lookylookyherecomescookie Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rams-and-bears-spent-big-on-non-quarterbacks-will-they-regret-it/ This is an article that I think is worthwhile for all our arm-chair GMs. I'd invite any thoughts Edited September 6, 2018 by lookylookyherecomescookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 dareus is the worst contract on there rip 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boca BIlls Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 This doesn't matter if you dont have a QB to spend money on... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 That dareus is the outlier in that comparison is an indictment of his work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Yeah, even in the last episode of Hard Knocks the trade comes up and they were shocked at how much Bears gave up and then paid him, even said "Thats QB money". Being realistic, its not like I would have been mad if we had traded for Mack given the quality of player he is. But I certainly didn't believe Beane would be willing to pay what it would take to get him and I was definitely NOTwanting us to either. We have a very promising defense with a strong secondary, and some very good young prospects in the front 7 in Edmunds and Horrible Harry. Not to mention, I still think Trent is going to be a great addition to this team and Shaq seems to be showing some value. Where we are bare is the offense...the OL is in shambles with the loss of 3 starters due to trades and retirements. We have major needs there and we are going to need to still find a way to improve the WR group, not to mention Shady is up there in age and we may need a TE next year too. And we got a lot of veteran and young talent on this team thats going to need cap space to retain moving forward too. So I would rather not invest so much into one player that isn't going to take us much further this year than we will go without him...and instead invest next year in both FA and the Draft to build this offense up to set Allen up for long term success. So count me in the crowd that is THRILLED we did NOT trade for Mack. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 The Rams are in a much better position to blow that cap % right now. The Bears are crazy for committing that much of their cap for a defensive player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 If you have cap space and a QB on a rookie deal you do it. If not, you act more responsibly. It’s really not complicated at all. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Nice article though the concern about overspending for non QBs is not a new one. I've read somewhere that some teams allocate budgets for each position to avoid over spending on someone like Mack. There's got to be some balance. I guess I understand the excitement in Chicago but they mortgaged their future and hamstrung their cap to get Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookylookyherecomescookie Posted September 6, 2018 Author Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: If you have cap space and a QB on a rookie deal you do it. If not, you act more responsibly. It’s really not complicated at all. actually, at least according to the article, it is a little complicated, and they seem to have the data to back their conclusions. Not only do the high priced signings tend not to perform as well over the next three years as the past three, but their teams performance tends to decline as well. To maximize results, it seems that money is better spent on depth. even if you have cap space and a QB on a rookie deal Edited September 6, 2018 by lookylookyherecomescookie more complete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Spending big on non-QB FAs is great for whipping the fan base into a frenzy and selling tickets, but history has shown they seldom pay off in the long run. 1 minute ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said: actually, at least according to the article, it is a little complicated, and they seem to have the data to back their conclusions. Not only do the high priced signings tend not to perform as well over the next three years as the past three, but their teams performance tends to decline as well Exactly. It's only easy in a world where injuries don't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said: actually, at least according to the article, it is a little complicated, and they seem to have the data to back their conclusions. Not only do the high priced signings tend not to perform as well over the next three years as the past three, but their teams performance tends to decline as well. To maximize results, it seems that money is better spent on depth. even if you have cap space and a QB on a rookie deal I don’t agree despite their “conclusions.” The cap has grown so much that you can’t be in trouble by paying other players. Find your guy and get them. If you sign the right guys you’ll be better off. This is becoming more true every year with the rate of cap growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 The Rams are a crappy example to use. I watched every game of theirs last year. They may be the only team in the league that can afford to do that. I rarely use this term but Sean McVay is a freakin' genius coaching offense. Goff ran it well but Tyrod could have ran it well. Even if you hate Tyrod. Anyone with any smarts at all could have made the plays that Goff was asked to make. He's easily replaceable on that team simply because of McVay. "Dude's a witch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 7 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: The cap has grown so much that you can’t be in trouble by paying other players. Find your guy and get them. If you sign the right guys you’ll be better off. This is becoming more true every year with the rate of cap growth. This is wrong and you're using some flawed logic here. The rate of cap growth has been decreasing the past two years. This years 6.1% increase was the lowest increase since 2013, and last years 7.6% increase was the 2nd lowest since 2013. If anything cap growth appears to be trending down, perhaps due to some recent fan ambivalence about the sport. Regardless, the belief that the cap is going to steadily increase every year is not sound financial planning. You don't allocate salary based on what you hope will happen in 5 years, you work within your current constraints (this doesn't just apply to football). A $10M cap increase doesn't mean that gets allocated to one player, it gets absorbed by every player on every team -- "A rising tide lifts all ships." Rookie salaries increase every year, as does the cost for tagging players. Minimum salaries go up, and those depth/special teams players you could sign last year for $1.5M now costs $1.7M. And when you start signing non-QBs to 12-13+% of your cap, you certainly can get into trouble. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 8 hours ago, SouthNYfan said: dareus is the worst contract on there rip I'm surprised Haynesworth's wasn't the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrikeParry Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 8 hours ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rams-and-bears-spent-big-on-non-quarterbacks-will-they-regret-it/ This is an article that I think is worthwhile for all our arm-chair GMs. I'd invite any thoughts Well the author kinda showed his a$$ almost right away when he talked about the AV donald and mack would have to provide going forward to justify their deals...which they have so far (surpassed it, actually). And neither of those guys are in danger of falling off a cliff anytime soon; they are both pretty young. So yeah, we shoulda traded for Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 If you're not spending it on QB, then you need to be spending it smartly on players in the trenches. That's where the magic happens. IMO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I'm surprised Haynesworth's wasn't the worst. I think that the NFL banned him from being mentioned ever again, he's like Voldemort in Harry Potter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 O did not read the whole article, but I assume they are postulating Mack’s is double troubling due The the draft assets they expended and missing out on 5 years of a rookie contract if you want to count Mack as one of the 1sts. I may may be wrong , but I am pretty sure Beane subscribes to this theory. I think both lines will get paid close to market if they are not in the top 10 of salaries., and we will see guys get second deals. But I think “skill” position guys, like WR, RB, CB... we ain’t seeing big time 2nd contracts for those guys. I am already calling Tre Whilte will not be singed last year 5, as those positions are where the greatest’ value “ comes in the draft. And by value I mean rookie contract vs veterans and the relative production 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 3 hours ago, QCity said: This is wrong and you're using some flawed logic here. The rate of cap growth has been decreasing the past two years. This years 6.1% increase was the lowest increase since 2013, and last years 7.6% increase was the 2nd lowest since 2013. If anything cap growth appears to be trending down, perhaps due to some recent fan ambivalence about the sport. Regardless, the belief that the cap is going to steadily increase every year is not sound financial planning. You don't allocate salary based on what you hope will happen in 5 years, you work within your current constraints (this doesn't just apply to football). A $10M cap increase doesn't mean that gets allocated to one player, it gets absorbed by every player on every team -- "A rising tide lifts all ships." Rookie salaries increase every year, as does the cost for tagging players. Minimum salaries go up, and those depth/special teams players you could sign last year for $1.5M now costs $1.7M. And when you start signing non-QBs to 12-13+% of your cap, you certainly can get into trouble. It depends on your cap situation. Typically the teams with QBs on rookie deals have lots of cap space. Look at what the Rams did this offseason. They paid Cooks, Donald, Suh and Joyner. They are a Super Bowl contender. A team without a franchise QB can afford to miss on a guy like Cooks. You can overpay for the delta between Cooks and “poor man’s Cooks.” The cap growth has slowed but hasn’t stopped. Cap growth is tied to the expiration of media deals. The media rights will continue to be massive and the cap will spike commensurate with new deals. Live sports drive these networks in the cord cutter era. The broadcast rights deals continue to grow (see Thursday Night package). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 11 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: If you have cap space and a QB on a rookie deal you do it. If not, you act more responsibly. It’s really not complicated at all. If you have a QB on a rookie deal and are confident he will be the guy for the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts