salary cap for Jets not so dire

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Jets are still going to find it difficult to bring in many quality free agents, but as you've been saying it's not a total disaster. Still, I'd much rather be in the Pats' situation. 

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    rkarp - yes the Jets cap wasn't as bad as it looked but you still have to look at it realistically. They cut enough players to get just enough cap for their draft. In doing so they cut 2 players that were starters last year (Pace, Scott) with maybe 1 player who might or might no be able to fill their role on the roster. They will need to replace both but can't unless through the draft because they don't have the cap right now. Then they cut a T when they were already very thin at T to begin with. It was a wise move but that's another area they won't be able to address unless through the draft or if other players get cut. They already have 12 FA's with 8 being starters so when you add it all together they lost 17 players with 10 being starters and only maybe half of those starting positions can be replaced with players currently on the roster and barely enough money to cover their draft picks, because they pick so high.

    Yes they can clear out even more space, Tebow would be the obvious (1mil), but they don't have a ton of players they can move to make a lot of space. Revis being the obvious trade (9mil) and Pouha being the cut (3.8mil). But, other then Tebow the others are already starters and what you save won't be able to replace what you cut. They could covert Sanchez's and Holmes money into guaranteed money to spread it out a little but then they'd run the risk of being in the same position next year without the ability to cut either. So, trading Revis seems like the best way to get space. Now other teams know you basically have to dump Revis so you are going to get dimes on the dollar in a trade and you will have freed up enough space to replace the FA's you could potentially lose.

    Anyway you slice it because of their cap situation they will lose starting caliber players and have to replace them with sub starter quality. Yes they are going to be able to fill out a roster but since they have gone on their initial spending spree a couple years back their team has been trending downward because of the cap mismanagement. They had to replace talent and depth with mediocre players at best and that will have to continue into this year as they will become a less talented team, yet again, because they don't have the resources to find proper replacements for those they needed to cut for cap space

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from quinzpatsfan. Show quinzpatsfan's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Who cares the Jets suck, I have no problem talking about other teams but let's talk about relative ones.....  Well at least it's 2 easy wins for us!

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    I don't know what your fued is with whomever. I avoided this cap thing as I do I not care about any of it or the jets.

     

    However. The mere fact they had to do all that AND still have to do all the follow up moves you suggest seems to show me the flat out problem that they were in.

     

    They either had a problem or did not have a problem. The moves would seem to show they had a big problem no? No other way to look at it.

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Jets are still going to find it difficult to bring in many quality free agents, but as you've been saying it's not a total disaster. Still, I'd much rather be in the Pats' situation. 

     



    Let history be your guide.  In 2009, after  moving on from the Favre injury, bringing in a new HC and in the midst of this yearly salary cap hell, they replaced 11 starters and finished with the NFLs best D, and a trip the the final 4.  Those who do not know history and bound to be ridiculed as Queenie is.

     



    OK so we will all try and remember that you are predicting that the Jets will go to the AFCCG game this upcoming season correct?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    rkarp - yes the Jets cap wasn't as bad as it looked but you still have to look at it realistically. They cut enough players to get just enough cap for their draft. In doing so they cut 2 players that were starters last year (Pace, Scott) with maybe 1 player who might or might no be able to fill their role on the roster. They will need to replace both but can't unless through the draft because they don't have the cap right now. Then they cut a T when they were already very thin at T to begin with. It was a wise move but that's another area they won't be able to address unless through the draft or if other players get cut. They already have 12 FA's with 8 being starters so when you add it all together they lost 17 players with 10 being starters and only maybe half of those starting positions can be replaced with players currently on the roster and barely enough money to cover their draft picks, because they pick so high.

    Yes they can clear out even more space, Tebow would be the obvious (1mil), but they don't have a ton of players they can move to make a lot of space. Revis being the obvious trade (9mil) and Pouha being the cut (3.8mil). But, other then Tebow the others are already starters and what you save won't be able to replace what you cut. They could covert Sanchez's and Holmes money into guaranteed money to spread it out a little but then they'd run the risk of being in the same position next year without the ability to cut either. So, trading Revis seems like the best way to get space. Now other teams know you basically have to dump Revis so you are going to get dimes on the dollar in a trade and you will have freed up enough space to replace the FA's you could potentially lose.

    Anyway you slice it because of their cap situation they will lose starting caliber players and have to replace them with sub starter quality. Yes they are going to be able to fill out a roster but since they have gone on their initial spending spree a couple years back their team has been trending downward because of the cap mismanagement. They had to replace talent and depth with mediocre players at best and that will have to continue into this year as they will become a less talented team, yet again, because they don't have the resources to find proper replacements for those they needed to cut for cap space

     



    you are 100% correct...

     

    I simply point out the Jets will have $20-$30 million to re position the roster after being ridiculed the past 2 months that it was impossible. they will have another similar amount available next year

    I find it funny that Vollmer is being discussed on this board for signing with the Pats as low as $6 per to $8 per, yet JAson SMith who never played and is horrible, was cut saving $12 million, and you point to this as the Jets missing a tackle...

    I also have concerns about the PAts cap, with Brady set to earn $44mil the next 2 years, Vince on the wrong side of 30, MAnkins unable to stay healthy, tremendous resources in 2 TE's that cant stay on the field and Hern disappearing in big games. Never mind that perpetual black hole of a secondary.

    I think the advantage with the Pats is Kraft vs Woody, and BB obviously puts the PAts at a big advantage. I think it a mistake to short change Idzik, who is very, very bright.

    Will be interesting as it unfolds....and the big kicker is over the next 2-3 weeks as the Jets do get to $20-$30 million under, do they start to nibble at Pats free agents Arrington, Woody, Chung, Thomas et al....the Pats simply dont have the flexiblity to deal with Wes, Talib and Vollmer and re sign these value players....

     




    The thing about Vollmer and Smith is that Vollmer is a starting caliber RT which usually fits in around $6-8mil per year range. With the right contract his cap hit for that first year could be $3-6mil which is a more then realistic possibility. Jason Smith on the other hand was the #2 pick before rookie contract were tamed in and he had a clause in his contract about being traded which boasted his cap number for the following year. Everyone knew it was a 1 year rental but still other then Ferguson who do they have at T? Howard and Ducasse are both worse then Cannon and having to cut any T serverly hurts them as Ducasse might as well not be on anyones roster. Smith was essentially a bandaid trying to hold together a gapping wound on the OL last year and it ddn't work in the least. They are going to have to find a way to plug that hole and as of today they can't do it via FA. So it leaves them with one starter (Ferguson), one decent backup (Howard) and one person I wouldn't trust to run a revolving door (Ducasse).

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    I don't know what your fued is with whomever. I avoided this cap thing as I do I not care about any of it or the jets.

     

    However. The mere fact they had to do all that AND still have to do all the follow up moves you suggest seems to show me the flat out problem that they were in.

     

    They either had a problem or did not have a problem. The moves would seem to show they had a big problem no? No other way to look at it.

     

     

     

     




     

    the Jets problem was poor player evaluation. this was where Tannenbaum failed. The players the Jets are losing are not good players any more (Scott, Pace) or never were (Greene, Smith)

    I dont fault the Sanchez contract, he was coming off 2 AFCCCG's and a 32TD season. He regressed, and lost most all of his security blankets. He didnt have the talent to overcome the injuries and misread of talent around him. HE is a systm QB and the system failed

    It would not surprise me if Idzik fills in with Arringtons, Woodys, Thomas's, Ahmed Bradhsaw types, stock piles draft choices, and lives and dies on his drafting accumen...shying away from the flash signings.

    who is to say they dont luck into a Russell Wilson in the 3rd or a TB in the 6th?

     




    It's possible they could but odds are they won't. Wilson only has one year under his belt, it was a great year, but Flutie also had a couple of good years and given Wilson's size there is the question if he can maintain the level of play. If he can then QB's like him found in the 3rd are a rarity. In TB's case, TB is the one in a million shot. There might never be another QB who will come close to TB found in the 6th again. So while possible it's not likely. Most QB's in the NFL are top 50 draft picks for a reason and there is a reason teams who grab QB's outside of the top 20 are usually looking to replace them within a couple of years.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Well you were right - the Jets cut unproductive players and saved thirty million overnight. Kind of ruins this whole "salary cap hell" situation thing.

    This is what I'm probably going to regret saying...I wish we had went all in like them three years ago. I would gladly watch our team cut 6-7 unproductive, old and pretty much washed up players today, knowing that we would of had another Super Bowl. That's the difference between the Jets and us - the Jets were doomed from the start because they forgot the most important part....you can't go all in if you don't have a franchise quarterback. Even then, they almost made it to the Super Bowl - I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.

    The Jets huge mistake was resigning Sanchez - that was a real head scratcher - to me that was a ego move by Tannanbum and Rex. They wanted to prove they were right by selecting Sanchez as high as they did. What really would bother me if I were a Jet fan was the way Rex stood by Sanchez this season when a change should of been made - Rex put his ego ahead of the Jet's season last year. I would be outraged if I was a fan.

    I wonder if a guy like Calvin Pace would be a good fit here for cheap money?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    Well you were right - the Jets cut unproductive players and saved thirty million overnight. Kind of ruins this whole "salary cap hell" situation thing.

    This is what I'm probably going to regret saying...I wish we had went all in like them three years ago. I would gladly watch our team cut 6-7 unproductive, old and pretty much washed up players today, knowing that we would of had another Super Bowl. That's the difference between the Jets and us - the Jets were doomed from the start because they forgot the most important part....you can't go all in if you don't have a franchise quarterback. Even then, they almost made it to the Super Bowl - I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.

    The Jets huge mistake was resigning Sanchez - that was a real head scratcher - to me that was a ego move by Tannanbum and Rex. They wanted to prove they were right by selecting Sanchez as high as they did. What really would bother me if I were a Jet fan was the way Rex stood by Sanchez this season when a change should of been made - Rex put his ego ahead of the Jet's season last year. I would be outraged if I was a fan.

    I wonder if a guy like Calvin Pace would be a good fit here for cheap money?

     



    Did I miss the sarcasim of one of those two statements?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     



    No it is not the same difference.

    The Pats players they liked were able to play out  their contract at a "vlaue" the organization placed on them for their position. Whether or not they can reach a new deal with a player they wish to continue to keep at a "value" that still fits what they feel that player has to them is in question.

    The jets "cutting" a player means they had to cut a player they originally felt was of the value they signed them for as well as possibly still wanting to keep but had to make hard decisions because of salary cap reasons.

    Those are very different things.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    Well you were right - the Jets cut unproductive players and saved thirty million overnight. Kind of ruins this whole "salary cap hell" situation thing.

    This is what I'm probably going to regret saying...I wish we had went all in like them three years ago. I would gladly watch our team cut 6-7 unproductive, old and pretty much washed up players today, knowing that we would of had another Super Bowl. That's the difference between the Jets and us - the Jets were doomed from the start because they forgot the most important part....you can't go all in if you don't have a franchise quarterback. Even then, they almost made it to the Super Bowl - I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.

    The Jets huge mistake was resigning Sanchez - that was a real head scratcher - to me that was a ego move by Tannanbum and Rex. They wanted to prove they were right by selecting Sanchez as high as they did. What really would bother me if I were a Jet fan was the way Rex stood by Sanchez this season when a change should of been made - Rex put his ego ahead of the Jet's season last year. I would be outraged if I was a fan.

    I wonder if a guy like Calvin Pace would be a good fit here for cheap money?

     



    Did I miss the sarcaism of one of those two statements?

     

     




    No there is no sarcasm, there has been an on going argument regarding the salary cap for about three years now. Rusty was on the salary cap bandwagon before the lockout telling everyone on here that teams shouldn't spend because they will go into salary cap hell. The lockout came and went, yet nearly the entire league was in very very good salary cap position afterward. There were no drastic cuts of high profile free agents (like he said there would be) and there were no huge bargains to be had by teams that had not spent to the cap.

     

    The argument continued and continued...some believe the NFL salary cap is the most fluid thing in all of sports and you can spend, cut, restructure, trade yourself out of mistakes (like me). And some cry that it is a scary place that will destroy teams. I honestly can't remeber the last time a team went into "salary cap hell"...maybe the Ravens after their first Super Bowl win? They spent a year in salary cap hell, then they rebuilt it rather quickly and were in the thick of things for a decade.

    This is a very touchy subject by the way. I firmly believe that the NFL is the richest of all sports - this league can print their own money if they wanted to, that is how rich and powerful it is. There is nothing quite like an NFL tv contract - the owners are some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet or at least in this country...they control this salary cap. I believe that NFL owners are never ever going to do something that will hurt their business - "salary cap hell" or situations like it would hurt their business. With injuries like no other sport the salary cap needs to be a manipulated, increased and very fluid...and it is...the owners made it that way. Teams/owners need to compete to a certain degree - the salary cap in it's current design allows that. Just yesterday it was learned that the salary cap would  increase higher than anticipated, why? The owners looked around and decided they needed more money to run their business - they make the rules. I'm not saying as business men they think the cap should be 200 million, but they sure aren't going to stop signing players because their starting left tackle has a torn ACL and now all of a sudden they can't go out and field a team because of salary cap hell.

    If the cap goes up by 1 million, like it did yesterday, how much more can a team spend with that number with pro rated bonuses and a structured contract? Reasonably they can can stretch that 1 million into 3-5 million. The NFL is NOT like real life/business.

    As for Calvin Pace...he wouldn't make a good backup, spot starter in our 34 look?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     

     



    No it is not the same difference.

     

    The Pats players they liked were able to play out  their contract at a "vlaue" the organization placed on them for their position. Whether or not they can reach a new deal with a player they wish to continue to keep at a "value" that still fits what they feel that player has to them is in question.

    The jets "cutting" a player means they had to cut a player they originally felt was of the value they signed them for as well as possibly still wanting to keep but had to make hard decisions because of salary cap reasons.

    Those are very different things.

     




    Well, that's something that is completely different,  besides Talib would not fall into that catagory being a half year rental that cost a pick.

     

    I'm talking about the $$$ it would take to re-sign or replace a lot of 1st and 2nd tier players.

    As it stands right now, the Pats don't have the $$$ to resign Talib, Welker and Vollmer, nevermind the Woody's and Edelmans and Ghost's in addition to that..

    They are going to have to let some, if not most of these guys go and replace them because they do not have the $$$ to resign all of them.

    That's no difference, except we are talking about not re-signing some as apposed to cutting them to have enough cap to re-sign some and replace others.

    If the Pats need to clear up and addition 10M to resign the ones they want to keep, they really have no choice but let others go, unless they can do it by restructuring.

    18M is not enough to replace 3 top tier guys and re-sign and, or replace  15 others.

    The jest got rid of some dead weight to produce cap.  Who do the Pats get rid of with significant savings, knowing they will also have to be replaced?

    Also, don't forget dead money.  The Pats are still paying for such" value" players as Ocho and several other "value" players that were cut.

    The truth is, both teams are going to have to let players go due to $$$$.

    What would you rather do, lose players you want to keep or dump some dead weight?

    I'd prefer not to lose the valuable, harder to replace, FA's, but that's just me.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    Well you were right - the Jets cut unproductive players and saved thirty million overnight. Kind of ruins this whole "salary cap hell" situation thing.

    This is what I'm probably going to regret saying...I wish we had went all in like them three years ago. I would gladly watch our team cut 6-7 unproductive, old and pretty much washed up players today, knowing that we would of had another Super Bowl. That's the difference between the Jets and us - the Jets were doomed from the start because they forgot the most important part....you can't go all in if you don't have a franchise quarterback. Even then, they almost made it to the Super Bowl - I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.

    The Jets huge mistake was resigning Sanchez - that was a real head scratcher - to me that was a ego move by Tannanbum and Rex. They wanted to prove they were right by selecting Sanchez as high as they did. What really would bother me if I were a Jet fan was the way Rex stood by Sanchez this season when a change should of been made - Rex put his ego ahead of the Jet's season last year. I would be outraged if I was a fan.

    I wonder if a guy like Calvin Pace would be a good fit here for cheap money?

     



    Did I miss the sarcaism of one of those two statements?

     

     




    No there is no sarcasm, there has been an on going argument regarding the salary cap for about three years now. Rusty was on the salary cap bandwagon before the lockout telling everyone on here that teams shouldn't spend because they will go into salary cap hell. The lockout came and went, yet nearly the entire league was in very very good salary cap position afterward. There were no drastic cuts of high profile free agents (like he said there would be) and there were no huge bargains to be had by teams that had not spent to the cap.

     

    The argument continued and continued...some believe the NFL salary cap is the most fluid thing in all of sports and you can spend, cut, restructure, trade yourself out of mistakes (like me). And some cry that it is a scary place that will destroy teams. I honestly can't remeber the last time a team went into "salary cap hell"...maybe the Ravens after their first Super Bowl win? They spent a year in salary cap hell, then they rebuilt it rather quickly and were in the thick of things for a decade.

    This is a very touchy subject by the way. I firmly believe that the NFL is the richest of all sports - this league can print their own money if they wanted to, that is how rich and powerful it is. There is nothing quite like an NFL tv contract - the owners are some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet or at least in this country...they control this salary cap. I believe that NFL owners are never ever going to do something that will hurt their business - "salary cap hell" or situations like it would hurt their business. With injuries like no other sport the salary cap needs to be a manipulated, increased and very fluid...and it is...the owners made it that way. Teams/owners need to compete to a certain degree - the salary cap in it's current design allows that. Just yesterday it was learned that the salary cap would  increase higher than anticipated, why? The owners looked around and decided they needed more money to run their business - they make the rules. I'm not saying as business men they think the cap should be 200 million, but they sure aren't going to stop signing players because their starting left tackle has a torn ACL and now all of a sudden they can't go out and field a team because of salary cap hell.

    If the cap goes up by 1 million, like it did yesterday, how much more can a team spend with that number with pro rated bonuses and a structured contract? Reasonably they can can stretch that 1 million into 3-5 million. The NFL is NOT like real life/business.

    As for Calvin Pace...he wouldn't make a good backup, spot starter in our 34 look?



    I was simply thinking those two statements are in direct conflict of each other.

    IF, Pace was let go because he was unproductive as you suggest then why would you want an unproductive player, even as a backup.

    That's the only reason I asked.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Oh, I don't know? He's been hurt a lot so I can't say I recall him being much of anything for them, but he would come cheap I imagine. At 33, with his size, I figured maybe if there was someone out there that knew about him, could tell me if he could be a sub/roll type of guy. Listening to talk shows, most people say he was at least an average player for them. Truthfully he could always sign back with the jets for much less money, rather than take much less elsewhere and have to move.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     

     



    No it is not the same difference.

     

    The Pats players they liked were able to play out  their contract at a "vlaue" the organization placed on them for their position. Whether or not they can reach a new deal with a player they wish to continue to keep at a "value" that still fits what they feel that player has to them is in question.

    The jets "cutting" a player means they had to cut a player they originally felt was of the value they signed them for as well as possibly still wanting to keep but had to make hard decisions because of salary cap reasons.

    Those are very different things.

     




    Well, that's something that is completely different,  besides Talib would not fall into that catagory being a half year rental that cost a pick.

     

    I'm talking about the $$$ it would take to re-sign or replace a lot of 1st and 2nd tier players.

    As it stands right now, the Pats don't have the $$$ to resign Talib, Welker and Vollmer, nevermind the Woody's and Edelmans and Ghost's in addition to that..

    They are going to have to let some, if not most of these guys go and replace them because they do not have the $$$ to resign all of them.

    That's no difference, except we are talking about not re-signing some as apposed to cutting them to have enough cap to re-sign some and replace others.

    If the Pats need to clear up and addition 10M to resign the ones they want to keep, they really have no choice but let others go, unless they can do it by restructuring.

    18M is not enough to replace 3 top tier guys and re-sign and, or replace  15 others.

    The jest got rid of some dead weight to produce cap.  Who do the Pats get rid of with significant savings, knowing they will also have to be replaced?

    Also, don't forget dead money.  The Pats are still paying for such" value" players as Ocho and several other "value" players that were cut.



    Well first I want to clear up something as I thought it might get confused.

    My "value" comment was not meant to suggest they got a discount signing in that sense of the word. My meaning is they set a value for a player/position. That is the "value" whether it turned out to be a value compared to how the player actually played was not my point.

    That is their fiscal philospohy, and it is sound.

    You are continuing to change from that premise however.

    Just focus on one player as to my point.

    Welker. They most likely want him but they have a figure(value) in mind to what he respresents at this point in time of his career as well as his projected role moving forwards in the next seasons perceived offensive vision.

    If Welkers $ demands do not fit that then he won't be here. I would say 90+% of the time the Ptriots to not clear space for others because they want to over reach or because they over reached in the past. (That admittdly is just finger in the air and I have no examples)

    In simplest terms I would argue that the amount they have available more than covers their perceived needs for the roles open to be filled using the "values" they have assigned to the positions.

    As far as Tlib, the rental, pick, etc. That is a whole other discussion.

    Now perhaps I misunderstood your original post but it seemd you were trying to say deciding whether to sign UFA's was the same as having to "cut" players still under contract.

    I still say they are very different.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.



    You should know better.  In 2007 we brought in Moss, Welker and Stallworth and gave out a huge contract to Adalius Thomas and we didn't win a SB.  Nothing is guaranteed in the NFL.

     
Sections
Shortcuts