Jump to content

eSJayDee

Members
  • Content Count

    1,577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eSJayDee

  1. In some ways, I think it has helped us though.  1) Beane is very "fiscally responsible" w/ how he structures contracts, so we're not often left w/ large amounts of dead cap space or players we can't afford to cut. 2) We were able to retain almost all of our own FAs, I think in large part cuz there wasn't large amounts of $ elsewhere to attract them.  Were it not for that, I think a few of our retained players may well have cost $1m or more each per yr to keep.

  2. I think it's more a matter of him not wanting to sign w/ us.  He's a solid contributor here, as a 4th or 5th WR.  One can't afford to pay a 5th WR well.  Further, I would suspect someone desperate to upgrade their WR position would see his productivity here & think he's got a (good) chance of being a significant contributor for them & of course offer him commensurate pay.

    As for KR, I think he could be good & therefore worthy more $.  I'd be hesitant to let him return punts as I think he'd be a noticeable downgrade relative to Roberts WRT fielding the ball.

  3. 55 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

    I guess what I'm asking is couldn't the Bills designate Bojo as a "first right" tender at ($2.1M for 1 year) but end up signing him

    to lets say a 3 year $5 Million ($1.67M per year) contract?

     

    Does anyone know this for sure?  

    I don't know this for sure, but I believe this to be the case, too.  Although in the example you provided, I would assume Bojo would decline that proposal & instead opt for the 1 yr deal.  I would think a multi-year deal amenable to both parties would either include a "significant" signing bonus &/or escalating salaries.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  4. I definitely think an effort should be made to re-sign him, the question is whether or not he's even worth the minimum tender though.  That would put him in the top 1/3 of punters salary-wise.  If we were flush w/ cap space, then yes.  I don't think he's worth the higher tenders (though if someone wants to surrender the pick, then thank you very much), but I don't think his market value is much less than that & I wouldn't want to lose him over a few hundred K.  Then again, perhaps a better solution for both parties would be a multi-year deal.

    • Like (+1) 3
  5. 8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:


    russ Brandon really ruined some of you by selling the cash to cap structure. 
     

    The "cash to cap" was really just a clever marketing slogan so as to justify not spending TO the cap.  You're obviously limited by the cap for amortized money, but if you also constrain yourself by "cash to cap" it really means you're gonna spend (well) below the cap.

     

    There's a difference between the previous regimes "cash to cap" "strategy" & actually a "pay as you go" (to the extend practical) that we currently seem to employ.

    • Like (+1) 1
  6. I'll add that WRT Milano's situation, one of the ways I think this regime is fiscally responsible is to not give large bonuses.  What some teams do, is give large bonuses w/ small initial yr(s) salaries.  This allows you to easier afford signings by pushing fwd the liability.  Problem w/ this is if the player doesn't work out, you're left w/ substantial dead cap when you release them.  As much as possible, I think we currently pretty much "pay as you go".

    • Like (+1) 1
  7. I wonder why at this juncture.  He's gotta be making close to minimum wage for his experience & he's gotta be replaced by someone else, so the savings are really only (eventually) a few 100k.

    When he's on the field, he's comparable (or better) than Wallace or Norman.

    Only thing I can think of, is we intend to re-sign someone & need the cap space while only the top 51 count.

    • Like (+1) 1
  8. Roberts is good at fielding punts.  Not only does he not muff very many, but also the majority of time he fields them rather than letting them go.  The latter is worth several yards (provided you fulfill the 1st part & not muff it).

    As I recall McKenzie is "dangerous" when fielding punts & not in a good way.

  9. Part of the answer is he fumbles a lot cuz he fumbles a lot.  I think once he has a reputation as a fumbler, defenders are much more apt to make an effort to force it out.

    Part of the problem might be that he's difficult to bring down, so that gives more opportunity to cause a fumble.  Unfortunately, I don't think that's entirely the situation as he seems to fumble quite easily under "normal" contact.

    Someone mentioned his height.  That might sort of contribute to the problem, but I think it's more his upright running style.  More/easier access to the ball.

  10. 7 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

    6 punts from inside his own 20.  6 out of 41 punts total so 15ish percent.  The yards per return are unaffected by the shanked punt.  The other team is still averaging 15 yards a return in those situations.

     

    Your criticism is fair though so I tried to find out exactly what happened on all 6 of those punts.

    Punt from 9, 45 yards, 10 yard return. 35 net Score 17-13 Late 3rd quarter

    Punt from 13, 57 yards, 40 yard return. 17 net. Score 7-7 1st quarter

    Punt from 10, 71 yards, 0 yards on return, 71 net. Score 10-14 late 2nd quarter

    Punt from 12, 40 yards, 15 yard return, 25 net. Score 14-6 mid 3rd quarter

    Punt from 18, 12 yards, out of bounds, 12 net. Score 19-16 mid 3rd quarter

    Punt from 20, 68 yards, 16 yard return, 52 net. Score 34-17 late 4th quarter

     

    The one with the long return seemed to have good hang time but it was right in the middle of the field and the coverage was nowhere to be found.

    Thanks for putting in the effort (I was too lazy to).

    So, 6 (or 5 events), IMO isn't too enough data to be too confident in your conclusions.

    That being said, 2 instances he performed exemplary & a 3rd he probably did his job (57 w/ 40 return) well.  2 were poor efforts (assuming wind wasn't a factor) & on the 6th he blew monkey spunk.  Considering how inconsistent he was last yr (& as I recall early this yr) I think that's what we signed up for.

  11. 34 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

    Interesting stat on him, his net average when kicking from between his own 1 and 20 is only 36.2 yards and he's averaging over 15 yards per return.  His gross is only an average of 49 in those situations so it's not that he's outkicking the coverage, it's that it's coming out low.  The times you need him to get it out long and high is when it's not happening.

    I'll concede his touch punting still has much room for improvement, but I don't buy your above statement.  How many punts is that based upon?  10?  Probably less.  I assume that includes a 12 yarder which is going to lower his gross in those situations 4+ yds.  Likewise, you're talking even fewer returns, so you can't place much confidence in the conclusion of those stats.

    Inside our own 40, I'd take him over just about any punter in the league.  On the opponents side of the 50, there's prolly 20+ punters I'd rather have.

  12. He's got a really big leg, & although I think he's otherwise improved, I don't think he's Probowl worthy.  Just look at his counterpart (Bailey) last night.  Admittedly, he hasn't had much opportunity, but he's not very consistent putting the ball close inside the 20.  He's more likely to get a touchback than drop it inside the 10 & you're not even that confident he'll get it inside the 20 at all.  I think Bailey's net is only like 2 yds worse than his gross.

  13. 5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

     

    McDermott has become arguably the most aggressive coach in the league on 4th downs. It's been quite the transformation. He certainly trusts Allen and these receivers to get it done.

     

    I think the primary reason for that is cuz we went from one of the worst offenses in the league to one of the best.  That definitely alters your probabilities & expected utility calculations.

    • Like (+1) 1
  14. So, he writes an article every few days which means you're paying almost $1/article?  That seems quite expensive to me.  As someone said, you can get the Athletic for $10/month (I thought it was cheaper), or basically an entire newspaper for ~$1/day (probably less?).  Both offer several writers for the price.  As I recall, he work on BN was decent, but nothing that warrants a premium over content available elsewhere for less.

×
×
  • Create New...