We screwed up the Spencer Tag

[jterrell]

If by "proven" you mean not having played anywhere close to the same number of snaps.

He was nothing more than a part timer before this year. You could add up all his snaps from his first three years and it's still less than the number he played this year.

Neither guy is really all that proven in terms of their 2012 production.

Kruger played PLENTY of snaps in 2012 and put up less sacks and about half the tackles that Spencer did in LESS SNAPS.

As to proven, Spencer is plenty so. He has been a top OLB for PFF for 3 years now. Dallas is paying him well but he actually outproduced his franchise tender in 2012.

I wouldn't break the bank to sign Spencer but only the completely ignorant would let him walk away for nothing in return. He is a very good OLB at his very peak. The ONLY question with Spencer has been can he finish the play for sacks. Now that he has proven he can do that there is little at all to doubt. He has produced 50 or more tackles 4 seasons in a row and been a plus pressure player over that stretch.

I am completely on board with trading Spencer for a real return but letting him walk for a 4th next year? No way.

That's letting the cap run you.

 

[CATCH17]

The thing is, Spencer is better than all of those guys. He'd get more money than Kruger from pretty much everywhere.

Age and consistency issues with Spencer makes me think Kruger > Spencer.


I just don't trust Spencer at all to be anything more than Solid. A year like last year isn't the norm for him.

 

[jterrell]

Lmbo, apples and oranges,, but carry on......... Cos signing spencer to a long term deal is equivalent to the patriots signing Tom Brady.

you are the one laughing?

perhaps... don't make hilariously poor blanket statements?

a) dallas hasn't signed spencer long-term.

b) when he does sign a long-term deal how truly "long-term" it is is variable.
--laurent robinson signed a really long-term 1 year deal....

c) the ravens seemed to play some pretty salty football last year with plenty of 30 year olds. you win in this league with talent.

The NFL gives teams 1 first round pick per year. That's it. Spencer costs us a 1st and provided a late first worth of impact. He has matured and improved over time and is playing as his very best. He was our best defensive player in 2012. If the choice is pay him or let him walk away for nothing in return Dallas can't let him walk. We simply do not have enough assets to let one of our few valuables ones leave with no return.

 

[jterrell]

Age and consistency issues with Spencer makes me think Kruger > Spencer.


I just don't trust Spencer at all to be anything more than Solid. A year like last year isn't the norm for him.

insane. verifiably so.

kruger couldn't get on the field until last year because he was stuck behind a mediocre SOLB.

spencer has been consistent. he was a plus run stopper and a very complete SOLB without great sack totals for years. Last season he broke that ceiling and finished sacks but he was always a valuable player as we have heard from 3 different veteran stud DCs now.

 

[cowboysooner]

5 year deals are really 3 year deals if you don't have to restructure them. I have very little problem paying Spencer at 29, 30 and 31.

 

[Future]

Doesn't matter if he is better, point is there were younger guys available with a better cost to production value

Like who? Avril? Kruger?

Thinking those guys provide better production, just because they get more sacks, is a bit silly. He'd be putting up the same, if not better sack numbers if he had been asked to rush the passer more often, and he is elite at stopping the run. Anybody who was 26 with Spencer's skillset would be getting a massive deal, there's a reason these guys aren't.

 

[Idgit]

5 year deals are really 3 year deals if you don't have to restructure them. I have very little problem paying Spencer at 29, 30 and 31.

That's what's going to happen. The only real question is how much money is going to be guaranteed.

 

[newlander]

Right. You never pay for past performance. Something we've done consistently during the Jerrah erah.

.....jj has steered team into an iceberg:bang2:

 

[burmafrd]

spencer is not clearly better then Avril. Not at all. Take out his career year and what has Spencer really done?

You never pay for a career year.

 

[CATCH17]

insane. verifiably so.

kruger couldn't get on the field until last year because he was stuck behind a mediocre SOLB.

spencer has been consistent. he was a plus run stopper and a very complete SOLB without great sack totals for years. Last season he broke that ceiling and finished sacks but he was always a valuable player as we have heard from 3 different veteran stud DCs now.

I just don't trust Spencer and if the Cowboys did he wouldn't be getting Franchised every year.


I'd take Kruger over him. Better value.

It's Spencer fault myself and the Cowboys don't have a lot of confidence in him when it comes to being the player he was last year.

 

[honyock]

Not really. He likely gets more than Kruger on the open market.

We've got a ton of leverage now. Prices are dropping and he's in a position where he can either earn 10 mill now and then go into a soft market a year older OR he can take a long term deal and get about 20 mill or so guaranteed.

I wouldn't have a problem at all with paying Spencer his tag money this year and letting him walk. The downside is loss of cap flexibility this year, the good news is no potential dead money going forward for a player who'll be on the wrong side of 30 next year.

The real downside of this to Spencer is injury risk. If he's healthy, I don't see a real downside for him. Sure, he may earn less on a longterm deal next year than he would this year. But, that longterm deal will be in addition to the 10.6M cash he earns this year.

If Spencer were to play on the tag this year, and then next year get a deal that ONLY pays him as much as Kruger's does, he'd essentially be guaranteed about $30 million for the tag year and the next contract. That is probably more guaranteed money than he would make if he signs this year. Add last year's tag salary, and he would have earned about $40 million in guaranteed money since the start of 2012. That's much, much better than anything he would have gotten by signing a long term deal last year. The downside is if injury prevents him from a big deal next year.

Kruger's deal earns him about $20M guaranteed money, all payed out by the end of his second year. At that point, the Browns could cut him and be on the hook for about $3.6 million dead money.

I'm liking the idea of letting him play on the tag. He's motivated, there's no long-term commitment or dead money, and they can part ways next year. Are they overpaying him this year? Sure. But it's a one year deal for a player in his prime, when you'd have to depend on an unproven draft choice or cobble together a SDE with what you have on the roster.

 

[Nightman]

That's what's going to happen. The only real question is how much money is going to be guaranteed.

5/37.5, 20m guaranteed. Easy to cut or re-do after 3 years.

 

[AbeBeta]

Kruger's deal earns him about $20M guaranteed money, all payed out by the end of his second year. At that point, the Browns could cut him and be on the hook for about $3.6 million dead money.

Sure. The Browns always use a "pay as you go" philosophy.

They've also had only two winning seasons (and no .500 years) since coming back into the league in 1999.

 

[speedkilz88]

Sure. The Browns always use a "pay as you go" philosophy.

They've also had only two winning seasons (and no .500 years) since coming back into the league in 1999.

But they always have cap room.

 

[AbeBeta]

But they always have cap room.

and of course, we had their first from one of those winning seasons.

 

[gimmesix]

Yep...IF they can come to terms on a deal. THAT is the thing. If they try to low ball him or he just feels he wants more (no matter the current market). He could just keep this year's tag money and be a FA next year.

Even if he does that, the low market this year could help Dallas negotiate a lower-valued deal before FA begins next year. The numbers this year only work in Dallas' favor, showing what the going rate is. Spencer can balk at it, and rightly say he's a better all-around player than the ends who were available, but Dallas has the market on its side up until FA begins again next year.

 

[Disturbed]

Signing a long term deal with Spencer does not seem wise given his age. Dallas does this all the time, overpays it's old players that will start to decline and then they are in cap hell. Old team with high pay roll is a good way to continue to lose.

Dallas needs to get better at the draft with young players or we will all be here 10 years from now saying the same things. Teams that win today are better at the draft.

 

[conner01]

spencer is not clearly better then Avril. Not at all. Take out his career year and what has Spencer really done?

You never pay for a career year.

if you take out spencers best year as a starter and avril's best year as a starter then there is one sack per season difference in them but spencer does average almost twice as many tackles and qb pressures. yes it is pretty clear

 

[cowboysooner]

5/37.5, 20m guaranteed. Easy to cut or re-do after 3 years.

you are essentially asking for 4/27 with 9.5 guaranteed. That is not happening even in a down market.

 

[lwehlers]

He's coming off of a career year so people are anointing him.

The fact remains he's been an underachieving player most of his career. No way would I give him a huge deal as he enters his 30's. This has bad contract written all over it.

i agree also. i would just let him play on the one year deal. that way it keeps him motivated to have a great year. if you give him a big contract spencer probaly will play well at a high level the first two years then just slack off after that.