FA Agency Day 2 and beyond.

[CR91]

 

[NewColtsFan]

55 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

I get it, you don't like advanced stats. So here's some simple things to think about.

 

Philly... who is a team that uses play action a ton (top 5 in play action %), was 7th in passing, but a horrible 28th in rushing. So play action is working very well for them with a really crappy running game.

 

You have to look at things in two ways. 1) how a DC schemes in general, and 2) how a position group reacts. A good running team will cause an opposing DC to game plan to combat the run. A DC will also scheme to combat a good passing team. Regardless of scheme, the position groups, especially LBs, react to what they see. A good play action fake will cause the LBs to bite, regardless of the opposing team's RB anticipated performance. Their job is tackle the RB, and if they think it's a run, they won't ignore it.  If the LBs bite, it opens up lanes, plane and simple.

 

In general, a good rushing team always makes things easier on the passing game. A good passing game also makes it easier on the running game. Respect of either requires attention. That's just common sense regardless of if you run a lot of play action or not. But, play action, regardless of rushing success, will require scheme adjustment (game plan), and if done properly, will cause the D to react (real time).

 

Philly's running game was bottom 5, while their passing game was top 10. Can you explain this? I absolutely want to improve the running game, but let's not act like we need to because it's required for the passing side of things to work.

 

 

 

It's not that I don't like advanced stats,  I think the people who do the research draw conclusions that NFL people would disagree with.   

 

Here's an example....   a year or so ago,  a poster (don't remember who) posted a study about arm length of left tackles.    He found it on PFF.    And the conclusion was that arm length was over-rated and not needed.     And it had the same graphic that you offered in your study of WR's....

 

It had a vertical line and a horizontal line...   with no years, or names,  or anything recognizable and it had lots of different colored dots with lines connecting them.    I couldn't make heads of tails of it.    But the conclusion was that arm length was just not that important for LT's.

 

And yet,  it was a 3-year old study,  done by someone (don't know who?)  who did not work at PFF.    And PFF still seems to value arm length of all lineman.   So does NFL.com.    So does ESPN.com.    All who have advanced stats.   So, I can't find anyone who accepts the premise of the study that was posted.

 

As for the Eagles,  you make an interesting observation that I can't give you a statistical based answer to.    But, Frank Reich,  himself a life long Quarterback,  thinks better running and better play action will make the rest of his offense hum.    I think Reich and Ballard have access to all the same analysis that you have.   Do we know if ANY NFL teams have accepted this study as conventional wisdom?     Not that I'm aware of.

 

It just seems to defy logic to me that the quality of the running game does not matter.   That all you have to do is run play-action.    That the benefit of having a good to great running attack brings you no more benefit.    That seems illogical to me.   Strikes me that every team that has used a 1st round draft pick (including some that have used a top-10 or even top-5 pick on a RB)  are strongly disagreeing with you.   What do they know that the people behind your study don't seem to?

 

Sorry this went so long.....   just trying to address all the issues in play....

 

[EastStreet]

20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It's not that I don't like advanced stats,  I think the people who do the research draw conclusions that NFL people would disagree with.   

 

Here's an example....   a year or so ago,  a poster (don't remember who) posted a study about arm length of left tackles.    He found it on PFF.    And the conclusion was that arm length was over-rated and not needed.     And it had the same graphic that you offered in your study of WR's....

 

It had a vertical line and a horizontal line...   with no years, or names,  or anything recognizable and it had lots of different colored dots with lines connecting them.    I couldn't make heads of tails of it.    But the conclusion was that arm length was just not that important for LT's.

 

And yet,  it was a 3-year old study,  done by someone (don't know who?)  who did not work at PFF.    And PFF still seems to value arm length of all lineman.   So does NFL.com.    So does ESPN.com.    All who have advanced stats.   So, I can't find anyone who accepts the premise of the study that was posted.

 

As for the Eagles,  you make an interesting observation that I can't give you a statistical based answer to.    But, Frank Reich,  himself a life long Quarterback,  thinks better running and better play action will make the rest of his offense hum.    I think Reich and Ballard have access to all the same analysis that you have.   Do we know if ANY NFL teams have accepted this study as conventional wisdom?     Not that I'm aware of.

 

It just seems to defy logic to me that the quality of the running game does not matter.   That all you have to do is run play-action.    That the benefit of having a good to great running attack brings you no more benefit.    That seems illogical to me.   Strikes me that every team that has used a 1st round draft pick (including some that have used a top-10 or even top-5 pick on a RB)  are strongly disagreeing with you.   What do they know that the people behind your study don't seem to?

 

Sorry this went so long.....   just trying to address all the issues in play....

 

Everyone knows a good running game opens up the passing game, and vise versa. 

The point is, play action is a scheme to fool you into thinking you're going to run, which opens up lanes. And it can be effective doing so without a great running game.

[TomDiggs]

Truthfully, I personally believe the whole axiom of wanting/needing a strong running game to set up play action and help RPO is a little dated.

 

I am an offensive lineman by trade and we freaking adored running the ball compared to having to pass protect. It was just in our nature. So sure, we would love a punishing, successful running game.

 

That said, I wanted (when I played) and want for our team now a successful running game for reasons other than RPO and play action and opening up the passing game.

 

I want a solid running game to control the game. To control the clock. To shorten games. To keep our defense fresh. To play keep away. To get a lead and then bleed the clock and hold that lead. To wear a defense down physically and mentally over the course of four quarters.

 

I find all of those reasons more sound and important philosophically than spitting out the dated "RPO" or "play action" or "help our passing game" stuff.

 

I am a self proclaimed data nerd at heart. I love next gen stats. I love analytics. I'm an engineer and totally wish I had known someone who knew someone to break into the NFL and have an "in" to crunch numbers and help a team in that way. It's fun as hell.

 

All that said, the one thing anyone who is being honest with you can tell you is this:

 

You can find statistics that support almost any narrative. Most times you can debate and build a case for both sides of an argument with relative ease.

 

At the end of the day, when I watch a game I don't say "damn i wish we could run the ball better because we would pass so much better if we could." Our passing game is already solid and that is without some weapons that Luck will have more at his disposal this year.

 

But I have certainly watched games and said "Damn. I wish we could run the ball so we aren't going 3 and out and taking no time off the clock" or "Damn I wish we could run the ball here and extend drives and put ourselves in more manageable situations so our defense can stay on the sidelines and get a breather"

 

Those to me are the bigger picture here. So while Reich may be preaching wanting to run, run, run and to have a better running game, I actually agree. Just not for the reasons cited.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Making a team one dimensional is always the goal of a Defensive Coach but guys like Lamar and RGIII make things easier 

 

Right.

If you look at the history of colt teams, our D always played much better when our opponents O was one dimensional. 

In our SB year KC & Baltimore became 1 dimensional thinking they woyld run it down our throats. They Didn't. Thanks to Dungy's adjustments and Sanders coming back.

[PrincetonTiger]

@TomDiggs

  I played/coached OL for nearly 20 years and agree with every thing you said about the blocking schemes.

[krunk]

Reich is probably kicking himself because committing to the run and playaction passing is more of what he should have done against KC instead of all the spread out shotgun two minute stuff. New England on the other hand did opposite of what we did.

[EastStreet]

28 minutes ago, krunk said:

Reich is probably kicking himself because committing to the run and playaction passing is more of what he should have done against KC instead of all the spread out shotgun two minute stuff. New England on the other hand did opposite of what we did.

NE didn't get down big early. TY was blanketed early, KC scored early and often. 

Lesson - get a legit vertical WR2, and don't let a team run and pass all over you.

[stitches]

5 hours ago, krunk said:

Why hasnt Reich gotten this memo yet? Reich who has been said to be very studious. Im sure hes not oblivious to this info.  Nor the other nfl coaches who have maintained the mantra for quite some time. You just dont like a good ground attack. He isnt talking about ground and pound anyway. I think thats whar you fear.

I have no idea why he hasn't gotten the memo. Maybe he has and he's saying things he thinks the fans want to hear. Maybe he thinks there is nothing else to improve offensively and the only margin for improvement left for this team is the run game. I disagree on all of those... but what can I do? And I don't really mind good ground attack. I certainly prefer it to bad ground attack. Let me spell what exactly I fear - I fear that our coach might be a dinosaur and that Luck is the one masking all our offensive limitations and taking control at LOS. Now... I have to keep reiterating this because I feel like I need to - I have not seen anything IN-GAME to suggest to me that Reich's playcalling is archaic or that he is oblivious to the studies. He doesn't call the games in a way that suggests that.... so... as long as this continues I would feel good about him as our HC. I still love him as our HC.

 

My problem is with those media statements ... they confuse me so much. Another one from this meeting was his statement that our pass-protection cannot get much better because we were the best in the league already. NO. NO. NO! We were not. Sacks are not the best measure of either pass-protection or pass-rush ability. Pressure, hits, etc are much more indicative because sacks are very dependent on things outside of the pass-protection - the QB(isolated from the playcalling Luck has always been great escaping sacks), the playcalling, pure chance, etc. Sacks fluctuate a lot. Pressures are more stable and translatable from one season to the next(if you have the same personnel, which we do). And we were about middle of the road last year in those. There is plenty of room for improvement. You can have a number of pressures one year and get sacked 18 times, and the same number of pressures next year and by pure chance get to be sacked 30 times. 

 

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the first sentence is 100 percent false.   And I think the studies you have that say otherwise are 100 percent wrong.   And judging what Frank Reich says in an interview on the website right now, I’d say he doesn’t agree with your studies one bit.  And his is the only view that matters. 

eh... I don't think you know how analytics and stats work. That's like saying 2+2=4 is wrong. The numbers are there. You can look at them. It's not ME saying it... it's the numbers. ANYONE (me, you , Reich... anybody) looking at the numbers should be able to see the (lack of) correlations because they are clear as day. I don't know how else to explain it. This BTW is why I think we need better journalists... I want one of them to just ask the question.... not in a combative way or something... just ask him "OK we have series of studies that show the strength of the run game doesn't affect the play action passing game. What are we the muggles missing?". Maybe there is something we are missing. Maybe they have some internal studies that make sense of those previous studies and explain it away. Especially in a setting like that where you have Reich for more than an hour and he seems so open to talk about stuff. I would LOVE to have someone ask him those questions, because I bet he will give very thoughtful answers and we will all be better off for that. Now we have to just guess... 

 

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry....   but it doesn’t matter what WE’VE discussed.   And it doesn’t matter what some next gen research shows... 

 

But what DOES matter is what Frank Reich and Chris Ballard think.   And Reich is on the front of the website right now in an interview saying an improved running game us the number one goal for his offense.   And that better play action means better passing and play action only works when the running game is good.   He wants to have a top-10 ground game.

 

And all the threads here disagreeing with the HC and GM aren’t going to change things.   

Sure. I don't mind having a top 7(top 5) running game. It's certainly better than having a no. 20 running game. My problem is with the emphasis and focus we are putting on things, not with the things themselves. Anyone would rather us have no. 5 run game than no 20 run game. The problem is if we emphasize that instead of other things that are more important... MUCH MORE important. BTW for whatever it's worth he did cite the yards per attempt metric and that he thinks that we need to improve that. There is no reason Andrew Luck should be in the bottom 10 there(although I think this one was a bit skewed by the first 4 games while Andrew was still getting into the rhythm of the offense). That's great. I would much rather have them focus on that than on the run game. Get playmakers to help Andrew with YAC and TY with less focus on him... get more dynamic receivers that can get open on more than just slants and short passes, etc. I can absolutely get behind that. 

 

I would much rather we get from no. 10 passing team to no. 3 than from no. 20 running team to no. 5 running team. And of course... if we can do both... that would be great too... 

[stitches]

3 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

Truthfully, I personally believe the whole axiom of wanting/needing a strong running game to set up play action and help RPO is a little dated.

 

I am an offensive lineman by trade and we freaking adored running the ball compared to having to pass protect. It was just in our nature. So sure, we would love a punishing, successful running game.

 

That said, I wanted (when I played) and want for our team now a successful running game for reasons other than RPO and play action and opening up the passing game.

 

I want a solid running game to control the game. To control the clock. To shorten games. To keep our defense fresh. To play keep away. To get a lead and then bleed the clock and hold that lead. To wear a defense down physically and mentally over the course of four quarters.

 

I find all of those reasons more sound and important philosophically than spitting out the dated "RPO" or "play action" or "help our passing game" stuff.

 

I am a self proclaimed data nerd at heart. I love next gen stats. I love analytics. I'm an engineer and totally wish I had known someone who knew someone to break into the NFL and have an "in" to crunch numbers and help a team in that way. It's fun as hell.

 

All that said, the one thing anyone who is being honest with you can tell you is this:

 

You can find statistics that support almost any narrative. Most times you can debate and build a case for both sides of an argument with relative ease.

 

At the end of the day, when I watch a game I don't say "damn i wish we could run the ball better because we would pass so much better if we could." Our passing game is already solid and that is without some weapons that Luck will have more at his disposal this year.

 

But I have certainly watched games and said "Damn. I wish we could run the ball so we aren't going 3 and out and taking no time off the clock" or "Damn I wish we could run the ball here and extend drives and put ourselves in more manageable situations so our defense can stay on the sidelines and get a breather"

 

Those to me are the bigger picture here. So while Reich may be preaching wanting to run, run, run and to have a better running game, I actually agree. Just not for the reasons cited.

 

I absolutely agree with you. I think the run game is EXTREMELY important in certain situations. Especially 3d/4th down and short yardage situations, goalline situations, clock management situations with the lead, etc. I do not think the run game is worthless or that it should be ignored. This is not my point. My point is that it shouldn't be prioritized over the passing game.  

[CR91]

 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

wow

Just a heads up, OTC forecasts next year's cap space at 92 million BEFORE roll over from this year... and thats with the cap projected to be only 200,000,000 vs the 237,000,000 it was this year.

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, csmopar said:

wow

Just a heads up, OTC forecasts next year's cap space at 92 million BEFORE roll over from this year... and thats with the cap projected to be only 200,000,000 vs the 237,000,000 it was this year.

[CR91]

 

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, csmopar said:

wow

Just a heads up, OTC forecasts next year's cap space at 92 million BEFORE roll over from this year... and thats with the cap projected to be only 200,000,000 vs the 237,000,000 it was this year.

The salary cap is not going down.

 

Where did you get that the cap was 237 mill this year?   I’ve always read that it’s something closer to 190.

 

The cap typically goes up each year.

 

Do you have a link?    Just asking.

 

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The salary cap is not going down.

 

Where did you get that the cap was 237 mill this year?   I’ve always read that it’s something closer to 190.

 

The cap typically goes up each year.

 

Do you have a link?    Just asking.

 

https://overthecap.com/calculator/indianapolis-colts/

[stitches]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

https://overthecap.com/calculator/indianapolis-colts/

It is a number with the previous year's rollover. I think. 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

It is a number with the previous year's rollover. I think. 

I think you are correct

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

https://overthecap.com/calculator/indianapolis-colts/

 

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

It is a number with the previous year's rollover. I think. 

 

Yup. That projection doesn't include 2019 draft picks or any extensions that might be done, but it's obvious that the projection will be updated accordingly. 

 

Still, we'll be in good shape in 2020. And again, Ballard probably won't go crazy in FA.

[BProland85]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

Yup. That projection doesn't include 2019 draft picks or any extensions that might be done, but it's obvious that the projection will be updated accordingly. 

 

Still, we'll be in good shape in 2020. And again, Ballard probably won't go crazy in FA.

 

He'll most likely shell out some larger extension contracts to some of our players, since 2020 is the last year in the 4 year span to spend 89% of their cap. So I could still see Ballard signing a bigger name or 2 again next offseason.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Yup. That projection doesn't include 2019 draft picks or any extensions that might be done, but it's obvious that the projection will be updated accordingly. 

 

Still, we'll be in good shape in 2020. And again, Ballard probably won't go crazy in FA.

 

So you’re saying the $237 mill salary cap is correct?    And that it’s going down after that?   

 

What am am I not understanding?  (Loaded question, I know!). 

 

[PureLuck]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So you’re saying the $237 mill salary cap is correct?    And that it’s going down after that?   

 

What am am I not understanding?  (Loaded question, I know!). 

 

 

The 237 million is the theoretical cap for the Colts in 2019, including 49 million of rollover from 2018, which leads to the league salary cap of 188 million for 2019... projections for the 2020 league salary cap are around 200 million, which is increased by the rollover from 2019 - in case of the Colts the rollover could very well be around 50 million again given the 60 million cap space they have now... which would give them a cap of 250 million for 2020, while we have only contracts for 108 million in 2020 so far, so we could be looking at 100 million cap space at the start of free agency 2020 again even with the extensions of some key contributors this season :) 

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So you’re saying the $237 mill salary cap is correct?    And that it’s going down after that?   

 

What am am I not understanding?  (Loaded question, I know!). 

 

 

That's the adjusted cap figure for the Colts. It accounts for the rollover cap space. So, a different way to say it is the Colts can spend up to $237m against the cap because they had rollover cap space from the previous season. 

 

The NFL salary cap figure is not going down, as far as we know (it would take a significant contraction of revenue in 2019 for the cap to go down). The adjusted cap figure for the Colts is yet to be determined because we don't know how much cap space they'll rollover to 2020.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So you’re saying the $237 mill salary cap is correct?    And that it’s going down after that?   

 

What am am I not understanding?  (Loaded question, I know!). 

 

 

You may be talking about 2 different the things. "The NFL salary cap", and "The Colts salary cap space". The 2019 salary cap for 2019 is 188.2M, up 11M from 2018's 177.2M. 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001020137/article/nfl-salary-cap-for-2019-season-set-at-1882m

 

Teams are supposed to spend 89% of cap per CBA, but can roll over to make up later. The Colts rolled over 49.1M last year IIRC. So in short, Colts don't have to spend about 20M (11%) this year. The rest 55ishM, either needs to get spent on extensions and rookie contracts, or be rolled over to next year. 

 

So if the cap for 2020 rises (or doesn't), we'll have that, plus whatever roll over, minus contracts, to get to our 2020 cap space number. We'll be fine. 

[krunk]

13 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

NE didn't get down big early. TY was blanketed early, KC scored early and often. 

Lesson - get a legit vertical WR2, and don't let a team run and pass all over you.

We got down big because our passing game and the blocking for the pass wasn't doing very much.  Mack got good gains on his runs, but we didn't stick with it like New England.  We kept going 3 and out and giving the ball back to the chiefs.  New England spent more time attacking the Chiefs weakness instead of scripting the game plan to work against their strength which was their pass rush.  The Chiefs run defense was their true weakness. When New England passed most of the time they were short passes as they were trying to limit the Chiefs possessions and have long drives. They didn't focus themselves on throwing the deep ball.

[throwing BBZ]

23 hours ago, stitches said:

Because it's based on the THREAT of running the ball, NOT on the STRENGTH of running the ball. There are countless studies done on that. There is zero correlation between how good you are at running the ball and how successful you play-action and RPO passing game is. Defenses bite on it anyways... mainly because they play by reading run keys, they don't react based on how good you are at running the ball... if they see things that make them think you are going to run the ball they will react to it whether it's Trent Richardson running it or Zeke Elliot. 

 

 Gee, i noticed you had NO MENTION of any advantage of making a team play a safety up because they are getting ran over and how that opens up the passing game.
 Worry all you want, throw out all the numbers you want.
 Stopping the run game is the first things teams prepare for setting up there game plans. FB 101

[EastStreet]

42 minutes ago, krunk said:

We got down big because our passing game and the blocking for the pass wasn't doing very much.  Mack got good gains on his runs, but we didn't stick with it like New England.  We kept going 3 and out and giving the ball back to the chiefs.  New England spent more time attacking the Chiefs weakness instead of scripting the game plan to work against their strength which was their pass rush.  The Chiefs run defense was their true weakness. When New England passed most of the time they were short passes as they were trying to limit the Chiefs possessions and have long drives. They didn't focus themselves on throwing the deep ball.

 

IMO, we simply couldn't keep up with TY being blanketed. Our D kept them under their average. Didn't like Reich's game plan at all. Had we had another fast option, TY would not have been doubled all game. We don't need constant deep shots, just the threat. And if you look at our first half possessions, there were plenty of short pass attempts and runs. They just didn't work. 

[CR91]

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 hours ago, BProland85 said:

 

He'll most likely shell out some larger extension contracts to some of our players, since 2020 is the last year in the 4 year span to spend 89% of their cap. So I could still see Ballard signing a bigger name or 2 again next offseason.

 

1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

 

{snip}

 

Teams are supposed to spend 89% of cap per CBA,

 

In cash spends, not cap hits.

 

It's important to distinguish between cap hits and cash spending. The 89% rule applies to the teams cash spends in the 4 year aggregate (salary cap average) period, not it's cap hit(s).

 

Forget rollover, its the teams hard salary cap limit in each of the 4 years added, then divided by 4.  The team must have spent at least 89% of that value to players during that period, in cash (salary and bonuses, etc) before the first official day of the 2021 season.

 

To determine the 89% minimum cash spending requirement, 1/4 of the sum of the salary caps from 2017-2020 are multiplied by 89%.  (2020 is still yet to be determined, but rough estimates suffice for now). How does it work on paper compared to cap hit?

Lets say we signed a hypothetical fictitious guy in 2017 for $25 million over 4 years.  It was structured cap wise as -

 

Year         Base             Roster bonus    Signing bonus     Cap hit
2017        $1 million      $1 million          $5 million      $7 million
2018        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million
2019        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million
2020        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                              $25 million

But now, how did it work out as a cash spend?

 

Year        Base             Roster bonus    Signing bonus     Cash Spend
2017       $1 million      $4 million          $5 million      $10 million
2018       $5 million         $0                       $0                     $5 million
2019       $5 million         $0                       $0                     $5 million
2020      $5 million          $0                       $0                     $5 million

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                              $25 million

So you can see while cap hit was 7 million in 2017, the cash spend was 10 million.  But his contract was 4 years, and in the end, the cap hit and spending equaled out overall, but not year by year.

Take it further, contract extensions / signings now in 2019 and 2020 might generate a much higher cash spend credit toward satisfying the 89% rule than the reported salary and cap hit number's (that extend beyond the 4 year aggregate required for the 89% rule, or new CBA decided #, period) a contract might suggest, the numbers that folks talk about after such news.

 

 

Quote

but can roll over to make up later.  The Colts rolled over 49.1M last year IIRC. So in short, Colts don't have to spend about 20M (11%) this year. The rest 55ishM, either needs to get spent on extensions and rookie contracts, or be rolled over to next year. 

 

So if the cap for 2020 rises (or doesn't), we'll have that, plus whatever roll over, minus contracts, to get to our 2020 cap space number. We'll be fine. 

 

However, cash spend is different than cap space, and rollover isn't a part of it like it is for allowed cap space.

[EastStreet]

22 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

In cash spends, not cap hits.

 

It's important to distinguish between cap hits and cash spending. The 89% rule applies to the teams cash spends in the 4 year aggregate (salary cap average) period, not it's cap hit(s).

 

Forget rollover, its the teams hard salary cap limit in each of the 4 years added, then divided by 4.  The team must have spent at least 89% of that value to players during that period, in cash (salary and bonuses, etc) before the first official day of the 2021 season.

 

To determine the 89% minimum cash spending requirement, 1/4 of the sum of the salary caps from 2017-2020 are multiplied by 89%.  (2020 is still yet to be determined, but rough estimates suffice for now). How does it work on paper compared to cap hit?

Lets say we signed a hypothetical fictitious guy in 2017 for $25 million over 4 years.  It was structured cap wise as -

 

Year         Base             Roster bonus    Signing bonus     Cap hit
2017        $1 million      $1 million          $5 million      $7 million
2018        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million
2019        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million
2020        $5 million      $1 million              $0                 $6 million

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                              $25 million

But now, how did it work out as a cash spend?

 

Year        Base             Roster bonus    Signing bonus     Cash Spend
2017       $1 million      $4 million          $5 million      $10 million
2018       $5 million         $0                       $0                     $5 million
2019       $5 million         $0                       $0                     $5 million
2020      $5 million          $0                       $0                     $5 million

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                              $25 million

So you can see while cap hit was 7 million in 2017, the cash spend was 10 million.  But his contract was 4 years, and in the end, the cap hit and spending equaled out overall, but not year by year.

 

Take it further, contract extensions / signings now in 2019 and 2020 might generate a much higher cash spend credit toward satisfying the 89% rule than the reported salary and cap hit number's (that extend beyond the 4 year aggregate required for the 89% rule, or new CBA decided #, period) a contract might suggest, the numbers that folks talk about after such news.

 

However, cash spend is different than cap space, and rollover isn't a part of it like it is for allowed cap space.

yup. what i was suggesting was high level (you have to look at each contract to be exact). hit and spending eventually equal out. it's why structure of the contract is important, and why we see restructures at times.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

yup. what i was suggesting was high level (you have to look at each contract to be exact). hit and spending eventually equal out. it's why structure of the contract is important, and why we see restructures at times.

 

Yes, and add to that  'timing' (if discussing 89% rules and where in the four year period a contract is constructed...)

[CR91]

 

[EastStreet]

16 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Yes, and add to that  'timing' (if discussing 89% rules and where in the four year period a contract is constructed...)

are you a fan of front loading, or back loading contracts. i prefer front loading when we have space, if it's a proven healthy long term guy. and back loading new guys, or on someone that may have injury concerns or something to prove. i know we mostly see back loading these days, but read an interesting article on the Pats a year or so ago in terms of their strategy. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Irish YJ said:

are you a fan of front loading, or back loading contracts. i prefer front loading when we have space, if it's a proven healthy long term guy. and back loading new guys, or on someone that may have injury concerns or something to prove. i know we mostly see back loading these days, but read and interesting article on the Pats a year or so ago in terms of their strategy. 

 

Jumping in here.

 

I prefer balance, where possible. The closer my cash outlay is to my cap hit, the better. Because once money is spent, cap is spent. So if I'm spending it, let's account for it now, and that will minimize future cap penalties for releases, trades, etc. 

 

Foundational players who are going to get big signing bonuses, I'm fine with a gradual increase, which keeps their cap figure somewhat tied to a percentage of the salary cap. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

 

 

 

Not surprised at all.

 

5 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

are you a fan of front loading, or back loading contracts. i prefer front loading when we have space, if it's a proven healthy long term guy. and back loading new guys, or on someone that may have injury concerns or something to prove. i know we mostly see back loading these days, but read an interesting article on the Pats a year or so ago in terms of their strategy. 

 

Case by case. Too many variables.

 

In the end, hopefully it turns out somewhat balanced like Superman says.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Gee, i noticed you had NO MENTION of any advantage of making a team play a safety up because they are getting ran over and how that opens up the passing game.
 Worry all you want, throw out all the numbers you want.
 Stopping the run game is the first things teams prepare for setting up there game plans. FB 101

 

That's what everyone says, and has always said, but studies don't support that hypothesis. Defenses load the box to stop the run situationally, and against big formations. If the offense stays in 11 personnel, defenses will rarely stack the box. This challenges the long-held belief that you stated. Stopping the run might be what teams pay lip service to, but on Sundays, defenses are much more concerned with containing the pass.

 

Also, play action works whether you have a good rushing attack or not. This is also validated by analysis. 

 

I'm all about having a good rushing attack, being balanced offensively, etc. But the whole 'run the ball, stop the run' mantra isn't really supported by what teams do, nor by what actually works on the field.

[throwing BBZ]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's what everyone says, and has always said, but studies don't support that hypothesis. Defenses load the box to stop the run situationally, and against big formations. If the offense stays in 11 personnel, defenses will rarely stack the box. This challenges the long-held belief that you stated. Stopping the run might be what teams pay lip service to, but on Sundays, defenses are much more concerned with containing the pass.

 

Also, play action works whether you have a good rushing attack or not. This is also validated by analysis. 

 

I'm all about having a good rushing attack, being balanced offensively, etc. But the whole 'run the ball, stop the run' mantra isn't really supported by what teams do, nor by what actually works on the field.

 

  Sounds all prepy but i have watched to much FB to buy it.

 Eberflus himself is totally commited to stopping the run on first down.
 And for those that say it is the pass that D's are worried about, you hear them complain about their team Not sticking to the run. 

 A team that can't stop the run soon gets flumoxed in all phases.

 And there are a few coaches that are great at coaching  the screen game, and some qb's are great in play action. And many struggle. 
 

[PrincetonTiger]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's what everyone says, and has always said, but studies don't support that hypothesis. Defenses load the box to stop the run situationally, and against big formations. If the offense stays in 11 personnel, defenses will rarely stack the box. This challenges the long-held belief that you stated. Stopping the run might be what teams pay lip service to, but on Sundays, defenses are much more concerned with containing the pass.

 

Also, play action works whether you have a good rushing attack or not. This is also validated by analysis. 

 

I'm all about having a good rushing attack, being balanced offensively, etc. But the whole 'run the ball, stop the run' mantra isn't really supported by what teams do, nor by what actually works on the field.

That is only because the NFL has gone pass happy. 

 

   I for one often hate the modern NFL and its Offensive Schemes and how it affects the play of the next generation 

 

    Offensive and Defensive Game Plans change from week to week depending on the other teams personnel 

   

 

    Even if the run game is not “important” on Sundays it is still important on Monday thru Saturday

 

       No one is saying that a power I or Wing T in the NFL is a must just that having a run game helps the pass game

 

     If the Colts had a consistent RG during the Manning Years the team would have had more than one SB title and if the team had a consistent passing O during EDs tenure the team might have been more successful in the 80s and 90s

[PrincetonTiger]

6 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  Sounds all prepy but i have watched to much FB to buy it.

 Eberflus himself is totally commited to stopping the run on first down.
 And for those that say it is the pass that D's are worried about, you hear them complain about their team Not sticking to the run. 

 A team that can't stop the run soon gets flumoxed in all phases.

 And there are a few coaches that are great at coaching  the screen game, and some qb's are great in play action. And many struggle. 
 

Great words

 

those coaches who can’t stop the run often are home hunting soon and in some extreme cases the teams are relocated too