Sweats Posted August 9 Posted August 9 16 hours ago, Augie said: I read it. I also re-read it......i didn't like it the first time. 1
MikePJ76 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 9 minutes ago, FireChans said: Sirianni has total "Brandon Staley entering 2023" vibes. Everyone knows he's gonna be canned, they are just gonna waste a season to do it. His hiring of Kellen Moore to run the offense when he is an offensive coach and has a different scheme essentially is a big tell that he knows he is hanging by a thread. His qb reaching out to other teams coordinators to see where they are weak on offense is odd, very odd. I really hope the Giants steal that division somehow.
JP51 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 hour ago, BarleyNY said: I can see Vrabel coaching Philly next season. I can totally see that if Philly doesnt make noise this year.
Thurman#1 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 hour ago, BarleyNY said: I can see Vrabel coaching Philly next season. I would not like to see that. Vrabel is a damn good coach.
BarleyNY Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said: I would not like to see that. Vrabel is a damn good coach. At least he’d be in the NFC. But I agree, it could make getting a SB win tougher.
ColoradoBills Posted August 9 Posted August 9 18 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said: If you stagger void years to all of your high priced players you can, in theory, perpetually kick the can down the road. It really doesn't work that way. I see what you are saying but to do that you have to involve more and more players every year and in essence you are just mimicking a "Ponzi "scheme. Every player is its own "pot" of money. Players only last so long. The bad (risky) part of this whole thing revolves around the players ultimate timeline. I laugh at people talking about "paying" $30M to Diggs not to play. That's the wrong way of looking at it. They paid Diggs cash but pushed the cap hit out. Same goes with Von Miller. Every time you restructure a player you are gambling that he will be healthy, productive, and a fit for your system years further in the future. Void years are nothing but a loan which comes due on a specific date. A simple way of looking at it is like this. A player signs for 10M per year for 2 years. You keep him for 2 years but only have the cap counted for $12M during that time. When he leaves you put $8M the next year in the "Dead Money" pot. The last thing is the cap increases. Many say it's okay to do this because the cap goes up every year. True, but so do ALL the costs every year. Everything from rookie pay scales, veteran minimums and even PS weekly pay go up to. This along with every contract for every position increasing doesn't leave money to cover the restructures like some fans think. It's a tough balance for GMs to navigate properly. 1
Mat68 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 17 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: It really doesn't work that way. I see what you are saying but to do that you have to involve more and more players every year and in essence you are just mimicking a "Ponzi "scheme. Every player is its own "pot" of money. Players only last so long. The bad (risky) part of this whole thing revolves around the players ultimate timeline. I laugh at people talking about "paying" $30M to Diggs not to play. That's the wrong way of looking at it. They paid Diggs cash but pushed the cap hit out. Same goes with Von Miller. Every time you restructure a player you are gambling that he will be healthy, productive, and a fit for your system years further in the future. Void years are nothing but a loan which comes due on a specific date. A simple way of looking at it is like this. A player signs for 10M per year for 2 years. You keep him for 2 years but only have the cap counted for $12M during that time. When he leaves you put $8M the next year in the "Dead Money" pot. The last thing is the cap increases. Many say it's okay to do this because the cap goes up every year. True, but so do ALL the costs every year. Everything from rookie pay scales, veteran minimums and even PS weekly pay go up to. This along with every contract for every position increasing doesn't leave money to cover the restructures like some fans think. It's a tough balance for GMs to navigate properly. Look at New Orleans. They did that for years. Brees retired and those voids years became realized. They couldn't do anything and why Peyton left. 2
ColoradoBills Posted August 9 Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Mat68 said: Look at New Orleans. They did that for years. Brees retired and those voids years became realized. They couldn't do anything and why Peyton left. Yep, and fans keep bringing them up every year because they keep on doing it. What has it got them? They haven't made the playoffs since. If you go down that road to win a SB and fail, it's best to dump everything and start over. I don't see them winning their division again this season and they are in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL.
TBBills Fan Posted August 9 Posted August 9 39 minutes ago, Mat68 said: Look at New Orleans. They did that for years. Brees retired and those voids years became realized. They couldn't do anything and why Peyton left. That's what I was going to say. They are still in cap hell and stuck in mediocrity because of it
Billl Posted August 9 Posted August 9 35 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Yep, and fans keep bringing them up every year because they keep on doing it. What has it got them? They haven't made the playoffs since. If you go down that road to win a SB and fail, it's best to dump everything and start over. I don't see them winning their division again this season and they are in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL. That’s true, but it’s also because they’re stuck in QB purgatory with Carr. If they were to hit on a rookie (say Rattler turns out to be a stud), they’ll be fine.
ColoradoBills Posted August 9 Posted August 9 6 minutes ago, Billl said: That’s true, but it’s also because they’re stuck in QB purgatory with Carr. If they were to hit on a rookie (say Rattler turns out to be a stud), they’ll be fine. Drafting in the middle of the pack doesn't get you a lot of "stud" QB chances. That's why they should have dumped IMO.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, FireChans said: Sirianni has total "Brandon Staley entering 2023" vibes. Everyone knows he's gonna be canned, they are just gonna waste a season to do it. Yeah, I think that is the case with him in terms of how hot his seat is. Teams figured out how to slow them down and their defense has not been good and likely not going to be much better this year either. Wouldn't surprise me if that is why they went after Saquan hoping he has the ability to be a difference maker on that offense. A kind of a go big or go home move for them after they paid all that money to their receivers, Hurts, etc. I mean why not push all the chips in if they are facing a potential firing if they don't make a deep run. I don't know if it will work or not, but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. I still think their defense is going to be an achilles heal though and not sure they have done enough for them to go far enough to save his job. Edited August 9 by Alphadawg7
DrDawkinstein Posted August 9 Posted August 9 2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: I would not like to see that. Vrabel is a damn good coach. Keep him out of the AFC.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said: Yep, and fans keep bringing them up every year because they keep on doing it. What has it got them? They haven't made the playoffs since. If you go down that road to win a SB and fail, it's best to dump everything and start over. I don't see them winning their division again this season and they are in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL. Drives me nuts when people always cite the Saints as "proof" the cap isn't real when their cap issues have been a major problem. People only see the person they signed and ignore all the people they lost and more holes they created elsewhere as a result not only that year, but in the coming seasons as well. Saints are the poster child of exactly how NOT to manage a cap. And its why they have stunk for so long and even in the Brees era missed the playoffs several times. If Beane managed the cap the way the Saints do, I would be begging for him to get fired. Edited August 9 by Alphadawg7 1
Doc Posted August 9 Posted August 9 3 hours ago, GunnerBill said: I am more sold on the long term viability of Hurts than I am the long term viability of Sirianni. I’m not sure about either. With the tush push basically being outlawed/Jason Kelce being gone, it makes it much harder for Hurts
HappyDays Posted August 9 Posted August 9 20 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: Keep him out of the AFC. Unless... 😉 2
co_springs_billsfan Posted August 9 Posted August 9 10 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Drives me nuts when people always cite the Saints as "proof" the cap isn't real when their cap issues have been a major problem. People only see the person they signed and ignore all the people they lost and more holes they created elsewhere as a result not only that year, but in the coming seasons as well. Saints are the poster child of exactly how NOT to manage a cap. And its why they have stunk for so long and even in the Brees era missed the playoffs several times. If Beane managed the cap the way the Saints do, I would be begging for him to get fired. All of these cap maneuvers are accounting games that we in the business call "timing differences." The bottom line is if you pay a player $X, you will eventually have to apply every cent of that $X against in your cap. The question is just when it will happen. And as I've seen mentioned in this thread, you can only push that application out so far past a player's expiration date. And if you try to balance this out by playing the same game with newer players you're just delaying the inevitable. I would guess that the Saints probably had some kind of 5-10 year plan (post-Brees) to gradually take their medicine, hoping to remain competitive during that period. But then COVID resulted in a down cap year which screwed up the plan. And then the GM just couldn't himself on signing player Z. And now they're four years into implementing the plan and it's still ugly. They've had mediocrity for a few seasons, but it's like they have to start over with a new 5-10 year plan to clean up the cap gradually. Either that or maybe, as some have suggested, you just take your lumps and knowingly punt on a season or two. 2
MikePJ76 Posted August 9 Posted August 9 21 minutes ago, HappyDays said: Unless... 😉 I will second that. I was hoping he would be here already.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 9 Posted August 9 So, anything happening here it is this dead horse still being trashed
4merper4mer Posted August 9 Posted August 9 22 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said: So, anything happening here it is this dead horse still being trashed Is the shine off the object?
Recommended Posts