs to be. With that guarantee, i think the skins are expecting only 3 really good seasons. If that's what he delivers, he'll have been worth it, just like mario's 3 good seasons out of 4 for $66 million was worth it for us, more or less.
Doc Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 That's a lot of scratch for a 28-1/2 year old CB who had his best season by far in a contract season. On an otherwise excellent defense. But the key for them is Cousins.
JohnC Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 John - I wasn't criticising the Redskins for making the deal. You need some star players to win in the NFL and if one comes available at an area of need then I am fine with them signing him. I just think Norman will never have another year as good as 2015 and at 28 the number of good seasons he will have is limited to 2 or 3 for me. In the old Snyder method of operating the Redskins the franchise had a cancerous habit of signing fading stars who could never deliver on the value of their contract. As you acknowledged this isn't the case with the signing of Norman. As Dave Mcbride points out in his post if Norman plays at a high level for the next few years (as with Mario---as he points out) they will get a fair value return on their investment. The Norman signing has opened up more flexibility for the Skins in the up coming draft and in the mid-level free agent market. This one costly yet strategic acquisition will positively affect the rest of the defense. Their GM didn't impulsively make this free agent splash. He has been systematically cleaning house of over-priced and poor value contracts so he would be in a good position to seize the opportunity when it avails itself.
JohnC Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 That's a lot of scratch for a 28-1/2 year old CB who had his best season by far in a contract season. On an otherwise excellent defense. But the key for them is Cousins. You make a good point. A good player with an expensive contract has less value on a team with a lot of other good players on the unit. On the other hand a good player with an expensive contract has more value being added to a roster that has less good players on the unit. The impact of Norman's loss with Carolina is less than the benefit of adding him to Washington's roster. Or another way of putting it is different calculations for different settings and situations.
boyst Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 Ugh. Gilmore is a better all-around CB than Norman too. This sucks. I will face the flames but no way I'm giving Gilmore anything close to 50 mil guaranteed. No way. this could end up helping us, too. the fact that he could likely underperform and it be obvious is highly likely.
Saxum Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I dislike the contract for it will put pressure on Bills to draft a CB to replace Gilmore; 15 M for corner a year is a significant portion of salary cap.
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I dislike the contract for it will put pressure on Bills to draft a CB to replace Gilmore; 15 M for corner a year is a significant portion of salary cap. It's a big price. I haven't done it for CB before but I'd be curious compared to CB pay as a percentage of cap 10 years ago. I remember being surprised in a few other positions when I felt like pay got crazy but compared to the growth in cap it was just standard inflation and not an actual shift in resources
Saxum Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 It's a big price. I haven't done it for CB before but I'd be curious compared to CB pay as a percentage of cap 10 years ago. I remember being surprised in a few other positions when I felt like pay got crazy but compared to the growth in cap it was just standard inflation and not an actual shift in resources Yea I am a math guy and would like to see salaries represented in graphs w/percentage of cap.
machine gun kelly Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I hate this contract only in it's implications for negotiating with Gilmore. I really don't want to lose him, and salaries I know are a moving target as the cap keeps going up.
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 Yea I am a math guy and would like to see salaries represented in graphs w/percentage of cap. I did it with qb and another position or two- just picked the top ten averages vs current year cap, and googled a "top qb contracts 2005" or other various years til I saw something roughly apples to apples pop up. The results seemed pretty consistent In that incredibly non-scientific bar napkin math. A site like spotrac doing total dollars spent league wide would be interesting
26CornerBlitz Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 Josh Norman rips Panthers, says he 'got sideswiped' by Carolina Josh Norman doesn't sound very happy with the Panthers. Josh Norman, Redskins will face murderer's row of WRs in 2016 The 2016 season is not going to be a cakewalk for Josh Norman.
Chilly Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 What does "all around" even mean in this case? Norman is probably the top zone corner in the NFL right now. Gilmore isn't the top corner in any category. He's an excellent corner, but nobody who is unbiased is saying he's as good a corner as Norman. I agree - "More Versatile" would have been better language for me to use. And players that can play in multiple schemes (like Gilmore) will get interest from more teams, dragging his $$$ up. That's what I (poorly) tried to get across. this could end up helping us, too. the fact that he could likely underperform and it be obvious is highly likely. Unfortunately, Norman is a fantastic fit for the Redskins' scheme. They run cover-3 like crazy, and are almost exclusively zone play for their DBs.
Beerball Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 I dislike the contract for it will put pressure on Bills to draft a CB to replace Gilmore; 15 M for corner a year is a significant portion of salary cap. Not to worry, we have nothing tied up in the QB position.
Recommended Posts