Jump to content

TransientTexan

Veteran Members
  • Content count

    994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Veteran

1 Follower

Favorites

  • NFL Team
    Green Bay Packers
  • NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Week 10: Miami WontWins @ Green Bay GDT

    According to Jones' college player page, they mention he had HS track experience: "played varsity basketball and competed on the track and field team for Burges ... El Paso Times All-City selection on the hardwood ... a member of the 1600m relay state championship team after taking the district title" https://utepathletics.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=344 https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Athlete.aspx?AID=3082550#!/L0
  2. Nick Perry?

    I think it depends on whether he is designated a pre-June-1st or post-June-1st cut. (https://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/) a "pre-June-1st" cut would save 3.6M cap and have 11.1m of dead money on the 2019 cap a "post-June-1st" cut would save *11.0M cap and have 3.7m dead money on the 2019 cap, and 7.4m dead money on the 2020 cap teams can designate up to 2 players per year as a "post-June-1st" cut, even if cutting them prior to June 1st. This allows the player to hit the market in the heat of FA. However, the 11.0m cap space is deceiving. As a "post-June" cut, Perry's entire 2019 cap hit (14.7m) would stay on the books until June 1st, by which point the saved money isn't as helpful since 2019 free agency would be largely over. also, Perry has a 5.4m roster bonus in 2019. I'm not sure how the pre/post-June stuff would affect this. It's possible that by designating him a post-June-1st cut, the contract would be treated as if he was still on the team up until that point, and the team might have to pay him the 5.4m roster bonus. If so, the team would only end up with 5.6m cap savings after June 1st instead of 11.0m. If anyone knows, feel free to correct.
  3. Extend Mike McCarthy?

    Don't be a clueless turd. Then there won't be an argument.
  4. Extend Mike McCarthy?

    This assumes the talent pool has stayed the same size since the 60's. The country's population has grown (as populations tend to do) by 80% since then. Also, I think it is harder to find draft steals today. It's the information age, and harder to keep players a secret if your scout finds a blue-chipper in the backwoods somewhere.
  5. Trade Deadline Thread

    No, you're supposed to realize that cherrypicking exceptions to a rule does not disprove a rule. It's like you've never had a basic science class or set up an experiment with proper controls.
  6. Trade Deadline Thread

    Kinda like Gute "scraping the barrel" with guys like TWill, Bell, Toomer, etc. I fail to see an appreciable difference between the 17 & 18 FA classes. Brooks & Wilk contributed but had injury-shortened stays. Evans & TWill both were serviceable starters. Bennett & Graham both high-priced but under-performing TE's. Everyone else is basically a nonfactor.
  7. Trade Deadline Thread

    I don't think anyone in the league will offer Cobb or Clay that much.
  8. Trade Deadline Thread

    This just betrays a lack of understanding about the entire NFL talent acquisition process. Draft & FA aren't 2 independent parallel paths, they are 2 sides of the same coin. Obviously, whenever a team has a poor draft, when it comes time to re-sign players in that draft class, they'll have more money to spend on "outside" FA's, which fans like to arbitrarily single out for some reason. It's like all the fans that envied Atlanta's "aggression" in recent years when the only reason that was possible for Atlanta was because they basically struck out on 3 straight drafts before that. There was literally a 3 year period when the only good players they drafted were Julio Jones and a kicker. so obviously, that ended up allowing them to be more aggressive 4 years down the road when they have a bunch of cap space being freed up, and nobody internally to spend it on. Or the fans that envied Seattle's "aggression" by observing how they got guys like Avril to help what turned out to be their championship run. And then once Seattle had to extend their QB & core players in their secondary (as a result of successful drafts), that aggression dried up. Same thing will likely happen with the Rams. In 2019, the Donald/Cooks/Peters cap hits will jump by 26m. Then in 2020, Donald/Gurley/Goff cap hits will jump 24+m. Rams won't have has much space to replace expiring decent players like Saffold & their activity in FA & trades will dry up and overall roster talent will regress and depth will thin out and they won't be able to withstand it as much when one starter or another has a poor year. And casual fans will just be busy somewhere else envying whatever the next young team is that's hitting their window with cheap talent. But every once in a while they'll glance back at the Rams and wonder what happened to them. They'll still probably be a threat, but why are they no longer dominant front-runner? Meanwhile the answer was apparent to those who know where to look. Team actions are as much a product of circumstance as any supposed dogmatic adherence to a strategy. Look at when GB signed Julius Peppers, which propelled them to the brink of a championship. Part of the reason they were able to do that was because their 2011 draft class was bad and they knew they wouldn't have to earmark as much money for re-signings. Or even the recent 2017 signings. They happened due to a confluence of circumstances that allowed GB the cap space. Peppers & Lang were departing, clearing 16.7m. GB had to cut Shields due to concussions, so that cleared another 8.5m. And current team talent at S (HHCD & Burnett) and C (Linsley) allowed them to pass on Hyde and Tretter, when they might otherwise have re-signed them if the rest of the team talent hadn't developed in the way it did. People like me stated ahead of time that GB would likely be buyers in FA, but so many in the fan base were surprised by the signings because they don't pay attention to the cap and they develop myths about how GB operates and disregard the impact of yearly circumstance on a team's ability to bring in "outside" players. And foreseeably Gute won't be as active in bringing in "outside" guys in 2020 & 2021 because they won't have 40+m in space to be used exclusively for "outside" guys like they will this coming offseason. He'll be constrained by circumstance like other teams & gm's, and inevitably certain members of the fanbase will think his operating strategy somehow changed.
  9. Trade Deadline Thread

    I think teams would’ve offered more if he had more than 9 games left on his contract.
  10. Trade Deadline Thread

    "Don't mistake activity for achievement." -John Wooden
  11. 2019 Murphy / Gute Off-Season moves

    2 things can be true at once.
  12. 2019 Murphy / Gute Off-Season moves

    Tell that to the Saints, who’ve spent many years at .500. Even teams w/ good QB’s like Matt Ryan have crap years.
  13. Aaron Rodgers Depreciation Thread

    More retarded binary thinking. I'm not as pretentious as you to act like I know everything that was considered when making that decision. But you'll cling exclusively to whatever confirms your bias. Your next objective thought will be your first.
  14. Aaron Rodgers Depreciation Thread

    any team you look at will have misses in FA. if one team has 25m to spend every year, some of it will hit and some won't. but another team even with the same hit rate that spends 15m per yr will obviously have less "hits". most teams don't have player trades of consequence. they're pretty rare in the NFL as opposed to other sports. but yes if you get to select someone out of your 31-team "field" vs. 1 team yes you'll be able to pick out a couple. inevitably, out of the 31 team field, there will be some team that strikes gold in 1 or 2 drafts, opening up a "window" for themselves, and while that "core" of players is on their rookie deals, they'll have more money to spend to bring in "outside FA's". this team will be held up as a shining example by the moaners of how to operate. but then, inevitably once that team has to pay their "core", they can't bring in as many FA's (see Seattle), and their drafting regresses, and they have less draft capital due to their success, they'll fade back into the background below GB. but that's ok for the moaners who will conveniently forget about that team and move on to envying the next few teams that hit their "window". meanwhile the teams they used to envy will be having poor or mediocre seasons out of sight. See how convenient it is to cherrypick teams when you get to use a 31-team "field"? you get to ignore all the failures that followed your methods, and just pick the ones that happened to strike gold. that's not a proper way to evaluate methods. as for drafting, I disagree. 2011 & '15 were bad. '12 avg. '13 was great.'14 & '16 were good. '17 is still pending evaluation. looks like a decent hit rate. The problem is just that a decent hit rate at the #26 draft slot will obviously be at a disadvantage against even a poor hit rate that's drafting in the #13 slot. Your final point is hilarious. I guess just because a team made a decision, that in itself validates the decision. Using that logic, then there obviously was "a reason" that they were with the team from 2005-2016 and the team was right to retain them each and every one of those years, and "it was not because they were failing at their job". Forget about the fact that there was an incentive to switch to one of the assistants before they all walked out the door for other jobs, having exhausted their strategy of using fake promotions to retain them.
  15. Aaron Rodgers Depreciation Thread

    they've brought in good FA's. and during the period they weren't bringing in many FA's, they were spending 99% of their salary cap re-signing guys like Nelson, Sitton, etc. saying they've been drafting terribly for years is a blatant exaggeration. they had a terrible draft in 2015. 2014 & 16 were fine for the slot they were in. jury is out on 17 & 18.
×