Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
Jdubu

Kenny Moore now highest paid slot CB

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Everyone can make moves. The Giants made big moves last year, so what? "Making moves" is not the point. You can always "make room" (make cuts) and sign new players. The question is: does it improve your team overall? Does it add depth, does it fill holes while does not open holes elsewhere? Does it make you - REALLY make you - better overall?

 

The Jaguars of course will find a way to get under the cap next year. What I was trying to say is, that if you will compare their 2020 roster with their 2019 roster, you will find, that their 2020 roster will be worse. It's practically inevitable because what they've done in the recent 2(-3) offseasons, but especially in 2018. There is no quick way out of it (unless a marvelously great draft, but how likely is that?). It will take 2-3 years to recover from this. That's by definition, bad cap management.

 

(Actually, if you remove Foles from the equation, this is already true for 2019 vs 2018. The 2019 Jaguars roster is worse than the 2018 roster, except Bortles vs Foles. And I don't give a plus for the Foles deal for them, because it was like picking Luck with the 1/1 in 2012. The Jaguars were at the right place at the right time, there was no market for Foles, Foles practically had no choice to go elsewhere, so it was kinda written in stones. The Jags were a bit lucky, that's all. That won't make their cap management better. Neither their cap situation next year.)

player decisions and cap management are two different things. you are mixing them together and using that to say that im wrong. none of the contracts have killed them cap wise. 

 

my original comment was they are good at managing their cap space which is true.  they have made some questionable player decisions though, and i believe hurns just wanted out of there

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

player decisions and cap management are two different things. you are mixing them together and using that to say that im wrong. none of the contracts have killed them cap wise. 

 

my original comment was they are good at managing their cap space which is true.  they have made some questionable player decisions though, and i believe hurns just wanted out of there

 

You cannot separate cap management and player decisions. Player decisions affect the result e.g., the return of investments. If you evaluate an investor, you cannot do it like "let's see, hmm, he had X mills to invest, he bought Apple and GM shares, so he did well". That's not enough, you need to check also, if those Appe and GM shares actually made money or not, don't you? :)

 

And those contracts DID kill them cap wise. Not like they ran over the cap, because it never happens, every team must be under the cap. But it stopped them to do moves they could've done, and should've done otherwise. First and foremost, the Jaguars roster became very thin. They have no depth at most positions, other than DL, because they were paralyzed during (and preceding) the FA. Other than the Foles sign, they could do nothing. They lost a bunch of mid tier players, because they could not resign them, or sign someone else in place of them. They had 55 players on the roster in draft week! The average roster size at draft week is usually 65 to 70. In the Colts case it was 74. In addition to Malik Jackson and company - we're speaking about 5-6 or more starting players - the Jags also lost a bunch of rotational pieces, which they could not replace with similar talent. To fill up their 90 roster, they had to add I think 24 UDFA's this year. 24! (The Colts added 8 I think. The better teams added 8 to 12 typically). 

 

And, as a result, other than Foles, this Jags team is a worse team than the 2018 Jaguars was. Quite a lot worse. You don't see it from the distance, because surface - the Ramsey's and Campbells - looks shiny from the distance. But looking at them closer, it is in front of the eye. They are a lot thinner, and they have quite a lot of holes (RB, WR, TE, no OL depth, etc.) They are only 1-2 injuries away (not talking about Foles) from being falling apart. 

 

And this is not even the end of the story, because the majority of the consequences of their bad cap management will hit them in 2020 and 2021. So the worst is not even there yet. But it's inevitably coming. That's the definition of bad cap management.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

Ask Ballard why it is a silly move to spend all available cap when you build a new team.

 

The Jaguars had one fantastic draft and one great FA period (interestingly the same year) 3 years ago, then they had one suprisingly good year. One year, when they didn't even win their division, but could sneak in the AFCCG, and they thought they are suddenly contenders. Colts, 2014 with Grigson. Don't you see some similarities in bad self-judgement there? :)

 

The Jaguars have been in the early FA market for years, spending big time, signing big names. How many of them you can name now? How many of them are still playing for them ... and worth their price? Bouye and Campbell. That's it. Two. Julius Thomas is long gone, they cut Malik Jackson, released Gipson, Monrief still saying thank you for the 10M for nothing. And Norwell is recovering from a season ending injury. And he has a HUGE contract, which just start to activate, because they backloaded his contract like crazy (5M in year one, 16+ from now on). And I am not sure Norwell will end up being better guard for them than Glowinsky for the Colts in the future. Remember, Norwell was a UDFA and had only one very good year before they signed him to a giga contract.

 

I could continue, but it doesn't worth it. Arguing about cap management requires long boring posts with lots of data, which probably no one will read. So if your're interested, just look up the Jaguars cap page at spotrac and dig in a bit there. A few examples to start from: for 2020 they are already cca 35M over the cap. The cap will raise by cca 10, so it's rather 25 ish than 35, but it doesn't matter. And then Ngakogue is already holding out for his new contract, Ramsey already talking about his, and then comes Miles Jack (he'll be unrestricted free agent next year), then Westbrook, then Cam Robinson, etc. in 2021. It's NOT TRUE that you can "make it work if you want". Only those people say this, who actually have no clue how cap management work, and see only the surface. They Jaguars will have to either let their OWN guys go or release a number of their highly paid veterans go to make it next year. They still have a good defense, because they have 4-5 excellent, elite defenders. But they already lack depth or have holes (WR, TE, RB, OL, etc.) What will happen if they will have to get rid of Dareus, Campbell, Bouye, and/or cannot extend Ngakogue, Ramsey, Jack, etc.? What happens if then can't retain even half of these guys? You will see, because that will happen next year.

 

As I said earlier, you can save my post, and we can review if I was right or wrong. If I was wrong, you can laught at me. But you won't, because I'll be right. ;)

 

(There are very few things in football which I can say I know quite a lot about. Cap management is one of those things. I study it for a long time, putting a lot of time and effort in it.) 

 

(Note: I'm not bashing the Foles signing. One, I like Foles, I think signing him was actually a good move from the Jags. Two, it was practically a "no brainer", because there was practically no market for Foles this year. Financially it's not a good contract - even within the QB contracts realm -, because considering all costs, Foles cost more for the Jags, than Luck costs for the Colts, but it was a must do move. The problem is, that they overspent themselves so badly, that this deal will have further future negative consequences. E.g. they will have to cut their legs somewhere else. With better cap management, they wouldn't have to.)

 

We have had already this conversation...but I will say this. JAC is an example of a team using all of their cap space. Most of the remaining FAs they signed have contracts that will expire or outs in their contracts that will allow JAC to move on in short time. That $35M you cite...won't matter when they move on from Campbell, Bouye and Dareus...that's $46M in saved cap space. There are other players as well. 

 

Sure it hurts to move on from good players...but that is the cycle of the NFL...you can't keep players for a decade...nor should you. Vets get released all the time. And you can't re-sign everybody either. People seemed to have latch onto this ideological view of "keep your own"...but it's not practical in the salary cap era. NE is always low on the list of teams with cap space...and they manage it by letting talented players.

 

The fact that JAC has elite talent heading into their second contracts is a blessing...not a burden. I fully expect one of those players will be traded for picks...which they can use to replenish the roster with cheaper talent...and so it goes. 

 

As for Norwell...he was a rare opportunity to get an All-Pro G heading into his prime. You get that shot...you take it...which is why Ballard was all over him as well. He wasn't some one-year fluke...he was a stud for multiple years. PFF had him rated as a top 10 G in both 2015 and 2016. I don't care that he was an UDFA...so was Kenny Moore...and he actually did get paid for one year of production.

 

And Foles was a great signing. QBs are getting paid like crazy...so I think to get one for $22M/year that could be a top 15 guy is a steal. Only thing they were missing from two years ago. I don't see a lot of parallels with the 2014 Colts. JAC, outside of a couple of guys like Thomas and Moncrief, have signed actual top-tier talent...not second-rate guys paid on potential. And they have drafted well...which was Grigs undoing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

We have had already this conversation...but I will say this. JAC is an example of a team using all of their cap space. Most of the remaining FAs they signed have contracts that will expire or outs in their contracts that will allow JAC to move on in short time. That $35M you cite...won't matter when they move on from Campbell, Bouye and Dareus...that's $46M in saved cap space. There are other players as well. 

 

Sure it hurts to move on from good players...but that is the cycle of the NFL...you can't keep players for a decade...nor should you. Vets get released all the time. And you can't re-sign everybody either. People seemed to have latch onto this ideological view of "keep your own"...but it's not practical in the salary cap era. NE is always low on the list of teams with cap space...and they manage it by letting talented players.

 

The fact that JAC has elite talent heading into their second contracts is a blessing...not a burden. I fully expect one of those players will be traded for picks...which they can use to replenish the roster with cheaper talent...and so it goes. 

 

As for Norwell...he was a rare opportunity to get an All-Pro G heading into his prime. You get that shot...you take it...which is why Ballard was all over him as well. He wasn't some one-year fluke...he was a stud for multiple years. PFF had him rated as a top 10 G in both 2015 and 2016. I don't care that he was an UDFA...so was Kenny Moore...and he actually did get paid for one year of production.

 

And Foles was a great signing. QBs are getting paid like crazy...so I think to get one for $22M/year that could be a top 15 guy is a steal. Only thing they were missing from two years ago. I don't see a lot of parallels with the 2014 Colts. JAC, outside of a couple of guys like Thomas and Moncrief, have signed actual top-tier talent...not second-rate guys paid on potential. And they have drafted well...which was Grigs undoing.

 

 

 

 I had to go back to see who wrote this full of sense post.
 You destroyed his points. JMO of course. 
  Save his post haha for when Ballard choses to let some good players go.
 After this season?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

You cannot separate cap management and player decisions. Player decisions affect the result e.g., the return of investments. If you evaluate an investor, you cannot do it like "let's see, hmm, he had X mills to invest, he bought Apple and GM shares, so he did well". That's not enough, you need to check also, if those Appe and GM shares actually made money or not, don't you? :)

 

And those contracts DID kill them cap wise. Not like they ran over the cap, because it never happens, every team must be under the cap. But it stopped them to do moves they could've done, and should've done otherwise. First and foremost, the Jaguars roster became very thin. They have no depth at most positions, other than DL, because they were paralyzed during (and preceding) the FA. Other than the Foles sign, they could do nothing. They lost a bunch of mid tier players, because they could not resign them, or sign someone else in place of them. They had 55 players on the roster in draft week! The average roster size at draft week is usually 65 to 70. In the Colts case it was 74. In addition to Malik Jackson and company - we're speaking about 5-6 or more starting players - the Jags also lost a bunch of rotational pieces, which they could not replace with similar talent. To fill up their 90 roster, they had to add I think 24 UDFA's this year. 24! (The Colts added 8 I think. The better teams added 8 to 12 typically). 

 

And, as a result, other than Foles, this Jags team is a worse team than the 2018 Jaguars was. Quite a lot worse. You don't see it from the distance, because surface - the Ramsey's and Campbells - looks shiny from the distance. But looking at them closer, it is in front of the eye. They are a lot thinner, and they have quite a lot of holes (RB, WR, TE, no OL depth, etc.) They are only 1-2 injuries away (not talking about Foles) from being falling apart. 

 

And this is not even the end of the story, because the majority of the consequences of their bad cap management will hit them in 2020 and 2021. So the worst is not even there yet. But it's inevitably coming. That's the definition of bad cap management.

 

 

How is the number of UDFAs significant to anything?  

 

For the record, the Colts actually signed 11 UDFAs...JAC signed 21. 

 

BTW, here are some of the "better teams" and the number of UDFAs this year:

 

HOU - 20

KC - 23

CHI - 22

NO -17

LAR - 19

LAC - 19

 

I see no clear correlation between "better teams", thin rosters and UDFAs. There is more of a correlation between the number of draft picks and UDFAs, if anything. Those teams typically had less draft picks...and therefore...more roster spots to give to UDFAs. And UDFAs understand this as well...and see a better path to making a roster if a draft pick is not in their way.

 

In 2018, the Colts...in the first year of a new offensive and defensive scheme...coming off a 4-win season...signed only 10 UDFAs...because they had 11 draft picks...which makes sense. But that roster was by no means deep.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

We have had already this conversation...but I will say this. JAC is an example of a team using all of their cap space. Most of the remaining FAs they signed have contracts that will expire or outs in their contracts that will allow JAC to move on in short time. That $35M you cite...won't matter when they move on from Campbell, Bouye and Dareus...that's $46M in saved cap space. There are other players as well. 

 

Sure it hurts to move on from good players...but that is the cycle of the NFL...you can't keep players for a decade...nor should you. Vets get released all the time. And you can't re-sign everybody either. People seemed to have latch onto this ideological view of "keep your own"...but it's not practical in the salary cap era. NE is always low on the list of teams with cap space...and they manage it by letting talented players.

 

As I said, it's never about "can you fit under the cap?", or "do you spend all your cap space?" Because you can fit under the cap certainly. Actually, you have to, that's the rule. And most teams do spend their cap space. That's the point. Use it all if possible. The Patriots use it all usually, the Steelers use it all usually, etc. Most teams do. Actually, the Colts do use almost all of their 2019 cap space too. (The 2019 total sum of contracts is a bit over 184 million, just a few mills under the cap. That "40ish cap space" is already nothing else but the rollovers from previous years.)

 

But, even with spending all the cap space, there is good cap management, and there is bad cap management. The Patriots spend all of their cap space, and they manage it very effectively. The Colts (now) spend all of their (excluding rollover), and I belive Ballard manages the cap very effectively. But the Jags didn't. They went over the line, and sacrifized their future effectiveness by getting into bidding wars and signing pricey free agents one after another. The problem wasn't Norwell. If it was only him, that would be ok. The problem was, that they also signed Moncrief for 10M, Jenkins for 6M, Church for 7M, traded for Hyde and payed him 4M and he barely saw the field, etc, etc. The list is very long. 

 

48 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

The fact that JAC has elite talent heading into their second contracts is a blessing...not a burden. I fully expect one of those players will be traded for picks...which they can use to replenish the roster with cheaper talent...and so it goes. 

 

As for Norwell...he was a rare opportunity to get an All-Pro G heading into his prime. You get that shot...you take it...which is why Ballard was all over him as well. He wasn't some one-year fluke...he was a stud for multiple years. PFF had him rated as a top 10 G in both 2015 and 2016. I don't care that he was an UDFA...so was Kenny Moore...and he actually did get paid for one year of production.

 

I never said that having elite talents heading into their second contract is a burden. You are right, that is a blessing. Actually, that is the best that can happen to a team. That's what Ballard want's to do! The problem is, that the Jaguars got into a situation, when there is a very good chance that they cannot sign their own guys. And their roster got thin, because they could not refill it this offseason enough. They got worse. And they will become even worse in 2020, because they won't be able to retain their talent level. Yes, they can cut Campbell, they can cut Bouye, and they can trade Ngakogue, and fit under the cap. And then? Who will play at CB, who will play at DE? A mediocre somebody. So, instead of improving their team, they actually made it worse. That's the bad management. Cap wise and talent wise as well. (However, I do agree, that they kinda draft OK recently - one year exceptionally well, but still OK since then, so their talent infusion is somewhat OK. What they screwed up big time is cap management.)

 

Btw, this is an old story repeating itself. Coughlin has been with the Jags before. And he drove them into cap hell before. It was bad, it cost them years to recover. He's just doing it all over again. He is (was) a very good coach, but terrible at managing the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

How is the number of UDFAs significant to anything?  

For the record, the Colts actually signed 11 UDFAs...JAC signed 21. 

BTW, here are some of the "better teams" and the number of UDFAs this year:

 

I see no clear correlation between "better teams", thin rosters and UDFAs. There is more of a correlation between the number of draft picks and UDFAs, if anything. Those teams typically had less draft picks...and therefore...more roster spots to give to UDFAs. And UDFAs understand this as well...and see a better path to making a roster if a draft pick is not in their way.

 

There is of course no direct correlation there. This was just one indicator amongst others of how "strict" their financial situation was at draft time. Their roster had less than 60 players. That's very low, considering, that the 53+PS alone make about 60+ players. Then future contracts being signed, then the majority of free agency runs out before the draft. So by draft time, teams are usually at 70, even more. Then they draft, and then they sign UDFAs to fill it up to 90. And there's some rotation of course.

 

In the Jaguar's case, they lost plenty "contributing players" - players who did contribute or "supposed to contribute". Like Seferian-Jenkins for example, who was, on paper their starting TE. The problem is not that they lost Jenkins. The problem is that they could not sign a somewhat similar replacement. And it happened at many positions (they lost/cut Hyde, Grant, Gipson, etc., and no RB, no S arrived, etc.) They had no money to sign players (other than Foles), so the roster got thinner.

 

Anyway, we over-debated this subject. Let it sink for now, and if any of us will remember this debate next year, around april, let's bring this back to the table and see who was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

You cannot separate cap management and player decisions. Player decisions affect the result e.g., the return of investments. If you evaluate an investor, you cannot do it like "let's see, hmm, he had X mills to invest, he bought Apple and GM shares, so he did well". That's not enough, you need to check also, if those Appe and GM shares actually made money or not, don't you? :)

 

And those contracts DID kill them cap wise. Not like they ran over the cap, because it never happens, every team must be under the cap. But it stopped them to do moves they could've done, and should've done otherwise. First and foremost, the Jaguars roster became very thin. They have no depth at most positions, other than DL, because they were paralyzed during (and preceding) the FA. Other than the Foles sign, they could do nothing. They lost a bunch of mid tier players, because they could not resign them, or sign someone else in place of them. They had 55 players on the roster in draft week! The average roster size at draft week is usually 65 to 70. In the Colts case it was 74. In addition to Malik Jackson and company - we're speaking about 5-6 or more starting players - the Jags also lost a bunch of rotational pieces, which they could not replace with similar talent. To fill up their 90 roster, they had to add I think 24 UDFA's this year. 24! (The Colts added 8 I think. The better teams added 8 to 12 typically). 

 

And, as a result, other than Foles, this Jags team is a worse team than the 2018 Jaguars was. Quite a lot worse. You don't see it from the distance, because surface - the Ramsey's and Campbells - looks shiny from the distance. But looking at them closer, it is in front of the eye. They are a lot thinner, and they have quite a lot of holes (RB, WR, TE, no OL depth, etc.) They are only 1-2 injuries away (not talking about Foles) from being falling apart. 

 

And this is not even the end of the story, because the majority of the consequences of their bad cap management will hit them in 2020 and 2021. So the worst is not even there yet. But it's inevitably coming. That's the definition of bad cap management.

 

yes you can separate the two, and no those contracts did not kill them at all

 

those problems you listed are not because of cap space.  their best WR, running back and Oline players were hurt.  that would make most teams look bad.

 

its funny that you are trying to blame that on cap management.  the Oline has the talent to be top 10 at least if they are healthy.  they had 3 starters miss a combined 26 games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, aaron11 said:

yes you can separate the two, and no those contracts did not kill them at all

 

those problems you listed are not because of cap space.  their best WR, running back and Oline players were hurt.  that would make most teams look bad.

 

its funny that you are trying to blame that on cap management.  the Oline has the talent to be top 10 at least if they are healthy.  they had 3 starters miss a combined 26 games.  

 

Where did you read that I was trying to blame injuries on cap management? 'Cause I never wrote such thing. Injuries happen. I blame the thin roster. Regarding oline, the Colts lost their starting right guard (Slauson) after 5 games, and starting right tackle (Webb) after one game for the season. And they missed their starting LT for 5 games, and missed their starting center for 4 games. That's a combined 36 games. Plus they lost their backup right guard/tackle (Haeg) after 3 games. So they ended up playing through the season with their #3 RG and #3 RT. Who ended up being even better than the original starters and eventually become starters for 2019. That's depth. We know how it looked like when the Colts lost similar number of OL-men and didn't have depth.

 

Having or not having depth is part of roster management. Which is tied to cap management. Not the same, but tied. There are aspects of one which affects the other and vice versa. (For example, if your team lacks depth directly because you overspent on expensive players and as a result of that, you don't have enough space to sign/retain your rotational players, that's a mistake from the cap management side, that affects your roster. I was referring to these kinds of problems.)

 

But anyway, as I said, we over-debated this. Cap management is a continuous maneuvering with the cap space, GM's sign multi year contracts, so their year X decisions affect their year X+1 and so on. So let's put this debate away, and check the Jags next year. I will admit if it turns out I was wrong. 

 

(Just one final note: we probably should've started this debate by defining what "good cap management" really is. It's hard to argue if the criterias are up in the air. How could we define our criterias? Not easy in short forum posts, but maybe a good start could've been to list those teams who, in your - or in my - opinion have been managing their cap well, and those, who haven't. There are teams with good cap management and bad cap management out there after all, right? So we can list them. And then we'd have reference points regarding what we consider good and/or bad.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...