Is the salary cap room severely overrated?

[rock8591]

We all know that it's bad to put all your eggs in one basket; Grigson has the opposite problem, he puts his eggs in TOO MANY BASKETS.

 

Every year, fans are forced to concede that he does a great job managing the cap, as they have not signed any major FAs at all (largest one is Gosder Cherilus for $7 million a year) and very little dead cap room. To which I say that salary cap room is overrated. Salary cap room doesn't produce championship wins. The roster is mediocre largely because our FA signings are too safe, frugal, and simply put, cheap. It has led to year after year of "wait till next year" mentality.

 

Andre Johnson (cut with little dead cap)

Trent Cole (would have only had $1 mill dead cap if waived last year)

Laron Landry ($6 million contract after making the pro-bowl is not a high salary by any means, especially with almost no dead cap)

RJF - also another extremely cap-friendly contract that was waived with no dead cap.

 

Too much dumpster diving instead of paying for quality. Which is why I don't mind just offering Dontari Poe $14 million a year or Brandon Williams $11 million.

 

 

The Browns and 49ers have by far the most cap room in the league and guess what - both are the worst teams by far.

[DougDew]

Its a strategy.  The time to spend big is when you are close to winning a championship.  The team should then buy expensive free agents that are sure things.

 

I say keep rolling over the space until the team is close enough.

[SaturdayAllDay]

I would 100% rather do this then spend every off-season over the cap and having to choose which starters you keep year in and year out. You are right in saying that cap space doesn't necessarily win championships, but not having any definitely impedes your ability to put together a balanced roster. 

Look at the Saints. Every year they scramble to put a team together that is under the cap, releasing top players and then stitching together a defense and an offensive line. They have regressed as a team under this strategy. The last thing our team needs is to regress even more (we have enough problems).

Yes we obviously need to get better impact players here, but swinging and missing (even on top talent) is going to hurt a lot more when it impedes your ability to try again in the future because you are still paying huge cap penalties (like the QB situation in Houston). We need better players, but we also need to keep up with cap friendly deals. 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its a strategy.  The time to spend big is when you are close to winning a championship.  The team should then buy expensive free agents that are sure things.

 

I say keep rolling over the space until the team is close enough.

You want them to get old cheap players again instead?

[Superman]

No, cap room isn't overrated. I just think people have a flawed understanding of cap space and cap mechanics, and that leads to the belief that if you can terminate a contract without a big future cap penalty, it was a 'well structured' contract.

 

Cap space is a resource, and though it's finite, it is easily manipulated. Still, once you use it, it's gone. So how you manage cap space is important, and having more is better than having less.

 

End of the day, it's very important to have cap space, and to do a good job of managing what you have. Same with having draft picks (and, IMO, draft picks are definitely overrated, but they are also critically important to building a successful team). 

 

Specific to the Colts, the basic reason they have cap space is because they haven't committed a lot of money to players. And that's primarily because they haven't added good players in the draft, unfortunately. That's why they had a bunch of space in 2013, and it's why they'll have a bunch of space in 2017. Any team that drafts well and commits to their players when they come up for free agency will have less cap space than a team that misses a lot of draft picks, especially for several years in a row. That's why the Niners and Browns have a bunch of cap space -- because they haven't drafted well.

[Superman]

Related topic, the NFLPA announced today how much cap space each team would rollover to the 2017 league year:

 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Damn, the Titans are in suuch great shape.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Majin Vegeta said:

You want them to get old cheap players again instead?

No, not old.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

No, not old.

I'm not expecting them to go balls to the wall, but it'd be nice to get 1 quality starter. That isn't 30.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Majin Vegeta said:

I'm not expecting them to go balls to the wall, but it'd be nice to get 1 quality starter. That isn't 30.

Yes.  Younger players.  I never liked the AJ or Cole signings.  

[richard pallo]

Just now, DougDew said:

Yes.  Younger players.  I never liked the AJ or Cole signings.  

Yes spend!  And most likely overpay for a couple of difference makers who are in their prime.  Poe or Williams, Ingram , Zeitler whoever?  Target two or three and get them.  Quality over quantity thank you. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Yes spend!  And most likely overpay for a couple of difference makers who are in their prime.  Poe or Williams, Ingram , Zeitler whoever?  Target two or three and get them.  Quality over quantity thank you. 

I don't think we are close enough to being  a super bowl team to spend big guaranteed money on free agents.  If there is a solid CB or OLB that can be part of your franchise....the guy we should have drafted 3 or 4 years ago and be in re-signing negotiations right now, then I say okay.  Maybe that's Ingram, I don't know.

[The Peytonator]

I can't say that I hate Grigson's strategy of trying to patch holes with players that don't break the bank, I just have an issue with who he ends up signing. For instance, last year I wanted to sign Casey Hayward and we ended up signing Patrick Robinson. I understand a lot of people like to dream big about signing Ndamukong Suh-type players, but those kind of deals rarely give you the bang for your buck. Paying a bunch of money to Dontari Poe, who is extremely overrated, would be a bad decision.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

No, cap room isn't overrated. I just think people have a flawed understanding of cap space and cap mechanics, and that leads to the belief that if you can terminate a contract without a big future cap penalty, it was a 'well structured' contract.

 

Cap space is a resource, and though it's finite, it is easily manipulated. Still, once you use it, it's gone. So how you manage cap space is important, and having more is better than having less.

 

End of the day, it's very important to have cap space, and to do a good job of managing what you have. Same with having draft picks (and, IMO, draft picks are definitely overrated, but they are also critically important to building a successful team). 

 

Specific to the Colts, the basic reason they have cap space is because they haven't committed a lot of money to players. And that's primarily because they haven't added good players in the draft, unfortunately. That's why they had a bunch of space in 2013, and it's why they'll have a bunch of space in 2017. Any team that drafts well and commits to their players when they come up for free agency will have less cap space than a team that misses a lot of draft picks, especially for several years in a row. That's why the Niners and Browns have a bunch of cap space -- because they haven't drafted well.

I was reading and waiting for someone to get it. Figured Superman would be the one. The reason we have cap space is because we have no one worth paying. Granted you could waste it on free agents but think of free agency like paying premium prices for used cars. Sure that BMW still looks nice and shiney but it has a ton of miles out of warranty and very expensive to up keep. Most free agents will cost a premium because of the bidding and either are past their prime or have some warts and you still don't know if they can perform in your system. Sure you need a mix and hit with your draft, free agency, and re-signing your guys. Loading up on some big name free agents will eat cap space mightily and might not allow you to re-sign your own talent especially if you don't plan on a guy suddenly breaking out. I mean look at Miami they go out and blow big money on Suh who had brought them marginal returns and then lose Vernon or teams like the Saints who dumped a ton of money on Byrd that didn't work out and they had to sacrifice some OL and Jimmy Graham. 

 

Fact is like Superman said if we wouldn't have struck out mightily in 2013 we should have 1 or 2 really quality starters that we should be re-signing and using that space. I would love to have so many stars that we have to pick and choose who we keep. Grigson would love to throw money at our pro bowlers...we just don't have any. The reason we don't go after big name talent I believe is because we have so many holes that we need quantity free agents more so than just top quality. Also we look to pay for guys we anticipate accending not defending. Pay for what they might do not what they have done. Free agency is a place to supplement your team not build it unless you can freakishly find gems that others don't recognize. I think we do well with the cap but yes teams that draft bad have tons of space. Teams that do well have to pay them but always are careful to protect their very very best and let go of guys in positions they have replacements identified to step up and replace.

[RockThatBlue]

No

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Damn, the Titans are in suuch great shape.

They also have two first rd picks like 5 and 20 and they have two 3rd round picks this year. I really expect them to focus on drafting for that secondary, wr, and lb. I also expect they will use some of that money  for some vets to pair up with those rookies too. You have to remeber though they will want to keep some of these young good players they've drafted and will set aside money for that too...kinda like we did for Luck and TY last year. Still they have a nice nice core forming and a lot of draft capital and money to strengthen that team. One thing they need to spend on is a quality backup qb. Mariota hasn't played 16 games yet and if they are serious playoff contenders they will need a premier back up qb I would expect.

[dgambill]

59 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

I can't say that I hate Grigson's strategy of trying to patch holes with players that don't break the bank, I just have an issue with who he ends up signing. For instance, last year I wanted to sign Casey Hayward and we ended up signing Patrick Robinson. I understand a lot of people like to dream big about signing Ndamukong Suh-type players, but those kind of deals rarely give you the bang for your buck. Paying a bunch of money to Dontari Poe, who is extremely overrated, would be a bad decision.

If you spend any time here and I'm sure you have you will hear people * and moan about not signing the biggest name at a position of need for this team...how many times do we hear "we gotta have" Suh, Darius Byrd, or a Revis/asomugha/maxwell or nick fairly etc and we see these guys are no guarantee that they are going to be the same guy they were in the previous year. I would much rather strike out on a RJF than a Suh.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Superman
filter

[dw49]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

No, cap room isn't overrated. I just think people have a flawed understanding of cap space and cap mechanics, and that leads to the belief that if you can terminate a contract without a big future cap penalty, it was a 'well structured' contract.

 

Cap space is a resource, and though it's finite, it is easily manipulated. Still, once you use it, it's gone. So how you manage cap space is important, and having more is better than having less.

 

End of the day, it's very important to have cap space, and to do a good job of managing what you have. Same with having draft picks (and, IMO, draft picks are definitely overrated, but they are also critically important to building a successful team). 

 

Specific to the Colts, the basic reason they have cap space is because they haven't committed a lot of money to players. And that's primarily because they haven't added good players in the draft, unfortunately. That's why they had a bunch of space in 2013, and it's why they'll have a bunch of space in 2017. Any team that drafts well and commits to their players when they come up for free agency will have less cap space than a team that misses a lot of draft picks, especially for several years in a row. That's why the Niners and Browns have a bunch of cap space -- because they haven't drafted well.

 

 

Grigson is certainly no "cap genius" as some in this forum claim. I addition to what you have is the type of FA's he's signed. Most are either old or fringe type players. You would have to be an * to commit significant guaranteed money to guys like RJF, Tolar , Johnson .. Cole dec He did get burned when he stepped out and signed an expensive one in Cherlius.

 

Further proof that he is not an "expert " cap manager is the fact that you can't point out a bunch of good contracts that he wrote. The innovative stuff is like the Mercilus contract for instance. Houston signed him to a 4 year extension in 2015. They had him under contract for an additional 2 years but chose to gamble a bit by upping his pay early. The end result of that is he is under contract for the next 3 years at around 6 mill per year. If they had let his contract play out he would be just entering his FA year and signing for big money. Anyway most of Grigson's deals have been OK... around market value when they were signed. Allen and Castonzo look like they might not be great but over all , he's been OK in that regard. But hardly the "genius" that has manipulated to keep us out of "cap hell." 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

55 minutes ago, dgambill said:

They also have two first rd picks like 5 and 20 and they have two 3rd round picks this year. I really expect them to focus on drafting for that secondary, wr, and lb. I also expect they will use some of that money  for some vets to pair up with those rookies too. You have to remeber though they will want to keep some of these young good players they've drafted and will set aside money for that too...kinda like we did for Luck and TY last year. Still they have a nice nice core forming and a lot of draft capital and money to strengthen that team. One thing they need to spend on is a quality backup qb. Mariota hasn't played 16 games yet and if they are serious playoff contenders they will need a premier back up qb I would expect.

Yeah all they need is some DB's and then they're serious.. they have a top 3 o-line already. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Grigson is certainly no "cap genius" as some in this forum claim. I addition to what you have is the type of FA's he's signed. Most are either old or fringe type players. You would have to be an * to commit significant guaranteed money to guys like RJF, Tolar , Johnson .. Cole dec He did get burned when he stepped out and signed an expensive one in Cherlius.

 

Further proof that he is not an "expert " cap manager is the fact that you can't point out a bunch of good contracts that he wrote. The innovative stuff is like the Mercilus contract for instance. Houston signed him to a 4 year extension in 2015. They had him under contract for an additional 2 years but chose to gamble a bit by upping his pay early. The end result of that is he is under contract for the next 3 years at around 6 mill per year. If they had let his contract play out he would be just entering his FA year and signing for big money. Anyway most of Grigson's deals have been OK... around market value when they were signed. Allen and Castonzo look like they might not be great but over all , he's been OK in that regard. But hardly the "genius" that has manipulated to keep us out of "cap hell." 

 

Not a cap genius at all, and Mike Bluem is the cap guy, though Grigson seems to decide who to pay and what to pay them, while Bluem does the structure (I presume). I do like their structures, with some exceptions, but the total values have always seemed a little inflated.

 

What has worked well, and where I think there's good foresight, is that they keep their cap hits flat by letting cash hit the cap mostly when it's paid, and besides their own young players, they keep signing bonuses to a minimum. When you're in a rising cap environment, if you keep your caps flat and don't push bonus money into future years, you go into each year under the cap, and you can trim to add cap space as you see fit. 

 

Even if the Colts had drafted well, even if Richardson was a stud and worthy of a new deal, even if the 2013 draft was great for the Colts, because of their cap approach, they would have been able to hold on to their young core, for the most part. And that's because they haven't backloaded a bunch of contracts with significantly increasing cap hits in future years. You don't have to commit big guarantees to guys like RJF, but they could have given him a $6m signing bonus instead of $2.5m, and then it would have cost them more money moving forward. People get all excited about big contracts with low first year cap hits, but that becomes problematic, especially if the player isn't living up to the contract... look at Jairus Byrd.

 

Overall, though, we agree. It's not hard to manage the cap when you sign bad players and draft bad players. 

[oldunclemark]

no

[oldunclemark]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

Related topic, the NFLPA announced today how much cap space each team would rollover to the 2017 league year:

 

 

Does this chart include money that has already been promised for next year.?

I'm guessing: no

For example....the Colts' new Andrew Luck contract kicks in next season so they may have as much to spend as it appears...

Washington has to sign Kirk Cousins or somebody else at max bucks

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Does this chart include money that has already been promised for next year.?

I'm guessing: no

For example....the Colts' new Andrew Luck contract kicks in next season so they may have as much to spend as it appears...

Washington has to sign Kirk Cousins or somebody else at max bucks

 

I think you misunderstood... This is only showing how much cap space from 2016 is being carried over to 2017.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Grigson is certainly no "cap genius" as some in this forum claim. I addition to what you have is the type of FA's he's signed. Most are either old or fringe type players. You would have to be an * to commit significant guaranteed money to guys like RJF, Tolar , Johnson .. Cole dec He did get burned when he stepped out and signed an expensive one in Cherlius.

 

Further proof that he is not an "expert " cap manager is the fact that you can't point out a bunch of good contracts that he wrote. The innovative stuff is like the Mercilus contract for instance. Houston signed him to a 4 year extension in 2015. They had him under contract for an additional 2 years but chose to gamble a bit by upping his pay early. The end result of that is he is under contract for the next 3 years at around 6 mill per year. If they had let his contract play out he would be just entering his FA year and signing for big money. Anyway most of Grigson's deals have been OK... around market value when they were signed. Allen and Castonzo look like they might not be great but over all , he's been OK in that regard. But hardly the "genius" that has manipulated to keep us out of "cap hell." 

 

You don't like Grigson.     We get it.

 

And you quickly got tired of the claim that Grigson has kept the Colts out of salary cap hell.     So you've come up with a come back.

 

I have to tell you,  your comeback is incredibly weak.     If managing the salary cap is so easy,  why are there so many teams in salary cap Hell every single year?     Do you have a response for that?

 

Look,  arguing that he signed good free agents is completely legit.    He's invested money in all the wrong players is fine.     But trying to snuff out the one good thing he's done simply because you don't like him just takes the wind out of your sails.    He's done a good job.    Give him that.    Saying he's hasn't done it is just ridiculous.    

 

There's plenty of good reasons to fire Grigson.    Poor drafts.    Poor free agent signings.     But trying to argue that he's not good at managing the salary cap is pure folly and doesn't help your overall argument.

 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Not a cap genius at all, and Mike Bluem is the cap guy, though Grigson seems to decide who to pay and what to pay them, while Bluem does the structure (I presume). I do like their structures, with some exceptions, but the total values have always seemed a little inflated.

 

What has worked well, and where I think there's good foresight, is that they keep their cap hits flat by letting cash hit the cap mostly when it's paid, and besides their own young players, they keep signing bonuses to a minimum. When you're in a rising cap environment, if you keep your caps flat and don't push bonus money into future years, you go into each year under the cap, and you can trim to add cap space as you see fit. 

 

Even if the Colts had drafted well, even if Richardson was a stud and worthy of a new deal, even if the 2013 draft was great for the Colts, because of their cap approach, they would have been able to hold on to their young core, for the most part. And that's because they haven't backloaded a bunch of contracts with significantly increasing cap hits in future years. You don't have to commit big guarantees to guys like RJF, but they could have given him a $6m signing bonus instead of $2.5m, and then it would have cost them more money moving forward. People get all excited about big contracts with low first year cap hits, but that becomes problematic, especially if the player isn't living up to the contract... look at Jairus Byrd.

 

Overall, though, we agree. It's not hard to manage the cap when you sign bad players and draft bad players. 

 

 

Yes they could have signed "extra" players in FA by giving those aging or mediocre players big signing bonuses. My point was that it would be insane to push the contracts of guys like that "down the road." It's one thing to do that with a franchise QB in order to sign a much needed "final piece." But how in the world could you have ever justified that looking at our roster ? Our best players were in their rookie contracts when Grigson IMO blew a huge wad of Irsay's money on a bevy of inconsequential FA's. 

 

Also you are correct that those contracts with small base salaries in year 1 often bite you square in the hind quarters and we have stayed away from those. So some credit due there but bottom line is just what you said. We have lots of cap room and a cruddy roster. No credit to anyone is due there.

[Malakai432]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you misunderstood... This is only showing how much cap space from 2016 is being carried over to 2017.

 

I'm no genius but should we be worried that the Titans and Jags have so much carry over???  It seems like they could vastly improve if used right.  I guess the key phrase would be "if used right."  That really worries me though but I'm not sure if I should be lol.  

[oldunclemark]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you misunderstood... This is only showing how much cap space from 2016 is being carried over to 2017.

No, I understand....I guess I'm suggesting that the color graph here, while fun, is very misleading........

The unspoken suggestion is that these teams have money to spend...if their expenses remain the same

But, unless they cut players,  most don't..

 

For example.(and I know you know this) ....Denver has what...7 mil in cap space in the graph here?

Well, all things being equal,,they've spent it

They just resigned Emmanual Sanders to a $33 mil..3 year deal...that kicks in in 2017

 

the Colts..with Andrew's contract kicking in..are the best example

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, rock8591 said:

We all know that it's bad to put all your eggs in one basket; Grigson has the opposite problem, he puts his eggs in TOO MANY BASKETS.

 

Every year, fans are forced to concede that he does a great job managing the cap, as they have not signed any major FAs at all (largest one is Gosder Cherilus for $7 million a year) and very little dead cap room. To which I say that salary cap room is overrated. Salary cap room doesn't produce championship wins. The roster is mediocre largely because our FA signings are too safe, frugal, and simply put, cheap. It has led to year after year of "wait till next year" mentality.

 

Andre Johnson (cut with little dead cap)

Trent Cole (would have only had $1 mill dead cap if waived last year)

Laron Landry ($6 million contract after making the pro-bowl is not a high salary by any means, especially with almost no dead cap)

RJF - also another extremely cap-friendly contract that was waived with no dead cap.

 

Too much dumpster diving instead of paying for quality. Which is why I don't mind just offering Dontari Poe $14 million a year or Brandon Williams $11 million.

 

 

The Browns and 49ers have by far the most cap room in the league and guess what - both are the worst teams by far.

 

 

This is a fans point of view.     Grigson is not alone in mostly avoiding the hugely expensive players.   Studies have shown that they MOSTLY --- but NOT entirely --- fail to deliver enough bang for their free agent bucks.

 

Expensive players are typically poor investments.

 

Polian thought so.    Ted Thompson in Green Bay thinks so.      Some guy in New England named Belicheck things so.      And so do the vast majority of GM's.      Grigson's thinking is not out of the mainstream.    It IS the mainstream.       Sometimes a team like the NY Giants has a very good off-season and they hit on a lot of expensive guys in free agency.     Now the question becomes will those guys remain good for 3-5 years?   

 

Grigson's problem isn't that he invested in mid-price or inexpensive guys.     It that's he invested in the wrong ones.     But much of that is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.....

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, oldunclemark said:

No, I understand....I guess I'm suggesting that the color graph here, while fun, is very misleading........

The unspoken suggestion is that these teams have money to spend...if their expenses remain the same

But, unless they cut players,  most don't..

 

For example.(and I know you know this) ....Denver has what...7 mil in cap space in the graph here?

Well, all things being equal,,they've spent it

They just resigned Emmanual Sanders to a $33 mil..3 year deal...that kicks in in 2017

 

the Colts..with Andrew's contract kicking in..are the best example

 

 

Are the best example of.....   WHAT?

 

The Colts, having recently signed Andrew Luck to the biggest contract in football,  have roughly 50 million to spend and that will likely go up once we clear the contracts from the roster that we no longer want...

 

Financially speaking,  the Colts are a very well run and managed franchise....

 

So,  I'm sorry,   but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

Can you elaborate?

 

[dw49]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You don't like Grigson.     We get it.

 

And you quickly got tired of the claim that Grigson has kept the Colts out of salary cap hell.     So you've come up with a come back.

 

I have to tell you,  your comeback is incredibly weak.     If managing the salary cap is so easy,  why are there so many teams in salary cap Hell every single year?     Do you have a response for that?

 

Look,  arguing that he signed good free agents is completely legit.    He's invested money in all the wrong players is fine.     But trying to snuff out the one good thing he's done simply because you don't like him just takes the wind out of your sails.    He's done a good job.    Give him that.    Saying he's hasn't done it is just ridiculous.    

 

There's plenty of good reasons to fire Grigson.    Poor drafts.    Poor free agent signings.     But trying to argue that he's not good at managing the salary cap is pure folly and doesn't help your overall argument.

 

 

 

I have thousands of posts in this forum. I have never posted that I don't like Grigson or that he should be fired. Find one amigo...

 

I'm only saying that he has not done any great job with the cap that has miraculously kept us out of this "cap hell " you keep talking about. It comes with the territory. The territory being the crap roster we have.  How about we just agree to not agree and you really don't need to call me ridiculous or biased. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Yes they could have signed "extra" players in FA by giving those aging or mediocre players big signing bonuses. My point was that it would be insane to push the contracts of guys like that "down the road."

 

I'm not saying that they should have given aging or mediocre players big signing bonuses. Like you've said, that's not the kind of player to whom you give a big signing bonus. It's not genius to avoid that kind of contract. It does show discipline to avoid that kind of contract for hot commodity free agents, the ones who often mess up your cap situation for several years. I've said before, if it were up to consensus on this forum, the Colts would have signed Byrd, Levitre and Kruger, and it would have been bad.

 

The flat cap approach allows you to stay flexible year to year. I assume the Colts would use it even for big ticket free agents, even though they haven't quite tried to dive into that pool so far. The Broncos use that approach for their big free agents, for the most part. 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I have thousands of posts in this forum. I have never posted that I don't like Grigson or that he should be fired. Find one amigo...

 

I'm only saying that he has not done any great job with the cap that has miraculously kept us out of this "cap hell " you keep talking about. It comes with the territory. The territory being the crap roster we have.  How about we just agree to not agree and you really don't need to call me ridiculous or biased. 

 

I called your argument ridiculous and biased --- not you.

 

And I called your arguments that simply because they are.      You might as well be saying the sky isn't blue and grass isn't green.

 

Simply say he signed the wrong free agents.    Good argument.

 

Simply say he drafted the wrong players.         Good argument.

 

Simply say he hasn't done a good job helping Pagano with the coaching staff,  or the strength and conditioning staff  and you've got another good argument.

 

But trying to say that he hasn't done a good job with the salary cap is pure nonsense.    

 

I'm sorry you're making it so personal........

 

I wasn't attacking you,   I was attacking your arguments.     There's a BIG difference.

 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

No, I understand....I guess I'm suggesting that the color graph here, while fun, is very misleading........

The unspoken suggestion is that these teams have money to spend...if their expenses remain the same

But, unless they cut players,  most don't..

 

For example.(and I know you know this) ....Denver has what...7 mil in cap space in the graph here?

Well, all things being equal,,they've spent it

They just resigned Emmanual Sanders to a $33 mil..3 year deal...that kicks in in 2017

 

the Colts..with Andrew's contract kicking in..are the best example

 

That's not what the graph is saying at all. It's not misleading, it's a simple statement of fact. The Colts will carry forward $6.6m. The Niners will carry forward $39m, the Broncos will carry forward $7m, and so on. That's a simple fact.

 

Including the projected carryover (based on Spotrac's projections, not the NFLPA's published numbers), the Broncos have $38m in cap space in 2017. That includes Emmanuel Sanders new contract, and every other contract they've already agreed to. It doesn't include 2017 free agency or draft picks, or any extensions they do in the future.

[dw49]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

This is a fans point of view.     Grigson is not alone in mostly avoiding the hugely expensive players.   Studies have shown that they MOSTLY --- but NOT entirely --- fail to deliver enough bang for their free agent bucks.

 

Expensive players are typically poor investments.

 

Polian thought so.    Ted Thompson in Green Bay thinks so.      Some guy in New England named Belicheck things so.      And so do the vast majority of GM's.      Grigson's thinking is not out of the mainstream.    It IS the mainstream.       Sometimes a team like the NY Giants has a very good off-season and they hit on a lot of expensive guys in free agency.     Now the question becomes will those guys remain good for 3-5 years?   

 

Grigson's problem isn't that he invested in mid-price or inexpensive guys.     It that's he invested in the wrong ones.     But much of that is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.....

 

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not saying that they should have given aging or mediocre players big signing bonuses. Like you've said, that's not the kind of player to whom you give a big signing bonus. It's not genius to avoid that kind of contract. It does show discipline to avoid that kind of contract for hot commodity free agents, the ones who often mess up your cap situation for several years. I've said before, if it were up to consensus on this forum, the Colts would have signed Byrd, Levitre and Kruger, and it would have been bad.

 

The flat cap approach allows you to stay flexible year to year. I assume the Colts would use it even for big ticket free agents, even though they haven't quite tried to dive into that pool so far. The Broncos use that approach for their big free agents, for the most part. 

 

Free agency is no doubt a crap shoot . The Broncos did very well signing Ware and Talib. The Giants this year did great signing their 2 expensive guys on defense. The Colts were burnt to a crisp with their 2 biggest signings... Cherlius and Landry. My point is that generally you won't blow up your future cap by signing the type guys Grigson signed. We had a ton of cap room after the first year of Grigson. He signed a bevy of players and pretty much stuck out. This happens and I don't blame Grigson a whole lot as for every Taleb there is a Byrd.The stategy was as you outlined very accurately . I'm just solely focusing on the argument that I have to give Grigson due credit for keeping us out of "cap hell." One more time I'll say for a certain poster on this board,not you as we about 98% agree, it would be a true "butchering" if we were in cap hell with this roster.

[dw49]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I called your argument ridiculous and biased --- not you.

 

And I called your arguments that simply because they are.      You might as well be saying the sky isn't blue and grass isn't green.

 

Simply say he signed the wrong free agents.    Good argument.

 

Simply say he drafted the wrong players.         Good argument.

 

Simply say he hasn't done a good job helping Pagano with the coaching staff,  or the strength and conditioning staff  and you've got another good argument.

 

But trying to say that he hasn't done a good job with the salary cap is pure nonsense.    

 

I'm sorry you're making it so personal........

 

I wasn't attacking you,   I was attacking your arguments.     There's a BIG difference.

 

 

 

It's not personal. I'm really trying to somehow not insult you by saying you are pretty dense when it comes to understanding the cap. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

It's not personal. I'm really trying to somehow not insult you by saying you are pretty dense when it comes to understanding the cap. 

 

I'll make this as basic as I can, so I don't somehow insult you.

 

Grigson has been the GM for 5 years.    The first year was expected to get out of the contracts he inherited.

 

The next 4 years are all on him,  and he's been flawless with the contracts.    The Colts have remained out of salary cap trouble every year and most years we have money to spend.

 

Other teams all over the NFL are constantly in and out of salary cap Hell.     It can't be as simple as you're trying to make it.

 

To the argument you're making that the roster is so bad that it's not hard not be in salary cap Hell,  I think that's a gross over-simplification.

 

All of the contracts since Grigson came on,  including those for Luck, Castanzo, Hilton,  Cherilus,  Landry, Langford,  Mathis,  Wayne,  Allen, Davis,   you name it.....   every one of them, have been structured so that the Colts are never in a bad place when it comes to the cap.

 

If that makes me dense ---- so be it.

 

But I think a number of other teams around the NFL would LOVE to be as dense as that.

 

 

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

I'm no genius but should we be worried that the Titans and Jags have so much carry over???  It seems like they could vastly improve if used right.  I guess the key phrase would be "if used right."  That really worries me though but I'm not sure if I should be lol.  

 

Yeah, they're in good shape to add good free agents. But the cash considerations are significant, and most fans and analysts never consider that angle.

 

For example, if you sign someone for $20m/year, with a total of $40m fully guaranteed, the team has to place that $40m in escrow at signing. It's costly, from a cash standpoint, to spend a ton of cap space in one offseason. These owners are very wealthy, and can figure it out, but to come up with that kind of cash, liquid, is a big commitment, even for a billionaire. The Browns, believe it or not, will have $100m in cap space going into 2017. Is Jimmy Haslam going to want to put $200m+ in guaranteed money into escrow, plus spend $100m+ in salaries? 

 

End of the day, whatever they do, the Titans and Jags have to add good players, they have to have continued development from their young players (especially their QBs, depending on what the Jags do with Bortles), and they have to be well coached (which is yet to be determined). No team can just go on a spending spree and expect to be in the playoffs the next year. The Jags spent a bunch of money in free agency last year, and only won 3 games.

[lollygagger8]

I still think they need to increase the number of players on the active roster. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Yes spend!  And most likely overpay for a couple of difference makers who are in their prime.  Poe or Williams, Ingram , Zeitler whoever?  Target two or three and get them.  Quality over quantity thank you. 

 

 

For the majority of teams, that rarely happens. Difference makers get paid by their current teams, they rarely hit the streets.  That's what cap space is for, teams to keep stars they drafted and developed.

 

What typically happens in FA is you pay a B grade type player grade A type money. So you do not want to spend a lot on FA's.  Another thing, If you do land a premier FA, do not automatically expect as good or better performance from said player as they did on their old team; for various reasons.

 

FA is great to smooth out a pothole or two in the lineup, not pave the complete road to the Lombardi,

[deedub75]

8 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Grigson is certainly no "cap genius" as some in this forum claim. I addition to what you have is the type of FA's he's signed. Most are either old or fringe type players. You would have to be an * to commit significant guaranteed money to guys like RJF, Tolar , Johnson .. Cole dec He did get burned when he stepped out and signed an expensive one in Cherlius.

 

Further proof that he is not an "expert " cap manager is the fact that you can't point out a bunch of good contracts that he wrote. The innovative stuff is like the Mercilus contract for instance. Houston signed him to a 4 year extension in 2015. They had him under contract for an additional 2 years but chose to gamble a bit by upping his pay early. The end result of that is he is under contract for the next 3 years at around 6 mill per year. If they had let his contract play out he would be just entering his FA year and signing for big money. Anyway most of Grigson's deals have been OK... around market value when they were signed. Allen and Castonzo look like they might not be great but over all , he's been OK in that regard. But hardly the "genius" that has manipulated to keep us out of "cap hell." 

 

Grigson hasn't really drafted any impact players that have been worthy of an early contract. He seems to be content with having one of the oldest rosters in the league.