Vet DE pickup later on

[Fla Cowpoke]

How else do you fix a line that has been so woefully addressed? Paying for high price free agents isn't the answer but when you can't draft, evaluate your needs or players, and are reactionary instead of being proactive you have little choice. Unless you want to March this embarrassment if a defense out there all 16 games. This would also be different them going after big name targets at the start of FA this is more akin to churning the bottom of the roster done right we can help ourselves

I can assure you the time to fix the defense is not at the last cut of the year. It's a bandaid and would do nothing going forward. We might as well stick with building through the draft and wisely spending free agent in the offseason.if we are going to have a crappy team this year, we might as well benefit from getting the higher draft pick.

 

[CCBoy]

Bingo.

No, what you were referring to in your posting was B..I...N...G....O and BINGO was his namo.

What I was referring to and similar in other posts with idiot specificly used, the past two days was:

'a fool to think otherwise' and NO named attached for insult purposes...just to voice a dislike of insulting common decency. Bingo!!

 

[CCBoy]

He would have a higher cap charge for this year though, because they saved about $7.4M by cutting him.

The point I'm trying to get across though is that these restructures inflated that cap charge each time they did it.

If we had never restructured his extension he would only be counting $12.25M against the cap right now vs the $16.15M he would have if we didn't cut him.

The Broncos are being charged $13.5M right this year on their salary cap.

See the difference?

If someone, and you, is able to see a comparison, then don't insult a listener further, by explaining as if to a tart or unknowledgeable. The format used does imply that also. That implies directly a second person reference, and not just limited to topic information.

X was never someone's fool nor non - knowledgeable of the entire spectrum of general cap knowledge. Just for the record, sport.

But if one were polite in his presentation, and not restrictive to proving something shiny on one's own eyes, he might be surprised the extent of returned information relative to cap and projections from that same person you acted preppie towards. Think?

But the perspective that you mention, above, doesn't take directly into count the cap movements stemming all the way back to the lockout period and the dumping of contracts over a three year period.

 

[Bluestang]

There is an ignore feature, use it if you don't like what you read.

If someone, and you, is able to see a comparison, then don't insult a listener further, by explaining as if to a tart or unknowledgeable. The format used does imply that also. That implies directly a second person reference, and not just limited to topic information.

X was never someone's fool nor non - knowledgeable of the entire spectrum of general cap knowledge. Just for the record, sport.

But if one were polite in his presentation, and not restrictive to proving something shiny on one's own eyes, he might be surprised the extent of returned information relative to cap and projections from that same person you acted preppie towards. Think?

But the perspective that you mention, above, doesn't take directly into count the cap movements stemming all the way back to the lockout period and the dumping of contracts over a three year period.

xwalker can respond for himself if this is insulting to him.

You can proceed to put me on ignore.

 

[CCBoy]

There is an ignore feature, use it if you don't like what you read.


xwalker can respond for himself if this is insulting to him.

You can proceed to put me on ignore.

So, you think you sorted it out, in a discussion? No, put me on ignore. And I don't stand by when someone is insultive to another. I happen to like X, and he brings a ton more of unbiased discussion than you offered.

If you don't like that...la...ti....da.

 

[jobberone]

Get back on topic please.

 

[CCBoy]

I don't get tired of parking meters and cut them off either...

As to available players, there are some old veterans who didn't sign on with another team and played last season, already.

I think the possible alternatives including Anthony Spencer returning, when mixed with current picture is adequate. A future veteran addition, would most like await until after the first week in September before any real signing to begin with.

 

[DiResta]

I think the odds are good we will go after a veteran DE esp WDE once the cuts start. That seems the best way to pick up a pass rusher off that side IMO. What do you girls and guys think?

yeah they gonna churn that line you bet on that.

 

[xwalker]

He would have a higher cap charge for this year though, because they saved about $7.4M by cutting him.

The point I'm trying to get across though is that these restructures inflated that cap charge each time they did it.

If we had never restructured his extension he would only be counting $12.25M against the cap right now vs the $16.15M he would have if we didn't cut him.

The Broncos are being charged $13.5M right this year on their salary cap.

See the difference?

Regardless of the "cap hit" for 2014, any money that was pushed forward from previous years would hit the cap at some point regardless of whether he was on the team or not. There would be some differences in regards to exactly which year it hit the cap, but it would all hit the cap at some point.

The 12.25M would only hit the cap if he was on the team. It doesn't really matter when it would hit the cap, just that an additional 12.25M is being added to the cap if Ware was retained. If they didn't restructure, then the 12.25 would all hit the cap in 2014. If they did restructure, they could push some of it forward. Either way, it's 12.25M that's being added to the multiple year cap total.

 

[Bluestang]

Regardless of the "cap hit" for 2014, any money that was pushed forward from previous years would hit the cap at some point regardless of whether he was on the team or not. There would be some differences in regards to exactly which year it hit the cap, but it would all hit the cap at some point.

No doubt, but is it wise to inflate the following year's cap charges for only one player by lets say 25% when the total cap only goes up by 8%? It would be reasonable only if you don't exceed that 8% increase, because at least you are inflating the charge at the same rate as the team's salary cap.

And then you do that sort of thing with not one, but multiple players on your team. It's not good business for the Cowboys and it's why they are over the cap 3 years running, next year will be 4.

The 12.25M would only hit the cap if he was on the team. It doesn't really matter when it would hit the cap, just that an additional 12.25M is being added to the cap if Ware was retained. If they didn't restructure, then the 12.25 would all hit the cap in 2014. If they did restructure, they could push some of it forward. Either way, it's 12.25M that's being added to the multiple year cap total.

Obviously the injury factor plays in here, but the Cowboys were facing a cap charge of $16M with him on the roster. They owed him $8.75M in bonuses.

They could have only owed him $12.25M, and nothing in bonus money if they didn't touch his extension. If they would have decided to cut him anyways, they wouldn't owe anything at all.

$8.75M could have another FA on the DL here possibly two.

 

[Tawney88]

I can assure you the time to fix the defense is not at the last cut of the year. It's a bandaid and would do nothing going forward. We might as well stick with building through the draft and wisely spending free agent in the offseason.if we are going to have a crappy team this year, we might as well benefit from getting the higher draft pick.

You can't continue to ignore it if you hope to compete. You have to try and bring in players that can help you not keep holding on to players that can't play.

Edit I re-read your post we are thinking the same thing i just said fix it which was a poor choice of words should have said address

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

If we are talking about some young guys caught in a numbers game then certainly they are worth giving a shot. IN general, any vet with any experience cut this time of year is going to have some kind of warts and is it worth spending the money on guys to get us to 8-8 again? Save the money and carry it into next year's cap.

I do think at the end of the season they should look to raid other team's practice squads with guys at positions of need for next year....basically get some guys with a year in the NFL that have potential.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

Our DE's are decent . Not good , but not bad. Its our DT's that are atrocious .

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Our DE's are decent . Not good , but not bad. Its our DT's that are atrocious .

Yep....Bishop, Coleman, Hayden, Ojomo did nothing inside. Hoping we get Melton and McClain ready for SF and get some good news regardng Brent and Okoye.

 

[Questfor6]

Been watching a lot of condensed games on preseason live and looking for guys who haven't progressed on depth charts and who were relatively higher picks who could either be cut or acquired at lesser value.

Guys I've found so far are:

Nick Perry GB- read he is a possible cut, played and thrived in Kiffins scheme at USC.

Daquan Bowers TB- been moved around from DE to DT and also been replaced by the big off-season acquisition Michael Johnson

Vinny Curry Phi- doesn't fit their scheme and has lost snaps to rookie Taylor Hart with the 2nd team.

Tyson Alualu Jax- former shock pick should not be playing DE, better fit at 1 tech and not one of Gus Bradley's guys. Could easily be cut because of the amount of pass rush depth Jax has.

Sean Spence Pit- been derailed by injuries but is finally healthy just planted down the depth chart behind other young players.

Gerald Hodges Min- buried behind too many other young LBers and may come down to numbers for him.

 

[xwalker]

And then you do that sort of thing with not one, but multiple players on your team. It's not good business for the Cowboys and it's why they are over the cap 3 years running, next year will be 4.

I've posted about this before, but a team can be over the cap indefinitely forever, without the bill ever coming due. There's a limit to have much they can be over on a continuing basis, but it can be done. If you looked at the accounting of the cap in different terms, you can divide it up into 2 parts. One part is money that is being pushed forward every year and the other part is money that is being added to the cap from money spent that year.

Push Forward
Current Spend

As long as the Current Spend is below the cap and is not increasing more than the cap increased every year, then the Current Spend + Push Forward can be over the cap basically forever.

Example:

Let say that the cap had just been implemented in 2014 to simplify this example.

NFL Salary Cap = 100M
January of 2014 the Cowboys are at 150M.

2014 (January): 150M

In March they restructure contracts such that they are now at 100M and push 50M forward into 2015 (I'm using 1 year for simplification).

Now it looks like this (Current Spend = 100M):
2014: 100M
2015: 50M from 2014

Now fast forward to 2015 and they spend another 100M on current contracts and push 50M forward to 2016 (Current Spend = 100M):
2015: 100M
2016: 50M from 2015

Now fast forward to 2016 and they spend another 100M on current contracts and push 50M forward to 2017 (Current Spend = 100M):
2016: 100M
2017: 50M from 2016

In the example the Current Spend was 150M in 2014 and 100M in all proceeding years. The 50M was Push Forward money. As long as the Current Spend averages out to below the salary cap, then the 50M Push Forward amount does not increase.

Here is the example of what can't happen:

In March 2014:
2014: 100M
2015: 50M from 2014

In March 2015 (Current Spend = 60M):
2015: 100M
2016: 60M from 2015

In March 2016 (Current Spend = 60M)
2016: 100M
2017: 70M from 2016

As you can see in the 2nd example they were overspending and the Push Forward money was continuing to increase. Obviously, this is not sustainable.

You can see that the team is over the cap in both examples, but the the accounting as to why they are over the cap is different. In the first example they can be over the cap forever.

My examples were oversimplified to show the concept. In reality, the original Push Forward amount would be falling off as players get to the end of their contracts and new Push Forward money would be added from new player contracts, etc.. The key point is that a team can be over the cap as long as the Push Forward amount is not increasing more than the increase in the NFL cap limit.

If the NFL published terms similar to my terms of Current Spend and Push Forward then it would be much easier to see if a team was really in trouble with the cap or not. Just looking at the simplistic term of how much the team is over the cap in upcoming years is not really a useful number.

In example A, the team is basically operating with a virtual cap of 150M by pushing 50M forward every year.

In theory, if team A is operating with a virtual cap that is over the actual cap and team B is not, then team A has an advantage. Team A will always "appear" to be over the cap for the following year, but that is not a problem as long as they're not adding to the Push Forward amount.

Summary: Everybody that wants the Cowboys to "pay as the go" are really wanting them to operate at a disadvantage to what they can do by pushing money forward every year. Obviously, it's only and advantage as compared to what the same management team can do without the advantage. It's not going to cause them to make better draft picks or make better decisions on which free agents they sign, but it is an advantage.

It would be the same in business. If your business had access to bank loans and your competitor didn't, you would have and advantage. It's even better in the salary cap world because the "loans" are interest free.

 

[Bluestang]

I've posted about this before, but a team can be over the cap indefinitely forever, without the bill ever coming due. There's a limit to have much they can be over on a continuing basis, but it can be done. If you looked at the accounting of the cap in different terms, you can divide it up into 2 parts. One part is money that is being pushed forward every year and the other part is money that is being added to the cap from money spent that year.

Push Forward
Current Spend

As long as the Current Spend is below the cap and is not increasing more than the cap increased every year, then the Current Spend + Push Forward can be over the cap basically forever.

Example:

Let say that the cap had just been implemented in 2014 to simplify this example.

NFL Salary Cap = 100M
January of 2014 the Cowboys are at 150M.

2014 (January): 150M

In March they restructure contracts such that they are now at 100M and push 50M forward into 2015 (I'm using 1 year for simplification).

Now it looks like this (Current Spend = 100M):
2014: 100M
2015: 50M from 2014

Now fast forward to 2015 and they spend another 100M on current contracts and push 50M forward to 2016 (Current Spend = 100M):
2015: 100M
2016: 50M from 2015

Now fast forward to 2016 and they spend another 100M on current contracts and push 50M forward to 2017 (Current Spend = 100M):
2016: 100M
2017: 50M from 2016

In the example the Current Spend was 150M in 2014 and 100M in all proceeding years. The 50M was Push Forward money. As long as the Current Spend averages out to below the salary cap, then the 50M Push Forward amount does not increase.

Here is the example of what can't happen:

In March 2014:
2014: 100M
2015: 50M from 2014

In March 2015 (Current Spend = 60M):
2015: 100M
2016: 60M from 2015

In March 2016 (Current Spend = 60M)
2016: 100M
2017: 70M from 2016

As you can see in the 2nd example they were overspending and the Push Forward money was continuing to increase. Obviously, this is not sustainable.

You can see that the team is over the cap in both examples, but the the accounting as to why they are over the cap is different. In the first example they can be over the cap forever.

My examples were oversimplified to show the concept. In reality, the original Push Forward amount would be falling off as players get to the end of their contracts and new Push Forward money would be added from new player contracts, etc.. The key point is that a team can be over the cap as long as the Push Forward amount is not increasing more than the increase in the NFL cap limit.

If the NFL published terms similar to my terms of Current Spend and Push Forward then it would be much easier to see if a team was really in trouble with the cap or not. Just looking at the simplistic term of how much the team is over the cap in upcoming years is not really a useful number.

In example A, the team is basically operating with a virtual cap of 150M by pushing 50M forward every year.

In theory, if team A is operating with a virtual cap that is over the actual cap and team B is not, then team A has an advantage. Team A will always "appear" to be over the cap for the following year, but that is not a problem as long as they're not adding to the Push Forward amount.

Summary: Everybody that wants the Cowboys to "pay as the go" are really wanting them to operate at a disadvantage to what they can do by pushing money forward every year. Obviously, it's only and advantage as compared to what the same management team can do without the advantage. It's not going to cause them to make better draft picks or make better decisions on which free agents they sign, but it is an advantage.

It would be the same in business. If your business had access to bank loans and your competitor didn't, you would have and advantage. It's even better in the salary cap world because the "loans" are interest free.

This is good post, but you also said it's not sustainable. That's what I've said before. The Cowboys keep adding to that pushed forward money when they restructure one player multiple times.

In 2010, the Cowboys tried to "reset" the "pushed money" and so did the Commanders. Mara and the rest of the owners caught this accounting fix and felt the need to punish both teams.

Whether it was a fair move or not, it is a different topic altogether.

 

[xwalker]

This is good post, but you also said it's not sustainable. That's what I've said before. The Cowboys keep adding to that pushed forward money when they restructure one player multiple times.

In 2010, the Cowboys tried to "reset" the "pushed money" and so did the Commanders. Mara and the rest of the owners caught this accounting fix and felt the need to punish both teams.

Whether it was a fair move or not, it is a different topic altogether.

No, I'm saying that the Cowboys are operating like example A which is sustainable.

 

[Bluestang]

No, I'm saying that the Cowboys are operating like example A which is sustainable.

They aren't though. I guess will agree to disagree here, because there is more pushed money going into future years than what the cap is increasing.

 

[xwalker]

They aren't though. I guess will agree to disagree here, because there is more pushed money going into future years than what the cap is increasing.

How are you calculating that?