salary cap hell, huh?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    salary cap hell, huh?

    what. wait. weren't the Ravens one of those teams that are in cap hell?

     

    The Baltimore Ravens reached a five-year deal worth $32 million with tight end Dennis Pitta, league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    They were never going to let Pitta get away.  I would like to see NE sign Ed Dickson to a cheap deal.  Pretty decent "move TE"

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

    [/QUOTE]


    The CAP may actually be higher than stated, 132/133 mil I think I heard.

    I do think teams don't need to be at the 2014 CAP number for a few more weeks so they have time to make his contract fit.

    I say good, perhaps we can get Jones easier now.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?




    The CAP may actually be higher than stated, 132/133 mil I think I heard.

    I do think teams don't need to be at the 2014 CAP number for a few more weeks so they have time to make his contract fit.

    I say good, perhaps we can get Jones easier now.

    [/QUOTE]

    That would great. Ravens definitely over payed for pitta as he just missed the whole season. I was hoping we could steal him for 3 years 12 milly or something but they were intent on keeping him.

    I would love to steal jones and send out a Jones Bones Crushing D line! 

     

    Seriously 6 starting spots who are not even on the team yet??? Wow!

    -  Click on the image to enlarge.

    Lineup BAL

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?



    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    They have cap "issues" like a number of clubs, including the Pats to a much lesser extent. They're going to lose some good players, like Monroe and probably Oher because of the salary cap. Maybe Jones as well, and Dickson. So, those are guys that they would keep if they could, if there was no cap. But they will have to go, because of the salary cap.

    The Pats may lose Edelman and/or Talib for the same reason.

    As TC said, call it what you want, it's talented people walking out the door that you now have to replace, probably with lesser (or at least less experienced) players, due to the salary cap. 

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    "I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?"

    First off they play in a MUCH tougher division than we do. If we played in that division we wouldn't make the playoffs as consistently either. 

    I also liked how they pushed the envelope a bit before Lewis and Reed retired. I'd like to see the Pats do the same while Brady is still here. 

    But I will admit losing Boldin was a big mistake on their part.

    But it does set up an interesting debate - would you rather win a champsionship and struggle for a couple years or make the playoffs every year before being spanked by a better team? 

    I'd prefer the former (winning a championship) and I think most fans would. The Pats, however, take a different philosophy. Pats management seems to think as long as you make the final four that's good enough because anyone can win from there. 

    Could be, but it hasn't proven true of late, and the NFC teams look excellent. We'll need to push to compete. 

    It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?"

    First off they play in a MUCH tougher division than we do. If we played in that division we wouldn't make the playoffs as consistently either. 

    I also liked how they pushed the envelope a bit before Lewis and Reed retired. I'd like to see the Pats do the same while Brady is still here. 

    But I will admit losing Boldin was a big mistake on their part.

    But it does set up an interesting debate - would you rather win a champsionship and struggle for a couple years or make the playoffs every year before being spanked by a better team? 

    I'd prefer the former (winning a championship) and I think most fans would. The Pats, however, take a different philosophy. Pats management seems to think as long as you make the final four that's good enough because anyone can win from there. 

    Could be, but it hasn't proven true of late, and the NFC teams look excellent. We'll need to push to compete. 

    It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

    [/QUOTE]

    The discussion would actually have to be,  would you rather your team over extend and "try" to win a super bowl but mortgaging a good part of your future and risk coming up empty on your SB hopes for that year. Because "going for it" like the ravens apparently did doesn't always mean you win. 

    Id rather our team stay competitive every single year and hopefully make the 1 or 2 plays they didn't make in what would have amounted to SIX Super Bowl Championships in 13 years.

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?"

    First off they play in a MUCH tougher division than we do. If we played in that division we wouldn't make the playoffs as consistently either. 

    I also liked how they pushed the envelope a bit before Lewis and Reed retired. I'd like to see the Pats do the same while Brady is still here. 

    But I will admit losing Boldin was a big mistake on their part.

    But it does set up an interesting debate - would you rather win a champsionship and struggle for a couple years or make the playoffs every year before being spanked by a better team? 

    I'd prefer the former (winning a championship) and I think most fans would. The Pats, however, take a different philosophy. Pats management seems to think as long as you make the final four that's good enough because anyone can win from there. 

    Could be, but it hasn't proven true of late, and the NFC teams look excellent. We'll need to push to compete. 

    It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well said.

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     




    The CAP may actually be higher than stated, 132/133 mil I think I heard.

     

    I do think teams don't need to be at the 2014 CAP number for a few more weeks so they have time to make his contract fit.

    I say good, perhaps we can get Jones easier now.

    [/QUOTE]

    That would great. Ravens definitely over payed for pitta as he just missed the whole season. I was hoping we could steal him for 3 years 12 milly or something but they were intent on keeping him.

    I would love to steal jones and send out a Jones Bones Crushing D line! 

     

    Seriously 6 starting spots who are not even on the team yet??? Wow!

    -  Click on the image to enlarge.

    Lineup BAL

    [/QUOTE]


    Does New England have one?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Does New England have one?

    [/QUOTE]

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Lineup-NE2.png

    And a thread about it too..

    http://boston.com/community/forums/sports/patriots/on-the-front-burner/pffcoms-patriots-projected-line-up/100/7035209

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Please, so did the Giants, the steelers, the Saints, the Colts, the ravens and the packers. 

    And yes Chung, Gregory and Arrington played small roles in it, but Mayo, Spikes, Nink, Highower, VW, Jones, Mccourty, Solder, Mankins, Light, Ridley, Vareen, Slater, Woodhead, Bjge, Gronk, Hern, WW, Edelman, Randy Moss, Stalworth, among many others, all had a lot to do with it too. Great QB's and coaches don't win Super Bowls alone, or didn't you know?

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah, a year ago and it only guaranteed him 58 million instead of the 28 he was initially guaranteed for. Didn't you already say that Brady didn't really take a pay cut?

    Don't now try and back track now and insinuate that brady is the only reason BB has maintained a competitive team by taking a below market extension a year ago which actually doubled his guaranteed money.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah, a year ago and it only guaranteed him 58 million instead of the 28 he was initially guaranteed for. Didn't you already say that Brady didn't really take a pay cut?

    Don't now try and back track now and insinuate that brady is the only reason BB has maintained a competitive team by taking a below market extension a year ago which actually doubled his guaranteed money.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was referring to his prior deal he signed for $60M when he could have held out for $100M

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 



    True.  On the other hand it's not like he didn't get good value on his previous 2 extensions (the second of which made him the highest paid player in the NFL at the time and the first which put him towards the top).  I think Brady is worth every penny he has been paid by this organization, but let's not pretend he's been criminally underpaid for most of his career.

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah, a year ago and it only guaranteed him 58 million instead of the 28 he was initially guaranteed for. Didn't you already say that Brady didn't really take a pay cut?

    Don't now try and back track now and insinuate that brady is the only reason BB has maintained a competitive team by taking a below market extension a year ago which actually doubled his guaranteed money.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was referring to his prior deal he signed for $60M when he could have held out for $100M

    [/QUOTE]

    This one in 2010?

     

    Tom Brady signs extension Updated: September 11, 2010, 3:13 PM ET ESPN.com news services

    Quarterback Tom Brady signed a four-year extension with the New England Patriots that will make him the NFL's highest-paid player, a source close to the negotiations confirmed Thursday night.

     

    More from ESPNBoston.com

    ReissAll's well that ends well, as Tom Brady's surreal day began with a car crash and ended with a record-breaking extension, writes Mike Reiss. Story

    Check out the Patriots blog
    Send Q's to Reiss' mailbag
    ESPNBoston.com

     

     

    Brady's contract is worth $72 million and guarantees him $48.5 million, a source familiar with the deal told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. The extension, which will be filed with the league Friday, will be added onto the final year of Brady's contract and runs through 2014, when he will be 37. Brady, 33, has said he wants to play until he's 40.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?



    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    You are both right...the Ravens managed their cap in a way to allow them to win one and almost a second...but they ARE paying the price...they , as is every team, playing a "zero sum" game....They have decided that  Pitta is worth keeping but he'll never get the full contract, they'll back load the deal and cut him 2 or 3 years down the road when he's all used up...it's the way they manage players and the cap now...In order to keep Pitta, they have to cut some vet(s) they would otherwise want to keep...so will the Pats...it's cut or renegotiate.....it's also why so many underclessmen came out this year because next year the minimum length for a rookie contract goes up one year....now teams have little problem drafting someone for relatively cheap dollars, use them up for 4 or 5 years, then THEY get the choice to see who they want to give a good deal to.....

    The cap dictates the system

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That 1 guy who mantained a competitive team for a significant amount of time had the luxury of having a quarterback who played at a high level that entire time...that's a big help. He also had the best coach in football to help, that's huge.  I've watched this team not have close to the most talent on it for years now...yet we still win, why do you think that is? Let me guess...Patrick Chung? Or is it Gregory? No it must be Arrington. No wait, it's Connoly. Wait a sec...it's because of Vollmer playing 5 games a year...yeah that must be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    That same QB also took a below market deal for a player of his stature 

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah, a year ago and it only guaranteed him 58 million instead of the 28 he was initially guaranteed for. Didn't you already say that Brady didn't really take a pay cut?

    Don't now try and back track now and insinuate that brady is the only reason BB has maintained a competitive team by taking a below market extension a year ago which actually doubled his guaranteed money.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was referring to his prior deal he signed for $60M when he could have held out for $100M

    [/QUOTE]

    This one in 2010?

     

    Tom Brady signs extension Updated: September 11, 2010, 3:13 PM ET ESPN.com news services

    Quarterback Tom Brady signed a four-year extension with the New England Patriots that will make him the NFL's highest-paid player, a source close to the negotiations confirmed Thursday night.

     

    More from ESPNBoston.com

    ReissAll's well that ends well, as Tom Brady's surreal day began with a car crash and ended with a record-breaking extension, writes Mike Reiss. Story

    Check out the Patriots blog
    Send Q's to Reiss' mailbag
    ESPNBoston.com

     

     

    Brady's contract is worth $72 million and guarantees him $48.5 million, a source familiar with the deal told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. The extension, which will be filed with the league Friday, will be added onto the final year of Brady's contract and runs through 2014, when he will be 37. Brady, 33, has said he wants to play until he's 40.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, this one

     

    Submitted for your consideration - The strange case of Tom Brady... 

    In 2001, the year he won his first Super Bowl - Tom Brady was paid $314,000. He was a 6th round pick and that was the salary number for his 6th round slot that year - all well and good - the New England Patriots got a bargain. 

    Being a Super Bowl winner - naturally New England wanted to reward Brady for his good service. So they wrote up a new contract that paid him $3.8 million for the 2002 season. That number put Brady in the #22 slot when it came to starting QBs in the NFL. Easy to understand because the first season could have been a fluke - so he gets a 10x raise and New England doesn't have to risk a lot of money. Works for both parties. 

    In 2004, when Tom Brady won his 3rd Super Bowl - his salary was $5.5 million and he ranked #14 among starting QBs. Okay - all well and good and even though he was obviously underpaid for a three time champion. But knowing what we know about the salary game and how it's played - we can understand how Brady could still be somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to the money. Because of where he was drafted and the timeline for his contract (and the Super Bowls he won) - he was basically a victim of bad timing. But now Brady's contract was up and it was time toreally get paid. 

    To get an idea of what Brady might be worth at the time, let's look at what some other NFL QBs signed for in 2004... 

    Peyton Manning - $99.2 mil, 7 years, $34 mil guaranteed 
    Michael Vick - $130 mil, 10 years, $37 mil guaranteed
     

    Both good QBs - however at that time neither had won a Super Bowl. Manning's playoff record was 3 wins and 5 losses. Vick's playoff record was 2 wins, 2 losses. Both signed for about the same average salary - $13-14 mil a season. 

    Okay, common sense tells you - Brady, with his 3 Super Bowl rings - should be making more than these guys, right? If nothing else - he should make the SAME thing as these guys, right? And Brady thought so too - he pushed for a big raise. Except Robert Kraft, the Patriots owner - stood in his way. Kraft said he wasn't going to pay that much. Remember now - Brady was beating Manning virtually every year in the playoffs. By any measure - Brady was the better QB - so he should make more... especially when you consider other factors such as... 

    Manning was the #1 draft pick. He had already been paid the entire amount of his rookie contract - $48 million - beforesigning the bigger contract. Same with Michael Vick who was also a #1 draft pick. He had played 4 years of a six year contract worth $68 million. 

    Bottom line - both players had already banked about $50 mil BEFORE they signed their big contracts in 2004. 

    Tom Brady's grand total at that point - after winning 3 Super Bowls? Around $15 million. 

    So one can imagine, Brady must have believed he was getting a BIG raise - which is what he pushed for - at one point even claiming to be "frustrated" with the slow pace of his contract renegotiation. He never threatened to leave the team, although we can easily imagine plenty of teams out there hoping Brady might get "frustrated" enough to come talk to them. If the Colts were willing to pay Manning $99 mil and the Falcons were willing to pay Vick $130 mil - surely another team would be willing to pay Brady at least that much... right? So what did Brady eventually sign for? 

    Tom Brady's 2005 contract: $60 mil, 6 years, $26 mil guaranteed - approximately $10 mil per year. 

    A number that - ironically - was about the same as Eli Manning's rookie contract from 2004. In other words, a 3 time Super Bowl winner (3 times in FOUR years) - gets the same amount as the guy who had never played an NFL game! Unbelievable - right? Brady was coming off back-to-back Super Bowl seasons - a feat that (today - 2013) has only been accomplished by SIX other players and the Patriots pay him the same amount as an untested rookie? Why wasn't Brady offended? Why didn't he just stand up and say goodbye to the team that obviously didn't appreciate him? 

    Maybe we're missing something... Sports Illustrated writer Peter King had an idea - he said Brady "gets it". His basic reasoning being Brady is smart enough to understand that his cap number affects the rest of the team - the more you pay one guy - the less you have for everybody else. Perhaps. Sometimes players are willing to sign for less money because they want to be on a good team and win a championship. Brady wouldn't be the first player to sacrifice some cash for the good of the team (although he already had 3 rings...) and said himself at the time... 

    "Is it going to make me feel any better to make an extra million, which, after taxes, is about $500,000? That million might be more important to the team." 

    Hmmm... that's quite a statement. Forget the obvious generosity for a moment - and the fact he had been wildly underpaid the entire time he was setting the league on fire... Let's do the math: Peyton and Vick signed for an average $13-14 mil a year. Brady signed for an average $10 mil a year. That's $3-4 million lost per season - or between $18-24 million over the life of the contract - NOT "$1 million". But okay - let's for the moment buy the ludicrous argument that Tom Brady, 3 time Super Bowl winner and laughingly underpaid quarterback has a generous streak a mile wide. This is the Tom Brady we know from television right? The guy who dates supermodels, is building a ridiculously oversized mansion in Los Angeles and has his hair done before post game interviews (okay, I made up the last one)... that's the guy right? That guy decided he would take one for the team so they could sign better players. That's the story we're supposed to believe. 

    Except... the Patriots don't sign better (more expensive) players. No - the "Patriot Way" is to CUT or TRADE good playersbefore they ask for huge salaries, remember? They're "the team that can win with anybody" - they always come in UNDER the salary cap. In fact, in the 2009 season - Brady's base salary was $5 million. Peyton Manning's base salary was $14 million. That year the New England Patriots were $21 million under the salary cap. They could have easily given Brady another $10 mil and STILL be $10+ million under the cap. Go a step further - from 2001 to 2005 (the Super Bowl years) the Patriots ranked #18 in salary - under the cap every year. There is no doubt they could have paid Brady more money. In the end, the money the Patriots saved on Brady's contract - the money the underpaid, over performing Tom Brady so generously "sacrificed for the team" ended up... where? 


    In billionaire owner Robert Kraft's bank account - that's where. 

    So why didn't Tom Terrific demand more? Why didn't he shop himself around the league? Why didn't he just pick up the phone and dial one of New England's division rivals for leverage - say for instance - the Miami Dolphins? In 2005, Miami started Gus Frerotte at QB - a journeyman retread who bounced from team to team his entire career. Wouldn't Miami (or any number of other teams) have gladly joined in a bidding war with New England? If nothing else to simply make the Patriots pay more for their superstar QB so they'd have less for other players? And - perhaps even more intriguing - why didn't Brady's agent shop him around? Think about THAT for a moment. For the sake of argument, let's say Brady's agent gets a reasonable 10% of the contract offer... 

    $100 milllion 
    -$60 million 
    --------------- 
    = $40 million 

    10% of $40 million is $4 million. 

    Brady's agent passed on an EASY $4 million? How hard would it be to get a deal for a quarterback who already won 3 Super Bowls by age 28 - the prime of his career? Hmmm... certainly is a conundrum, don't you think? 

    Okay, okay, okay... obviously we HAVE to be missing something here, right? Manning and Vick were anomalies? Maybe no other QBs were making cash in the $100 million range? We know Vick and Manning were making 9 figures - but maybe their teams simply paid too much for them? Let's take a look at some of the other large QB contracts of the era... 

    Donovan McNabb - 2002: 12 years, $115 million 
    Brette Favre - 2001: 10 years, $100 million 
    Carson Palmer - 2006: 10 years, $118 million 
    Drew Bledsoe - 2000: 10 years, $102 million 

    Hold on. Take a look at that last one again. Yes, DREW BLEDSOE - in 2000 - signed with the New England Patriots (and owner Robert Kraft) for more money than Tom Brady did five years and 3 championships later. 

    Right now - you have to be asking yourself the same question I am... why? Why would Brady - according to some arguments the greatest QB ever - sign for so little? There doesn't seem to be any valid reason. He had the rings already. By most experts' estimations he had probably earned a spot in the Hall of Fame already as well. The next step for ANY player is to get the money. On top of that he was underpaid his ENTIRE career and now he was again signing for a lot less than his actual value even though his team was under the cap the entire time he had been playing for them. 

    So what's up? What is the big mystery here? What are the Patriots holding over Tom Brady's head that made him give up all that easy money? Money that he obviously deserved... money virtually everyone who's ever watched a football game agrees he had already EARNED. So what are we missing? Is Brady the quarterback we have been led to believe he is? Or is there a missing piece to this puzzle? 

    Any ideas?

    Reply Quote
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?"

    First off they play in a MUCH tougher division than we do. If we played in that division we wouldn't make the playoffs as consistently either. 

    I also liked how they pushed the envelope a bit before Lewis and Reed retired. I'd like to see the Pats do the same while Brady is still here. 

    But I will admit losing Boldin was a big mistake on their part.

    But it does set up an interesting debate - would you rather win a champsionship and struggle for a couple years or make the playoffs every year before being spanked by a better team? 

    I'd prefer the former (winning a championship) and I think most fans would. The Pats, however, take a different philosophy. Pats management seems to think as long as you make the final four that's good enough because anyone can win from there. 

    Could be, but it hasn't proven true of late, and the NFC teams look excellent. We'll need to push to compete. 

    It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

    [/QUOTE]

    The discussion would actually have to be,  would you rather your team over extend and "try" to win a super bowl but mortgaging a good part of your future and risk coming up empty on your SB hopes for that year. Because "going for it" like the ravens apparently did doesn't always mean you win. 

    Id rather our team stay competitive every single year and hopefully make the 1 or 2 plays they didn't make in what would have amounted to SIX Super Bowl Championships in 13 years.

    [/QUOTE]

    I havn't heard a reasonabl explanation for this logic yet so I'll give you a try True. What's a good part of your future?

    If you mean trading draft picks to move up, doesn't that only hurt you for 1 year and hurts you just as much as missing on a draft anyways?

    If you mean bigger contracts, can't you just dump the contracts and take a hit for a year or two, signing lower end talent to start (something the Pats do every year)?

    So at most it hurts you for 1 year via draft and maybe 2 years for FA? That doesn't sound like the future to me but I'd like to hear what you define as the future.

    The way I see it if you miss in FA you get dead money for a year or two and have to rely on draft picks, UDFA's, and low cost FA's for a couple years (sounds a lot like our currently system huh?). You miss in the draft and it means you need to spend a bit more in FA to replace that pick with a better vet but you only wasted one year of the draft and you have to count on more mid round guys and UDFA's (sounds a lot like our current system huh?). So, what's different from our current system than what teams would have to do if they miss on a couple FA's or miss on a draft pick they have to move up for?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    DId I miss something the past several years or did we not only come tantalizingly close to winning 2 OTHER SBs and SB berths but if not for INJURIES just might have succeeded?

    I hear all this talk about how this team or that team spends money or morgaged the future to "win now". But the teams that win it are the teams that are the members of the top 3 of their conference who are in the healthiest shape or at least relatively healthy. We were in a SB with Gronk and Mankins playing but essentially ineffective due to injuries. Had we been as healthy as the Ravens 2 years ago who knows. Had we been as healthy as Seattle this year who knows. I bet we would have made the SB... of course I dont know that... but if you look at the SB winners they are generally more healthy than the teams that did not make it.

    So if the RAvens had not been as healthy at the time of the late playoffs all the timely building would have meant nothing. ANd had we been healthy who knows what the Pats would have done...

     

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

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    DId I miss something the past several years or did we not only come tantalizingly close to winning 2 OTHER SBs and SB berths but if not for INJURIES just might have succeeded?

    I hear all this talk about how this team or that team spends money or morgaged the future to "win now". But the teams that win it are the teams that are the members of the top 3 of their conference who are in the healthiest shape or at least relatively healthy. We were in a SB with Gronk and Mankins playing but essentially ineffective due to injuries. Had we been as healthy as the Ravens 2 years ago who knows. Had we been as healthy as Seattle this year who knows. I bet we would have made the SB... of course I dont know that... but if you look at the SB winners they are generally more healthy than the teams that did not make it.

    So if the RAvens had not been as healthy at the time of the late playoffs all the timely building would have meant nothing. ANd had we been healthy who knows what the Pats would have done...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Port we seriously can't use the injury excuse when 7 of our starters are known to get injured every year. Injures happen but there is a reason we seem to get a lot of them and that's because we have a lot of injury prone players, no that's not just bad luck.

    As for the playoffs every team that beat us dictated their game to us not the other way around. 07' was a great year but within the last 5 years we've simply been beaten by more talented teams, nothing else.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share