Projected cap space for Broncos, Patriots, and Colts next year

[Superman]

If Talib has a mediocre year then the Broncos made an even bigger mistake that will affect them long term. 

 

If Revis is stays healthy, there is no reason to think that his play, which has been consistently great since entering the league as the top premiere corner, will suddenly just fall into mediocrity.  

 

That is wishful thinking.  The only way this bites the Patriots is if Revis ends up on IR for an injury, which could happen to any player and is much more likely to happen to Talib given his history.

 

The Broncos can cut Talib and have a $4m cap penalty in 2015. No more guaranteed money prior to the start of the 2015 league year. It can be viewed as a one year, $11.5m contract, just like Revis can be viewed as a one year, $12m contract.

 

And I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Talib is any more likely to wind up with a season ending injury than Revis is. Revis is the one who missed a year with a torn ACL, and he's had a number other injuries throughout the years. Not saying Talib is an ironman...

[Mameluc]

-10 mil Von Miller, - 10 mil Demaryius Thomas, -10 mil Chris Harris, -5 mil Pot Roast and -5 mil Julius Thomas

 

= 0 cap left

 

 

how you turned the original post into the Broncos signing JJ Watt next year is laughable.

Julius will be getting more than 5 million.

 

the cap wont be 132 also.  so theres that

[GoPats]

Do you remember my original post? 

 

 

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. They might very well be fine, but it will be because they made some adjustments, they stopped pushing money into future years, they got rid of some bad contracts (which they're in the process of doing), etc. 

 

I think the key difference with the situation the Patriots might be in a couple of years down the road and the situation the Cowboys/Steelers are in now is the timing of big contracts to veteran players.

 

The Patriots tend to extend their in-house talent at the right time (Mayo, Gronk). This hasn't always been the case (Wilfork, Mankins). I think they've learned that if you ante up early, it saves you a lot in the long run. There's some risk involved and sometimes you get burned (Hernandez). They typically shy away from signing the aging veteran to a long-term deal. As it's been noted lots of times, the Patriots' strategy is to always part with a guy one year too early instead of one year too late. It's tough as a fan because we're allowed to be emotional about it... the situation is usually that your head agrees but your heart says "keep him!"

 

My impression is that the Steelers and Cowboys are in the tough spot of paying guys more than they're worth, which is not something New England does very often. The Amendola signing looks meh right now, but it's too early to call that one a disaster. 

 

In all honesty, and aside from the main point... I don't know what constitutes "cap jail" these days. Supposedly the Ravens were going to be in "cap jail" after they won their Super Bowl two years ago. They went 8-8 and were in the playoff mix right up until the end last season though, and this year they retooled and look as good as ever. I don't think teams are going to run into long rebuilding periods as a result of cap management anymore. There are enough ways to manipulate and retool the numbers, at least in most cases.

 

Plus it's supposedly going to skyrocket up to $160M over the next couple of years. 

 

I'm not too worried about it... and I'll tell you, I'd take the consequences (gladly) if the Patriots can win a title in the next year or two. I wouldn't mind a down year if the payoff is winning a Super Bowl. 

[Mameluc]

ha, if Mike Wallace got $11 mill a year, DT is easily going to make AT LEAST $10 a year.  He is one of the top 3 to 5 wide receivers in the NFL.

 

 

Theres no way that could be right about Denver having $40 million in cap space next year.  I don't see how that could be even remotely possible when they have the most expensive QB in the league on their roster and have tons of guys locked up to deals that are some of the leagues highest at their positions.  I guess they will be able to keep a few of their young, core guys like Von Miller, DT and Chris Harris.  Julius Thomas will command at least $6-7 mill a year when you use the contracts of Gronk and Hernandez as a bench mark.  Jimmy Graham will either be a free agent or will have raised the bar even higher on TE contracts with a long term deal.

 

 

The Patriots cap space is hugely speculative, because that includes the $20 mill in cap space that they have on the books for Revis, which will never happen.  He will either be released or extended to a long term deal, there is no way hes going to take up that much cap space.  That also doesnt account for Wilfork, who will either be cut or extended and Logan Mankins is hitting that point where he'll need to be extended or cut as well.  Both of them have top 3 contracts for their positions and that will release a significant amount of cap space.

 

Does that cap figure also include Hernandez's contract finally coming off of the books?

 

 

A sign of a good GM isn't how much cap space you have available.  You want to use your cap space to field a competitive team, thats what its there for, but the good GMs leave their cap flexible to give them options and don't mortgage the future to win in the short term.

drew brees is the most expensive QB.. why is that no possible? elway is doing lots of frontloaded contracts pay-as you go type of contracts...they can easily get out of most of their big contracts

[amfootball]

The Broncos can cut Talib and have a $4m cap penalty in 2015. No more guaranteed money prior to the start of the 2015 league year. It can be viewed as a one year, $11.5m contract, just like Revis can be viewed as a one year, $12m contract.

 

And I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Talib is any more likely to wind up with a season ending injury than Revis is. Revis is the one who missed a year with a torn ACL, and he's had a number other injuries throughout the years. Not saying Talib is an ironman...

Great point about the Talib deal. For his sake, I hope he can stay on the field.

 

I agree about the season ending injury as well. It is just likely to happen to any player but here is the rub, Talib has never started 16 games in any season and has a nagging hip or whatever he is calling it these days. Revis has started 16 games including all post-season games 5 out of his 7 years. Durability is squarely on Revis' side and makes his deal far more appealing not to mention he is the better CB.

[Sports Central1]

Revis wanted to play for the Patriots.  It's not like the Pats had to pull teeth with some long drawn out bidding war with other teams.  Revis partly chose NE out of spite against the Jets...

 

http://www.patriots.com/news/blog/article-1/Report-Revis-wants-to-play-for-Patriots/eb92b8bd-0748-4c3a-8c2e-7d0b855bcfcf

 

After NY Jets passed on Darrelle Revis, he bolts for Patriots in 'Benedict Arnold' move
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/myers-revis-sought-return-jets-rex-wanted-back-article-1.1720586#ixzz2wA77n79K

[Sports Central1]

So basically all Colts fans have said on this thread about Revis is...

 

"Yeah you got Revis, but he's gone after next year."

 

or...

 

"Yeah, well Revis' contract will hurt the Pats with the salary cap." 

 

It's all based on jealousy.

 

 

There's plenty of sources on Google from ESPN, to Yahoo sports showing how Revis wanted to play for the Patriots and the Pats didn't have to pull teeth to get him.

[Superman]

I think the key difference with the situation the Patriots might be in a couple of years down the road and the situation the Cowboys/Steelers are in now is the timing of big contracts to veteran players.

 

The Patriots tend to extend their in-house talent at the right time (Mayo, Gronk). This hasn't always been the case (Wilfork, Mankins). I think they've learned that if you ante up early, it saves you a lot in the long run. There's some risk involved and sometimes you get burned (Hernandez). They typically shy away from signing the aging veteran to a long-term deal. As it's been noted lots of times, the Patriots' strategy is to always part with a guy one year too early instead of one year too late. It's tough as a fan because we're allowed to be emotional about it... the situation is usually that your head agrees but your heart says "keep him!"

 

My impression is that the Steelers and Cowboys are in the tough spot of paying guys more than they're worth, which is not something New England does very often. The Amendola signing looks meh right now, but it's too early to call that one a disaster. 

 

In all honesty, and aside from the main point... I don't know what constitutes "cap jail" these days. Supposedly the Ravens were going to be in "cap jail" after they won their Super Bowl two years ago. They went 8-8 and were in the playoff mix right up until the end last season though, and this year they retooled and look as good as ever. I don't think teams are going to run into long rebuilding periods as a result of cap management anymore. There are enough ways to manipulate and retool the numbers, at least in most cases.

 

Plus it's supposedly going to skyrocket up to $160M over the next couple of years. 

 

I'm not too worried about it... and I'll tell you, I'd take the consequences (gladly) if the Patriots can win a title in the next year or two. I wouldn't mind a down year if the payoff is winning a Super Bowl. 

 

All fair points, and not much to disagree with. I even said what you're saying in the last line, that if they win a Super Bowl, cap ramifications aren't important. Of course, that's the justification teams use for running afoul of their cap philosophy in the first place -- It's worth it if we win the Super Bowl! Problem is, that usually doesn't happen. I said in another thread that cap management isn't rocket science, it's about discipline, more than anything else. 

 

All teams are being saved by the cap going up. The big increase in 2014 wasn't expected, and it got a number of teams out of trouble. Should continue to help as time goes on, and the teams that have stayed disciplined will continue to have $30-40m/year to spend. 

 

But I will take exception to the bolded. Not that it's wrong, but in the Pats' case, I think it's hurt your team on several occasions. You have to think long term, absolutely, but getting rid of good players has left your team with holes that have made it difficult to finish seasons. Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Wes Welker, etc., all had plenty of life left, and maybe they weren't worth what they would have cost, but losing them hurt your team. Not having Branch means you come to Indy with no #1 receiver. Not having Seymour makes it difficult to stop the Ravens rushing attack in 2009. Letting Welker walk -- a year after paying him $11m on the franchise tag -- hurts your receiving corps all season long (exacerbated by Hernandez and all the injuries). The Patriot Way is often exalted as being ahead of the curve, but it's actually the complete opposite of what we're both saying about putting together the best team you can right now. 

 

Again, I'm not taking a shot at the Pats. I just disagree with the idea that the Pats are better than everyone else at managing the cap, to the point that fans of other teams are jealous of them. That's the idea I originally responded to, and then let myself get dragged into all this other nonsense with am. My point is just that other teams do a great job of managing the cap as well, some of them even better than the Pats do.

[chad72]

So basically all Colts fans have said on this thread about Revis is...

 

"Yeah you got Revis, but he's gone after next year."

 

or...

 

"Yeah, well Revis' contract will hurt the Pats with the salary cap." 

 

It's all based on jealousy.

 

 

There's plenty of sources on Google from ESPN, to Yahoo sports showing how Revis wanted to play for the Patriots and the Pats didn't have to pull teeth to get him.

 

Well, everyone arguing here, including you, have a biased agenda, based on which side of the fence you are while using the numbers. Some make good points with the numbers, have had a longer history for us posters to know how objective they have been in the past and some are here just to make noise.

 

With all due respect, your first post in this thread was this:

 

Has Peyton ever taken a pay cut or restructured his contract in his career to help the team save money so they can afford to bring in other players? Maybe Peyton should.

 

That is all I have to say.

[Superman]

So basically all Colts fans have said on this thread about Revis is...

 

"Yeah you got Revis, but he's gone after next year."

 

or...

 

"Yeah, well Revis' contract will hurt the Pats with the salary cap." 

 

It's all based on jealousy.

 

 

There's plenty of sources on Google from ESPN, to Yahoo sports showing how Revis wanted to play for the Patriots and the Pats didn't have to pull teeth to get him.

 

I'm not jealous at all. I don't care what the Pats do with Revis, and I don't care that they signed him. Good signing, good for the team, decent contract... no ill will from me.

 

I just disagree with the whole "THE PATS ARE THE BESTEST EVER!! ONLY THEY COULD SIGN REVIS ON SUCH A TEAM FRIENDLY DEAL!!! WOOOOO, DYNASTY AT THE GILLETTE TEMPLE, BRING YOUR BRADY COSTUMES!!!" crap. It's gag-inducing, really. 

 

The Pats are a great team, and they just got another great player. Good for them. 

[Superman]

Well, everyone arguing here, including you, have a biased agenda, based on which side of the fence you are while using the numbers. Some make good points with the numbers, have had a longer history for us posters to know how objective they have been in the past and some are here just to make noise.

 

With all due respect, your first post in this thread was this:

 

Has Peyton ever taken a pay cut or restructured his contract in his career to help the team save money so they can afford to bring in other players? Maybe Peyton should.

 

That is all I have to say.

 

This despite the fact that the Broncos have more cap space than the Pats do, even though Manning's cap hit is higher than Brady's...

[jvan1973]

So basically all Colts fans have said on this thread about Revis is...

"Yeah you got Revis, but he's gone after next year."

or...

"Yeah, well Revis' contract will hurt the Pats with the salary cap."

It's all based on jealousy.

There's plenty of sources on Google from ESPN, to Yahoo sports showing how Revis wanted to play for the Patriots and the Pats didn't have to pull teeth to get him.

Any links with direct quotes from Revis himself?

[Superman]

Great point about the Talib deal. For his sake, I hope he can stay on the field.

 

I agree about the season ending injury as well. It is just likely to happen to any player but here is the rub, Talib has never started 16 games in any season and has a nagging hip or whatever he is calling it these days. Revis has started 16 games including all post-season games 5 out of his 7 years. Durability is squarely on Revis' side and makes his deal far more appealing not to mention he is the better CB.

 

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm not ready to hand Talib the "Brett Favre Durability Award" either. 

[amfootball]

Any links with direct quotes from Revis himself?

No but this was Rex after the deal to NE was announced.

 

[chad72]

No but this was Rex after the deal to NE was announced.

 

 

I thought you were going to pull out a "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express" quote. But this works too.

[Dustin]

So basically all Colts fans have said on this thread about Revis is...

 

"Yeah you got Revis, but he's gone after next year."

 

or...

 

"Yeah, well Revis' contract will hurt the Pats with the salary cap." 

 

 

Didn't you use to post under the handle Iron Patriot? 

[amfootball]

All fair points, and not much to disagree with. I even said what you're saying in the last line, that if they win a Super Bowl, cap ramifications aren't important. Of course, that's the justification teams use for running afoul of their cap philosophy in the first place -- It's worth it if we win the Super Bowl! Problem is, that usually doesn't happen. I said in another thread that cap management isn't rocket science, it's about discipline, more than anything else. 

 

All teams are being saved by the cap going up. The big increase in 2014 wasn't expected, and it got a number of teams out of trouble. Should continue to help as time goes on, and the teams that have stayed disciplined will continue to have $30-40m/year to spend. 

 

But I will take exception to the bolded. Not that it's wrong, but in the Pats' case, I think it's hurt your team on several occasions. You have to think long term, absolutely, but getting rid of good players has left your team with holes that have made it difficult to finish seasons. Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Wes Welker, etc., all had plenty of life left, and maybe they weren't worth what they would have cost, but losing them hurt your team. Not having Branch means you come to Indy with no #1 receiver. Not having Seymour makes it difficult to stop the Ravens rushing attack in 2009. Letting Welker walk -- a year after paying him $11m on the franchise tag -- hurts your receiving corps all season long (exacerbated by Hernandez and all the injuries). The Patriot Way is often exalted as being ahead of the curve, but it's actually the complete opposite of what we're both saying about putting together the best team you can right now. 

 

Again, I'm not taking a shot at the Pats. I just disagree with the idea that the Pats are better than everyone else at managing the cap, to the point that fans of other teams are jealous of them. That's the idea I originally responded to, and then let myself get dragged into all this other nonsense with am. My point is just that other teams do a great job of managing the cap as well, some of them even better than the Pats do.

I think not signing Asante Samuel is another one although he was coming off his rookie contract like Deion Branch. Those two were killers because the Pats swung and miss were their replacements for quite some time. Seymour not so much as he was 30 and had the bad back and Oakland was crazy enough to give us the number one. He also was not a run stopper. He was a pass rusher. Same with Welker. The Pats got his production from Edelman but were more hurt by Hernandez and Gronk being out.

[amfootball]

I thought you were going to pull out a "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express" quote. But this works too.

Ha. There are no shortages of fantastic Ryan pics and quotes.   I am happy he is still with the Jets as the two Jet weeks here in NE will be awesome with Revis as a Pat.

[JerodMayo51]

Well it wouldn't exactly be a normal transaction, but I have little interest in taking cheap shots at the Pats. A fan of the team would call it clever cap manipulation. Someone else would call it something else. Semantics. As long as the league doesn't care than neither do I. I'm not taking a shot at them, just at those who laud Brady for this.

 

What I object to is people applauding Brady as if he has made a noble sacrifice, when to this point he has not. He was in the middle of a long term contract that made him the highest paid QB in the sport at the time he signed it. With two years left in the deal they did that extension. Last year and this upcoming year he got/will get exactly as much money as he was going to anyway, plus a bunch extra as a reward for agreeing to the extension. There hasn't been one iota of sacrifice - he made MORE money. Many expect that contract to be adjusted once more before the day in September of 2015 when he actually steps onto the field at a bargain rate. If he holds to it I'll applaud him at the time, but it's a bit premature to do so now.

 

I certainly couldn't criticize them for doing something that they haven't actually done yet anyway. That's not exactly fair. I'm just talking about IF they end up increasing his salary again. Big if.

 

One could surmise that they made the deal in anticipation of his value dropping as he ages, and Brady (knowing BB's penchant for dropping overpaid players without hesitation) didn't want to put himself in a position where the team was forced to release him. That would be smart and fair on both sides. That would leave room for his salary to be increased again if it turned out that his play hadn't deteriorated after all. Or it could imply a level of trust on Brady's part all along that it was going to happen, which would constitute a handshake agreement as part of a cynical effort to circumvent the cap. Unfair to some, but not illegal. It would be the player taking the risk, and if he has that level of trust, good for him. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

 

The larger issue is whether any of us should be applauding any player for these decisions. We aren't talking about Mother Theresa. If a player does so it isn't because he's more of a "winner" than the next guy, or because he wants to give something back to the fans, it's because he's at a stage in his life where he can afford to put winning (ego) above money (greed). Pick the human sin/virtue. What we're applauding is the player doing something that coincidentally benefits US, but it doesn't pay to look too closely at the motivation behind it. It's silly to either applaud or criticize any of these guys for these decisions. They are worried about themselves, and we are worried about ourselves, and  we're all the same underneath.

 

Thanks for the clarification, you articulated that very well. 

 

I agree as well that no player should ever be expected to give some sort of discount and for the most part nobody ever does.  Time will tell with the Brady extension as you said.

 

 Great post, thanks for the read.

[Superman]

I think not signing Asante Samuel is another one although he was coming off his rookie contract like Deion Branch. Those two were killers because the Pats swung and miss were their replacements for quite some time. Seymour not so much as he was 30 and had the bad back and Oakland was crazy enough to give us the number one. He also was not a run stopper. He was a pass rusher. Same with Welker. The Pats got his production from Edelman but were more hurt by Hernandez and Gronk being out.

 

Fair enough. The Welker situation was mishandled, at least. Gave him as much for one season as the Broncos gave him for two, and then the team struggled passing the ball. 

 

But whatever. Like I said, every team makes mistakes. I'm not trying to string the Pats up.

[chad72]

I think not signing Asante Samuel is another one although he was coming off his rookie contract like Deion Branch. Those two were killers because the Pats swung and miss were their replacements for quite some time. Seymour not so much as he was 30 and had the bad back and Oakland was crazy enough to give us the number one. He also was not a run stopper. He was a pass rusher. Same with Welker. The Pats got his production from Edelman but were more hurt by Hernandez and Gronk being out.

 

Yeah, I totally forgot about the Asante Samuel deal.

 

His deal that the Eagles signed him was for 6 years, $57 mil. deal, ironically the same deal as Aqib Talib with Talib getting $6 mil. more guaranteed, 6 years later.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3271255

[amfootball]

Yeah, I totally forgot about the Asante Samuel deal.

 

His deal that the Eagles signed him was for 6 years, $57 mil. deal, ironically the same deal as Aqib Talib with $6 more mil. guaranteed, 6 years later.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3271255

Yeah back then Bill thought he could win with Earthwind Mooreland (a.k.a. earth, wind and fire), Randall Gay and Hank Poteat. Samuels was a big mistake.

[JerodMayo51]

The Broncos can cut Talib and have a $4m cap penalty in 2015. No more guaranteed money prior to the start of the 2015 league year. It can be viewed as a one year, $11.5m contract, just like Revis can be viewed as a one year, $12m contract.

 

And I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Talib is any more likely to wind up with a season ending injury than Revis is. Revis is the one who missed a year with a torn ACL, and he's had a number other injuries throughout the years. Not saying Talib is an ironman...

Talib hasn't completed a full 16 game season once in his entire career.

 

Revis has completed several full 16 game seasons and has performed at an All-Pro level consistently every single year hes been in the league.

 

As far as consistency, Revis is hands down the more consistent one.  Now that doesn't guarantee anything going forward, but if I had to bet on who would miss more games next year I would bet Talib given the history of the two and that Talib has that hip injury that hes reaggrivated 3 years in a row.

[JerodMayo51]

It was your fellow pats fan that suggested that he wanted revis to have a "down" year so he could be re-signed cheaper

 

thats weird ha, if im paying a guy 12 mill a year i want him to have a stellar year, especially since the Pats schedule is intense this year from a Wide Receiver perspective.

[JerodMayo51]

The Broncos can cut Talib and have a $4m cap penalty in 2015. No more guaranteed money prior to the start of the 2015 league year. It can be viewed as a one year, $11.5m contract, just like Revis can be viewed as a one year, $12m contract.

 

And I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Talib is any more likely to wind up with a season ending injury than Revis is. Revis is the one who missed a year with a torn ACL, and he's had a number other injuries throughout the years. Not saying Talib is an ironman...

 

hmm i looked up the details of Talib's deal and you're right, it essentially puts them on the hook for $11.5 million this year and then they have until March 17th of next year to decide if they want to guarantee him his money for that year.  

 

It actually looks like a very good contract for the Broncos when you see how its broken down and they access the risk vs reward year to year.  I was under the impression that they guaranteed him $26 million as a signing bonus which was incorrect.  In that scenario, they would have been on the hook for that entire signing bonus if they cut him.

 

Thats a very team friendly contract when you look at it year to year.  I hope the Patriots copy that exactly down to the T and try to extend Revis long term, but just increase the value of it by like $500,000 or so.

 

Im still scratching my head at how the Broncos are giving out all of these huge deals and yet are still projected to be $40 mill under the cap next year.  Totally bind blowing if thats truly the case.

[Superman]

hmm i looked up the details of Talib's deal and you're right, it essentially puts them on the hook for $11.5 million this year and then they have until March 17th of next year to decide if they want to guarantee him his money for that year.  

 

It actually looks like a very good contract for the Broncos when you see how its broken down and they access the risk vs reward year to year.  I was under the impression that they guaranteed him $26 million as a signing bonus which was incorrect.  In that scenario, they would have been on the hook for that entire signing bonus if they cut him.

 

Thats a very team friendly contract when you look at it year to year.  I hope the Patriots copy that exactly down to the T and try to extend Revis long term, but just increase the value of it by like $500,000 or so.

 

Im still scratching my head at how the Broncos are giving out all of these huge deals and yet are still projected to be $40 mill under the cap next year.  Totally bind blowing if thats truly the case.

 

The Broncos are keeping their deals even year to year, restricting signing bonuses and giving salary guarantees instead. And they have expiring deals moving forward, of course. Right now, they have $92m on the books for 2015, before any other deals or draft picks are signed. So if the cap stays at $133m, they could have $30m or more. If the cap goes up above $140m, like people expect it to, then look out.

 

Of course, they have some important young players to retain after 2014, so more than half of that cap space will go them them -- Demaryius and Julius Thomas, Von Miller, Chris Harris (who I doubt gets a big money deal from the Broncos, but we'll see), etc. 

 

A lot of time the so-called guaranteed money isn't actually guaranteed. Potential guarantees are called guaranteed, even though they aren't at the time of signing. 

 

Talib hasn't completed a full 16 game season once in his entire career.

 

Revis has completed several full 16 game seasons and has performed at an All-Pro level consistently every single year hes been in the league.

 

As far as consistency, Revis is hands down the more consistent one.  Now that doesn't guarantee anything going forward, but if I had to bet on who would miss more games next year I would bet Talib given the history of the two and that Talib has that hip injury that hes reaggrivated 3 years in a row.

 

I agree on Talib vs. Revis. Just not buying that Talib is more likely to wind up on IR. Maybe he'll miss a game or two, but Revis is the one still recovering from a serious injury.

[chad72]

hmm i looked up the details of Talib's deal and you're right, it essentially puts them on the hook for $11.5 million this year and then they have until March 17th of next year to decide if they want to guarantee him his money for that year.  

 

It actually looks like a very good contract for the Broncos when you see how its broken down and they access the risk vs reward year to year.  I was under the impression that they guaranteed him $26 million as a signing bonus which was incorrect.  In that scenario, they would have been on the hook for that entire signing bonus if they cut him.

 

Thats a very team friendly contract when you look at it year to year.  I hope the Patriots copy that exactly down to the T and try to extend Revis long term, but just increase the value of it by like $500,000 or so.

 

Im still scratching my head at how the Broncos are giving out all of these huge deals and yet are still projected to be $40 mill under the cap next year.  Totally bind blowing if thats truly the case.

 

That is because they managed to draft pretty decently along with good UDFA signings: Von Miller, Demaryius Thomas, Chris Harris (undrafted signing), Julius Thomas (undrafted signing) and giving short term contracts to guys like Shaun Philips, DRC, Wes Welker, Pot Roast, Jacob Tamme etc. that they can let go while bringing along replacements like Emmanuel Sanders, Andre Caldwell, Kayvon Webster, Sylvester Williams etc.

 

If a guy gets too expensive, they assess how important it is to re-sign him (like Clady vs Decker) as opposed to letting him go. Hate to say it but Elway's GM abilities are pretty good so far. Apparently, DRC wanted same/more money as Talib and Elway felt Talib was more worth that money, and I have to agree because of the in-your-face press style that Talib plays (and the fact he can be put on bigger TEs too) vs off-man press style that DRC plays.

[GoPats]

All fair points, and not much to disagree with. I even said what you're saying in the last line, that if they win a Super Bowl, cap ramifications aren't important. Of course, that's the justification teams use for running afoul of their cap philosophy in the first place -- It's worth it if we win the Super Bowl! Problem is, that usually doesn't happen. I said in another thread that cap management isn't rocket science, it's about discipline, more than anything else. 

 

All teams are being saved by the cap going up. The big increase in 2014 wasn't expected, and it got a number of teams out of trouble. Should continue to help as time goes on, and the teams that have stayed disciplined will continue to have $30-40m/year to spend. 

 

But I will take exception to the bolded. Not that it's wrong, but in the Pats' case, I think it's hurt your team on several occasions. You have to think long term, absolutely, but getting rid of good players has left your team with holes that have made it difficult to finish seasons. Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Wes Welker, etc., all had plenty of life left, and maybe they weren't worth what they would have cost, but losing them hurt your team. Not having Branch means you come to Indy with no #1 receiver. Not having Seymour makes it difficult to stop the Ravens rushing attack in 2009. Letting Welker walk -- a year after paying him $11m on the franchise tag -- hurts your receiving corps all season long (exacerbated by Hernandez and all the injuries). The Patriot Way is often exalted as being ahead of the curve, but it's actually the complete opposite of what we're both saying about putting together the best team you can right now. 

 

Again, I'm not taking a shot at the Pats. I just disagree with the idea that the Pats are better than everyone else at managing the cap, to the point that fans of other teams are jealous of them. That's the idea I originally responded to, and then let myself get dragged into all this other nonsense with am. My point is just that other teams do a great job of managing the cap as well, some of them even better than the Pats do.

 

Good points as always. A lot of times their frugality has come back to haunt them a bit. 

 

I do think the Patriots are more willing to make the difficult cuts than a lot of teams are... or at least they try to avoid putting themselves in that position in the first place. 

 

I do also think the "all in" philosophy (meaning, pushing cap concerns to the future) makes more sense in some cases than others. The Patriots were a game away from the SB two years straight and have gone to three straight conference championship games. So it's not like the 2011 Eagles trying to create something out of nothing. They're more realistically a player or two away from being able to win one. 

 

The Welker situation got personal, I think. And no, I can't back that up (no one can, since no one said much in the press). Just my gut feeling based on what went public. 

[Superman]

Good points as always. A lot of times their frugality has come back to haunt them a bit. 

 

I do think the Patriots are more willing to make the difficult cuts than a lot of teams are... or at least they try to avoid putting themselves in that position in the first place. 

 

I do also think the "all in" philosophy (meaning, pushing cap concerns to the future) makes more sense in some cases than others. The Patriots were a game away from the SB two years straight and have gone to three straight conference championship games. So it's not like the 2011 Eagles trying to create something out of nothing. They're more realistically a player or two away from being able to win one. 

 

The Welker situation got personal, I think. And no, I can't back that up (no one can, since no one said much in the press). Just my gut feeling based on what went public. 

 

I agree on both counts. The Pats have never needed to build their team through free agency. I think, more than anything, they've created holes by not retaining their own talent, like Branch, etc. When you get rid of a guy "too soon," then you're ridding yourself of a player who you drafted, developed, and should be benefiting from. And in theory, you should be able to re-sign him for a slightly discounted price; you mentioned the difference between the values on the Mankins deal, vs the Gronkowski deal. Rather than moving him too soon, maybe you should be paying him too soon, and keeping the terms team-friendly in the event of a release or even an increase. I just don't think you should get rid of good players unless you have to, and the Pats got into a mold where the Patriot Way meant that they could replace good players just because they were the Patriots. But it doesn't work that way.

 

Bill Simmons wrote an article before Brady's big extension in 2010, about how Brady took a below market contract, presumably to help the team, in comparison with Manning who was made the highest paid player in the league. But he pointed out how the Colts had done more to add and retain weapons around Manning than the Pats did for Brady, which is very ironic. And I think that came to a head in the 2006 playoffs, then pushed Bill over the edge to reload in 2007. And now, in recent years, the Pats have pared back again, almost too much. It would seem like they'd find a happy medium. Maybe they have, but the Revis splash seems very 2007 to me.

 

Welker probably did get personal, but they probably should have just paid him in 2012, rather than making him play on the tag for a year. That's what doesn't make sense to me. You pay him $9.5m for one year, then let him go elsewhere for $12m for two years. They probably could have given him three years, $20m to begin with, and they'd have been better off cap wise and on the field. But they paid Amendola $6m/year? Just my opinion, but I think they misplayed their hand with Welker. It will work out; Brady is great, and the running game is coming along (almost out of necessity, but you take it how it comes). 

[amfootball]

I agree on both counts. The Pats have never needed to build their team through free agency. I think, more than anything, they've created holes by not retaining their own talent, like Branch, etc. When you get rid of a guy "too soon," then you're ridding yourself of a player who you drafted, developed, and should be benefiting from. And in theory, you should be able to re-sign him for a slightly discounted price; you mentioned the difference between the values on the Mankins deal, vs the Gronkowski deal. Rather than moving him too soon, maybe you should be paying him too soon, and keeping the terms team-friendly in the event of a release or even an increase. I just don't think you should get rid of good players unless you have to, and the Pats got into a mold where the Patriot Way meant that they could replace good players just because they were the Patriots. But it doesn't work that way.

 

Bill Simmons wrote an article before Brady's big extension in 2010, about how Brady took a below market contract, presumably to help the team, in comparison with Manning who was made the highest paid player in the league. But he pointed out how the Colts had done more to add and retain weapons around Manning than the Pats did for Brady, which is very ironic. And I think that came to a head in the 2006 playoffs, then pushed Bill over the edge to reload in 2007. And now, in recent years, the Pats have pared back again, almost too much. It would seem like they'd find a happy medium. Maybe they have, but the Revis splash seems very 2007 to me.

 

Welker probably did get personal, but they probably should have just paid him in 2012, rather than making him play on the tag for a year. That's what doesn't make sense to me. You pay him $9.5m for one year, then let him go elsewhere for $12m for two years. They probably could have given him three years, $20m to begin with, and they'd have been better off cap wise and on the field. But they paid Amendola $6m/year? Just my opinion, but I think they misplayed their hand with Welker. It will work out; Brady is great, and the running game is coming along (almost out of necessity, but you take it how it comes). 

Before they franchised Welker they offered him two years at $16 mil which he turned down and then they tagged him. His agent thought he was worth more at age 30 and felt hitting the market would have been better for Welker at age 31. His agent badly misjudged his value as he only made a mil more with Denver per year and same number of years - 2. I do wonder if the Pats had originally made him a three year deal at $22/23 if he would have stayed. It was hard to read at the time and then of course it came out that Welker was having issues with Bill. So like GoPats said, it got personal from Welker's end so it may not have mattered what the Pats put on the table.

 

I do not have much of an issue with Welker but Branch has always bothered me as like you said the Pats developed him, he had great chemistry with Brady was SB MVP and you let him go to Seattle. They did get the #1 though but still it was tough to replace him and that cost them in 2006. Same thing with Samuels. At that time, Bill did not value CBs really at all in relation to the front 7. Problem is it became a passing league with the rules and they missed in the draft and in FA with CBs.

 

Still though only a handful of glaring mistakes over 13 years. Some of those same mistakes would have sunk other clubs but with the Pats they kept winning and making deep playoff runs but it left fans wondering if we let championships slip away. That is how good the teams were minus those one or two players which is why I think their overall team/cap mgmg has been superb. And also why I am happy this year they have relaxed their approach by signing quality players and paying for them, i.e. Browner and LaFells instead of bargain basement deals on less talented/unproven players.

[dgambill]

I've posted it numerous times but Peyton restructured his deal from 2004 twice...and he was on a new contract with the Colts when he got hurt and who knows if he would have restructured that one. He is clearly worth it and it isn't a problem with his contract...it's the guys not earning their money that are the ones that you need to restructure...and Peyton doesn't have more years left to push it out...he is done when this contract runs out.

 

Most teams have figured out how to stay competitive even with a tight cap situtation...as long as you keep the right players and cut the right ones. Denver cut Bailey..and saved 10 million....basically allowing them to get Talib..some teams aren't willing to part with their aging vets...say Pittsburg for example. NE, Denver and Indy will all be fine in the coming years...they really don't have any guys tied up in bad contracts....say like Dallas with guys like Brandon Carr....when you re-sign your vets to over priced contracts or you get these free agents to guaranteed deals you have to live with them...and they made bad decisions...make smart ones...you look smart.

[Sports Central1]

 

I just disagree with the whole "THE PATS ARE THE BESTEST EVER!! ONLY THEY COULD SIGN REVIS ON SUCH A TEAM FRIENDLY DEAL!!! WOOOOO, DYNASTY AT THE GILLETTE TEMPLE, BRING YOUR BRADY COSTUMES!!!" crap. It's gag-inducing, really. 

 

Nobody has said that.

[Sports Central1]

Any links with direct quotes from Revis himself?

 

http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Revis-at-Gillette-ready-to-win/9c67de11-92b1-4cb3-8d57-b9e580a282ee

[Superman]

Nobody has said that.

 

Verbatim? I guess not...

[dw49]

http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/blog/tom-brady-extension-with-patriots-includes-30-million-signing-bonus/

 

"Yates breaks it down simply: 'The maximum value of the five-year deal is $57 million, with $33 million guaranteed no matter what happens. The remaining $24 million is “leftover likely to be seen should Brady continue to perform at his expected level.'"

 

 

I have multiple sources saying the last 24 mill is guaranteed as soon as he is on the roster for the last game of this year. You have one post that is so vague it's ridiculous. I would think that it's guaranteed as the multiple sources indicate. Also all the cap websites show the Pats as having that amount go to "dead money " if the contract is terminated. 

 

Plus it looks like the site you found was a gossip column.

[chad72]

I have multiple sources saying the last 24 mill is guaranteed as soon as he is on the roster for the last game of this year. You have one post that is so vague it's ridiculous. I would think that it's guaranteed as the multiple sources indicate. Also all the cap websites show the Pats as having that amount go to "dead money " if the contract is terminated. 

 

The key wording is: the money may not be seen by Brady if he does not perform at a high level, but it won't be seen by the Pats either and goes towards dead cap.

[amfootball]

Verbatim? I guess not...

Since the Revis deal, most Pats fans are walking around these days like someone is pinching their tushes.

[amfootball]

I have multiple sources saying the last 24 mill is guaranteed as soon as he is on the roster for the last game of this year. You have one post that is so vague it's ridiculous. I would think that it's guaranteed as the multiple sources indicate. Also all the cap websites show the Pats as having that amount go to "dead money " if the contract is terminated. 

 

Plus it looks like the site you found was a gossip column.

The guaranteed money (33 mil) is all paid out by 2015. So the last two years the Pats are just on the hook for his base salaries. It would still be a hit but not $14 mil in dead money by any means.

[Superman]

The guaranteed money (33 mil) is all paid out by 2015. So the last two years the Pats are just on the hook for his base salaries. It would still be a hit but not $14 mil in dead money by any means.

 

Dead money is $12m in 2016, $6m in 2017. And that's before you account for injury guarantees.

[Superman]

Since the Revis deal, most Pats fans are walking around these days like someone is pinching their tushes.

 

Sorry, I don't get it.