Tanier: NFL Refinancing (Falcons, Cowboys, Steelers)

[InmanRoshi]

I inherently reject the idea that you have to strip everything down to the bare nuts and bolts before you can "rebuild". That is a tired bromide that is over used in all sports even though it's really not applicable except in maybe the NBA where one draft pick can single handedly turn around a franchise, and in some cases football when you have an opportunity at a once in generation franchise QB. Other than that, there's really no inherent advantage in sucking for the sake of sucking. The Cleveland Browns have been doing it for a decade, have phenomenal players like Joe Thomas and Joe Haden that they took with Top 10 picks, and are still no closer to a Superbowl than they were 5-10 years ago. Teams like the Cardinals, Lions, Saints and Bengals have gone through similar stretches of irrelevance. As it is, there's really no reason to believe that contending and drafting/developing players is mutually exclusive. Further, I don't really see any great advantages having tons of cap space. The name of the game is ultimately talent acquisition, of which there are only three means. a) The draft - which cap space has no influence on, b) Trades - which never happen in the NFL for any team, regardless of their cap situation c) Free agency - in which all the premium talent is grossly overpaid and typically highly flawed. Buffalo had a ton of cap space last year, and spent like sailors on leave with it, and it didn't make their team any better.

 

[joseephuss]

Yes. He points out "Falcons have $70 million committed in 2014 and $32 million in 2015'

In otherwords, they've made a run with the existing set of guys they have -- haven't quite made it, but haven't crippled themselves for the future by endlessly extending the core of the team.

Don't leave out the important facts that Abraham is much older than anyone the Cowboys are extending and Turner is on his last legs. Details suck. They also still want to bring back 37 year old Tony Gonazles. Again, Tanier may have a decent point, but his examples were poor.

 

[joseephuss]

I inherently reject the idea that you have to strip everything down to the bare nuts and bolts before you can "rebuild". That is a tired bromide that is over used in all sports even though it's really not applicable except in maybe the NBA where one draft pick can single handedly turn around a franchise, and in some cases football when you have an opportunity at a once in generation franchise QB. Other than that, there's really no inherent advantage in sucking for the sake of sucking. The Cleveland Browns have been doing it for a decade, have phenomenal players like Joe Thomas and Joe Haden that they took with Top 10 picks, and are still no closer to a Superbowl than they were 5-10 years ago. Teams like the Cardinals, Lions, Saints and Bengals have gone through similar stretches of irrelevance. As it is, there's really no reason to believe that contending and drafting/developing players is mutually exclusive. Further, I don't really see any great advantages having tons of cap space grants you when your paths to talent acquisition are still relegated to over paying on the overpaid/inherently flawed player market in free agency. Buffalo had a ton of cap space last year and spent like sailors on leave, and it didn't make their team any better.

Well said.

 

[speedkilz88]

Yes. He points out "Falcons have $70 million committed in 2014 and $32 million in 2015'

In otherwords, they've made a run with the existing set of guys they have -- haven't quite made it, but haven't crippled themselves for the future by endlessly extending the core of the team.

It means to me that they have a lot of big money contracts coming up or lose them.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

You guys realize that with all these cuts, we're paying some serious dead money.

Dead money is more monopoly money.

If Doug Free counts 8m against the cap this year, 8 next and 9 the year after, and we cut him and save 3m this year, 8m next and 9 the year after...who really cares? The 5m we lose in dead money this year might be money well spent if we get a starter that plays as well or better for less than 3m this year. By the way, these are hypothetical dollars, not the actual amounts.

If Parnell replaces him and only counts for 1.5 against the cap, we have effectively replaced the player and his production for less. The extra million and a half equals three to four undrafted free agents that we get to bring in for competition.

It doesn't always work as a positive. Sometime it's a negative. But it's something that is accepted practice around the league. You can choose when to stop the insanity and bite the bullet. We obviously don't feel it's time to do that.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Sorry, I stopped reading when I got to the part about how good of a decision cutting Ware would be

 

[Echo9]

Yeah, you guys can gloss over this if you want, but it certainly seems restrictive to me to have to continually restructure every important player on the team to make up for horrible investments in players that are no longer playing, or will no longer be playing, for us.

In case you haven't noticed, this process has been happening more and more around here.

It's not happening more and more, it's just being reported more and more. On today's lunch break they noted that these restructures happen every year and it surprising that the Cowboys management is now making these moves more public. It's been going on for years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not a matter of being under the cap this year. It's about (way) overvaluing your own talent so that you can re-sign guys in their 30s who have won one playoff game and haven't had a winning record in 4 years.

Huh? Being way under the cap is being way under the cap. You can push it forward from year to year. When talking about cap ramifications it's all about what your status is relative to the cap.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

Honestly I mentioned this about a week ago on here. We are caught up in a vicious cycle and its coming to the point where we will have no choice but to field a team similar to those Quincy Carter led teams.

I wonder how much our player decisions and contracts have to do with Jerry's age and his "closing window".

 

[Echo9]

I still find in funny how people add years to our players age. Spencer just turned 29. That is still Prime for a DE. The guy is not "in his 30's"

 

[Idgit]

Fundamentally, what really matters is whether or not a team is able to do something they deem necessary in terms of personnel, or are they instead inhibited by the cap. If they're not inhibited by the cap and can do what they want to do in a given offseason, not all that irrelevant what percentage of their cap dollars they've got allocated.

Given a choice, I'd rather have a team use its allocation aggressively than the other way around. Underutilizing the cap just means you've got the capability of doing more things with your roster, and you're choosing not to. For some teams, that makes sense, but for many, it just means you're not competing enough for scarce resources.

And, as far as I know, there aren't any limitations in terms of the number of personnel-years you've got allocated under the cap. It's entirely possible for Team A to have a large number of expiring contracts looming, and for them to have corresponding cap space in future years to provide for that. While Team B prefers to write longer deals for their best players with cap-eating balloon payments and the team's conversion option in their back pocket. These are both valid options for approaching the cap. Team A has more flexibility in terms of options since the cap space is not allocated already, but then they probably also are likely to pay more premiums for extending players at or near their peak worth. Team B can get the benefit of paying today's dollars for tomorrow's contracts, but then they're tied to the specific players they've chosen to extend long-term.

Comparing the teams doesn't make a lot of sense in that context unless you're also going to attempt to normalize the contract years covered for a full roster of players.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good stuff Id. I would add that there is s salary floor starting this year. If you are under 89% of the cap on average over the next four years there is a penalty.

 

[InmanRoshi]

We are caught up in a vicious cycle and its coming to the point where we will have no choice but to field a team similar to those Quincy Carter led teams.

When you have Quincy Carter quarterbacking your team, you're going to suck no matter what your cap situation looks like. The Cowboys are better off putting off the bill until Romo has played out his tenure, then paying the piper once they begin their next wandering through the QB desert (which increases the probability they could have the #1 pick when a potential franchise QB comes through the draft).

In the meantime, I'm not sure I agree that the Falcons approach is ideal. They just released their only pass rushing threat when they're trying to compete for Superbowls. As it stands now, their best pass rusher on the roster is Kroy Biermann, who has 16.5 career sacks spread out over 5 years. I don't think being overly cap responsible and the February Media Darling on how to do things the "right way:" is going to be much of a consolation prize in January 2014 when Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees standing in the pocket with 8 seconds to pick apart their secondary.

 

[Wood]

Some will continue to gloss over fact that Dallas is leveraged in future year to retain the same group of core players who are universally seen as under-performers who have now grown old.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Some will continue to gloss over fact that Dallas is leveraged in future year to retain the same group of core players who are universally seen as under-performers who have now grown old.

But not you, because you're a "realist".

Keeping the same group of core players in tact who hadn't won anything in over a decade and had grown old? That sounds like the Baltimore Ravens team slogan.

 

[Wood]

In the meantime, I'm not sure I agree that the Falcons approach is ideal. They just released their only pass rushing threat when they're trying to compete for Superbowls. As it stands now, their best pass rusher on the roster is Kroy Biermann, who has 16.5 career sacks spread out over 5 years. I don't think being overly cap responsible and the February Media Darling on how to do things the "right way:" is going to be much of a consolation prize in January 2014 when Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees standing in the pocket with 8 seconds to pick apart their secondary.

Atlanta has won 10 games or more 4 out of last 5 years. They have not learned to close yet but atleast they are putting themselves in a position with three straight playoff appearances.

Dallas on other hand, has won 10 games or more once in 5 years. If I were a betting man, I would say Atlanta approach is superior to Dallas.

 

[Disturbed]

Atlanta has won 10 games or more 4 out of last 5 years. They have not learned to close yet but atleast they are putting themselves in a position with three straight playoff appearances.

Dallas on other hand, has won 10 games or more once in 5 years. If I were a betting man, I would say Atlanta approach is superior to Dallas.

Best post on the topic.

Atlanta positioned for future success with low cap exposure. Perfect.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Atlanta has won 10 games or more 4 out of last 5 years. They have not learned to close yet but atleast they are putting themselves in a position with three straight playoff appearances.

Dallas on other hand, has won 10 games or more once in 5 years.

And they've won exactly as many playoff games as we have in those 5 years, or have we decided that regular season accomplishments matter more for some franchises than others?

Ultimately, getting rid of expensive players only has value if you're replacing them with cheaper players who can provide equal or better production. If just running off expensive players just because they're expensive is "genius", Mike Brown is the Albert Einstein of NFL front office decision makers.

 

[Muhast]

Best post on the topic.

Atlanta positioned for future success with low cap exposure. Perfect.

Except thats not true. Matt ryan isnt signed for the two years they listed. He will add 16-18 million each year. They will resign william moore for 6-7 million per year, and sean witherspoon isnt under contract either for those years. He will get arounf 10 million eachm those three alone add over 30 million to the cap. Throw in roddt white, brent grimes new deals and your over 50 million total not included in the numbers.

 

[weaver21]

Atlanta has won 10 games or more 4 out of last 5 years. They have not learned to close yet but atleast they are putting themselves in a position with three straight playoff appearances.

Dallas on other hand, has won 10 games or more once in 5 years. If I were a betting man, I would say Atlanta approach is superior to Dallas.

And what has Atlanta done in the playoffs? They have the same amount of playoff wins as the Cowboys. Regular season dominance means nothing in today's NFL. Atlanta may dominate the regular season, but come playoff time? They don't do nothing. Hell, they were lucky to get even a win against Seattle after they blew that game.