Thurman#1

Have the Saints won any Super Bowls since they stopped handling their cap fairly frugally? In fact, wasn't that the moment when they had three 7-9 years in a row? In any case, it's not surprising that you looked at that list of about 12 consistent winners and were only able to pluck out one that was much of an exception. Exactly. When you want something and have about 12 models for the kind of success you want and almost all of them operate with much the same overall financial approach, that's the approach that you should take. Your point was that with $90 mill you don't have to worry about the cap, right? Yeah, I got your point, and my objection still stands 100%. Guys who say, "We've got enough money, we can do what we want are generally the ones who very quickly are saying to themselves, "Jeez, just a coupla days ago it seemed I had a ton of money and now I can't afford to go to Mac's for a burger and fries. What happened?" Smart people always husband their money, treating it carefully. Always. You look at guys like Bezos, Gates, Buffett and while they make purchases, they aren't saying, "Ah, now I don't have to worry about money anymore, cuz I've got lots. They still worry about it, and that habit is a lot of the reason they ended up having so much of it. They might easily want to save $20 or $30 mill and roll it over to next year to put them in great shape again. You act as if the $90M is only for Josh Allen. It's not. And I agree with you that he's still got a lot to prove before they give him a massive QB deal, but Josh is very far from all they're thinking about. They've made it as clear as it can possibly be made that they value continuity and that they will be re-signing and extending their own guys as an extremely high priority. That $90M won't all still be there after they bring back the several of the many guys they are surely looking at extending, from Spain, Levi Wallace, Jordan Phillips, Shaq Lawson and a bunch of lesser priorities who might still be helpful enough that they'd want to bring 'em back, guys like Stanford, Coleman, Marlowe, guys like that. Not that they'll bring all of those guys back. Clearly they won't, but there'll be a bunch. And that's not to mention Tre' White, Milano, and Dion Dawkins. And Poyer. Me? I give Poyer a very nice contract extension sometime soon. He's the guy who holds that backfield together, and that backfield has been the backbone of the Bills backstops, the defense. He wouldn't be easy to replace either, as the reason he's so good is more about smarts, experience, leadership and now continuity than physical freakhood. You can replace him, maybe even with a guy with more physical talent, but you still won't get the same level of performance out of the new safety or the backfield as a unit. As always, I'd be conservative, as the smart teams overwhelmingly do. I wouldn't give him anything he wanted but absolutely I'd give him a raise. He's been worth it, and in fact he's wildly overperformed his contract. This defense is extremely cheap in 2020, around $57M right now. Absolutely bring back a major leader of a group that outperforms their own talent at a position that won't likely require a huge outlay to make him happy in a year when they can afford to spend judiciously.

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2020/02/13/matt-waldmans-rsp-film-room-wr-laviska-shenault-jr-colorado-dont-call-him-gadget/ Waldman does consistently excellent breakdowns on a ton of players every year. He argues that comparing Shenault with Cordarelle Patterson isn't fair to Shenault. "When I made my first pass through the 2020 NFL Draft class of wide receivers this summer, I wondered if Laviska Shenault might have more in common with Cordarrelle Patterson than desired. Patterson was one of the best open-field runners I’ve ever seen and when you restrict your viewing of his receiving skills to the catch-point, there appeared to be a lot of promise for Patterson to become a primary NFL receiver. Unfortunately, Patterson hasn’t demonstrated the skill to learn the intricacies of an offense required of an every-down receiver. As was shared with me before and after his rookie year, Patterson needs a lot more practice repetitions to execute assignments than the average NFL starter. "Remember when Bill Belichick told the media that he promised Patterson in the spring of 2018 that he’d make Patterson as productive as his talent suggests? Although Belichick got production from Patterson, it wasn’t to expectation and Patterson was a Chicago Bear by 2019. "Patterson is a gadget player with elite physical traits. On the surface, Shenault’s film looks dangerously like Patterson’s—his targets consist of a high volume of short passes, running plays from the wing and the backfield, and the occasional vertical routes when the offense can match Shenault one-on-one. "A deeper look into Shenault’s game reveals a promising intermediate and vertical route runner with an above-average arsenal of footwork and hand usage against press coverage. While Shenault’s route tree is limited in Colorado’s system, his ability to sell cornerbacks with his stem work and finish off patterns with sharp breaks indicates that Shenault will become a primary option in an NFL offense within 2-3 seasons. There are a handful of more refined wide receiver prospects in this class but you can make the argument that Shenault has the best combination of floor and upside of any of his colleagues. It’s why Shenault might not have the highest grade on my board but he might be worth taking as the top option of this heralded receiver class anyhow." He has a 15 minute video here where he spends a lot of time talking about what he sees and why he thinks Shenault is not a gadget guy. Points out a couple of things he'll have to work on and also a few subtleties that are already there in his game.

You're mixing cause and effect, IMO. If the Bills don't strive to become consistent winners, they aren't likely to win the Super Bowl. If you win consistently, you will have chances in several years rather than just one. That drastically raises your odds. Thoughtful and interesting post, though. But I do wonder about your first few sentences. You say there's no such thing as sustainability in the NFL and then you point out how one group of teams have sustained excellence for quite a long time.

Why is he concerned about money? Because everyone should be ... always. That question utterly and totally misses the point. It's like asking, which do you want, to be rich or to save money? The answer should be both. Saving money is one of the main things that leads to being rich. Same as handling your cap space smartly and frugally is one of the main things that leads to consistently being competitive for Super Bowls. Oh, man, is that ever dead on target.

Sorry, Hap, but you're not right about this. It's you who is accounting twice for the Unamortized signing bonus. You're subtracting Cap Number (which DOES contain the unamortized bonus, called Prorated Bonus in your chart) and then subtracting dead money, which ALSO contains the unamortized bonus. Or more correctly, it IS the amortized bonus. You're using it twice. There's a reason your graphic there lists Cap Savings and Dead Money in pink and right next to each other. Because if he's cut, you need those two pieces of info to find total cap impact, you subtract one from the other. If you sum the first four money columns, you are including his unamortized bonus money. It's the third column, titled "Prorated Bonus." You know what his dead money is, right? It's his unamortized bonus money, the same money you added in earlier, the "Prorated Bonus." So you're originally adding and then later subtracting the same money. There is no universe where that makes sense. Yes, his "cap number this year" is $22.5M. But again, the cap number is only an "IF" conditional. It only is $22.5 mill IF he stays on the team ... that's how much he will cost them, and his dead cap will be zero if he's still on the team. If on the other hand, he's cut, his unamortized bonus ("Prorated bonus" in your OTC graphic) becomes zero ... it disappears from his cap number and reappears in dead money. It's one or the other, it's either in the cap number or the dead money, depending whether he is with the team or not. But it simply can not be in both. It's listed in both places because they don't know in advance whether he'll be cut or not. But you simply ... can ... NOT ... add the same money to both sides of a subtraction and expect to get the correct answer. Let me try to put it another way to make it clearer. You certainly agree that they save $20 mill (base salary + roster bonus + workout bonus = $20M) if Dareus is gone, correct? So ask yourself this. Do they also save $2.5 mill in amortized bonus on top of that if they cut him? Is that money "saved"? It absolutely isn't. He got paid that money years ago in his bonus check, and whatever money they already paid ABSOLUTELY MUST be charged against the salary cap sooner or later. That money is NOT saved if he's cut. It's a sunken cost. If he stays on the team, his cap cost will be $22.5M. And there Is no dead money. If on the other hand, he's cut, they only save the money they have not paid him yet, the $20M. But now the unamortized bonus is shifted into dead money. And if you're looking for the total cap impact of cutting a guy, you subtract the dead money from what Spotrac calls Yearly Cash, the total future cash saved this year if you cut him. If you still doubt this, there's a cap expert on here. Dammit, his name escapes me now, but you know who I mean, right? Message him. He will tell you I'm right. Hell, email Spotrac and OTC. They will tell you the same thing. EDIT: I just emailed Spotrac about this, and assuming they answer, I vow to post it, even if they say I'm wrong. That's a promise.

Yeah, OK, dude. This defense is quite a bit better with Milano out there. He's not going to get huge money, but expect him to get a very nice deal indeed.

Thanks, glad you're seeing it now. I didn't see your more recent comments before I posted that, and they are far more reasonable. It's certainly possible he isn't good enough, but how much of that comes from being treated badly. How you're treated absolutely does have an effect on how you play. Not the only effect and not a conclusive effect, but it absolutely hurt his development. Guy doesn't know what kind of offense he'll be in when/if he finally gets his chance with a group that believes in him. You should know that by this time in your career. It's also certainly possible that given a good environment he might have been good enough by now, and that if he's given the right environment soon, it could still happen. It's simply not clear what'll happen. I liked Rosen better than Allen but thought all of the top four had a very reasonable shot at being successful. I've never used the wrong/right label, thought it was ridiculous from minute one.

Keee-yikes! Money that is left over under the cap this year will get rolled over into next year's cap. It doesn't just go into the Pegulas investment accounts. Agreed the team is a bit worse without him. But not $15 mill worse.

It's pretty clear they absolutely are considering it. Beane says as much in the article. I hope they do it this year. This large amount of cap freedom they have this year and the need to get Dawkins, White and Milano on board make this a good time to do so. But it'll come down to details and negotiations, as usual.

Um, to each their own, I guess.

Hap, not exactly. They aren't listing total savings at $20 mill. Theyare calling it "Cap Savings" but you'll notice that they then list - separately - $2.5 mill in dead cap. That dead cap is NOT included in what they are calling "Cap Savings." Take a look. Both list Dareus as receiving $9.5 mill in base salary, a $10 mill roster bonus in March and $500K in workout bonuses. That totals $20M, and it's what they are calling "Cap Savings." To me it should be called something clearer, like "Cash Saved," but whatever, they're calling it "Cap Savings." But after that $20 mill which they would have had to pay him this year is saved, they still have $2.5 mill in dead cap subtracted from the cap. The total is $17.5M. I guess if people want to ignore the dead cap, that's their business, but it would make no sense to me.

You're so right. And here's another: Yeah, offense bad in 2018 when they didn't put any resources into it. News flash, though. That's what happens in rebuilds, and especially rebuilds when the previous regime left you in very bad shape cap-wise. You suck for a couple of years. "How many times does Mahomes have to carve up a top defense for people to see offense is what sets winners apart from pretenders," you ask? Great question. Here's another, with just as much logical sense. How many terrific oranges do you have to eat before you realize that no other kind of fruit is worth eating? I mean, you may have asked the world's dumbest question there. I guess that's an achievement.

He does know his football. But I really don't think you recall that correctly. You mean Rodgers, correct? Yeah, I don't think so. But if you can show I'm wrong .... I like Barnwell a lot, personally. He's heavy into analytics and he doesn't mind taking unpopular positions. He's smart. He'll be wrong a lot but also right in a bunch of places where very few thought he would be. He did like Tyrod a lot more than I ever did, but he wasn't off the edge nutty about it either.

It sure didn't look anywhere near as clear to me as it does to you that he has the physical ability. Looked to me clear that he had the toughness to run-block and handle the bull-rush, but very unclear whether he had the ability in foot-speed to kick-slide well enough to stay with good speed rushers on the edge. Looked very questionable to me, though maybe there's something they can teach him that will get him to show improvement.

Agreed, I like the chances for improvement this year.

I'd guess it's far closer to "have some hope he'll be the answer" than "see him as the answer." At RT at least. There's good reason to think he'd be the answer if they move him inside.

Disagree about the similarity. Missed games - in chronological order - in the last four years: Greg Olsen: 0, 9, 7, 2, totaling 18, including two last season AJ Green: 6, 0, 7, 16, totaling 29, including all of last season

That's utter nonsense. You can kid yourself that it's somehow not important that the Chiefs and 9ers were both in the top eight in scoring defense. But that is what you'd be doing, kidding yourself. Both offense and defense are important. Yeah, the Bills offense still needs a lot of work. But it's not somehow unimportant that the Bills defense was genuinely excellent. It is a huge step towards being a good team. It didn't go over, because it didn't happen. First, it really wasn't media criticism. It was criticism by clueless fans. The media mostly had muted positives. When they voiced those and went to the Bills and the guys who watched tape they got much less muted positives. At that point, fans started noticing what they should have been noticing all along, that he was doing a good job at a thankless task. Lotulelei didn't suddenly elevate his play. People just suddenly started noticing that he'd actually been playing pretty well.

Not so much more faith as much better perception of reality. Your "effort issues" are perceptible only to yourself and a few other Star haters on these boards. What the Bills say about it is exactly the opposite. What you hear about Star from them isn't the boiler-plate Crash Davis platitudes about giving 100%. Instead you get over-the-top, unbounded compliments about how he works like a dog doing the dirty work to let others get the glory. Yeah, pretty much the whole world, Bills included, expect him to continue to both prepare and perform at a high level in 2020, to do what he's always done. The fact that the Bills guaranteed 2020 and parts of 2021 does indeed mean that the people with access to his workouts and offseason preparation that you simply don't have are indeed very satisfied with his past effort and production and do expect the same going forward.

"Wasted a season"? Man, you just do ... not ... get it. A rebuild isn't a waste. It's utterly clueless to think so. It's accepting a couple of bad seasons with the promise of having great improvement in exchange after the end of the trough in years 3, 4, 5 and on. Which is exactly what is happening so far. Wait, why am I even answering? Not a single thing you said here makes the slightest bit of sense. I'm sure everyone else sees that as well as I.

I disagree with your first paragraph, though I think you're right on with the rest, but he really isn't overpaid. He was paid what he was worth to McDermott. He isn't just a run-stopper, it's more complex than that, as I'm sure you know. He's a space eater, and there aren't that many of those guys to go around, so the good ones get paid well, as there are two or three significantly above Star in the top ten. It's a really difficult job that few are able to physically handle. Not every defense needs one, but the ones that do need them badly. Space eater may not be a "premium position," but neither is $10 mill a year a premium salary. Star is tied for 148th highest paid in the league, in terms of average salary, and 129th highest in terms of guarantee. Calling that a premium salary would be ridiculous. The bottom line is simply that this is a position that McDermott needs filled in his defense and needs filled at a pretty high level. He knew Star could fill it at that level, having coached him in Carolina. And if McDermott has showed one thing, it's that he knows how to put together a really good defense with consistency. He needed Star to do that. As you point out, this is a good deal for both sides, a small pay cut for some guarantees the Bills are willing to live with because they want him here.

Well, that's a fair enough opinion, but it's certainly not the only one. Polished isn't necessarily the most important thing. Eric Moulds wasn't polished. Great pick, though. Drafttek has him at #27. If that's his actual value, #22 is a reasonable spot to take him. I like him, myself. Tough as nails. And there's no especial reason to think he may never develop.

Yeah, he has a lot of those touches that have not much to do with route-running. But when he does run routes, he gets open consistently. He probably has a lot to learn but when you're getting open, you've got a head start on your learning.

Hap, just wanted to correct this, as I see it being used again and again the last week or so. That's not how you calculate money saved or spent. It's NOT CAP COST minus DEAD CAP. Doing it that way counts the dead cap money twice. The correct formula for a cut would be something like MONEY TO BE PAID THIS YEAR (generally salary plus roster bonus plus workout bonus plus any other bonuses) minus DEAD CAP. Dead cap money is counted twice in your equation there. A player's cap cost includes his unamortized signing bonus cost for that year. And of course that is also included in his dead cap money. But if they cut a guy, they don't save the unamortized bonus. Cutting Dareus will save 'em $17.5 mill.

$17.5 mill, looks like to me. Hard to imagine them keeping Marcell at that price. They save $20M on salary and roster bonus but lose $2.5M as dead cap.