News and Notes: Offseason Edition

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Go look up past super bowls. 

Are you including superbowls before the salary cap era? Whats the point of that, it was an entirely different NFL. You are reaching here. And even playing by your rules, that like 15 teams in 60 superbowls X 2 teams = 120... 15 out of 120 isnt "routine" 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Matts4313

[buddy_z34]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Nah. You can always afford any contract if you want it bad enough. They traded him because they believed a 1st round pick was more valuable than paying him $21m/yr. With the fact that Bosa and Armstead are both going to require $20m/yr deals + they had another 1st rounder on the bench.. he became expendable. 

And what did the 9ers do with that first round pick? They replaced said 21 million dollar player with one on a rookie deal. Same position as well. 

[Matts4313]

Just now, buddy_z34 said:

And what did the 9ers do with that first round pick? They replaced said 21 million dollar player with one on a rookie deal. Same position as well. 

Exactly. Thats how you manage a roster and your cap. Guess who they didnt get rid of? Their QB. 

[Calvert28]

32 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Are you including superbowls before the salary cap era? Whats the point of that, it was an entirely different NFL. You are reaching here. And even playing by your rules, that like 15 teams in 60 superbowls X 2 teams = 120... 15 out of 120 isnt "routine" 

Lmao bro that's just from 1999 and I forgot to add the Falcons in that mix too. Also there hasn't been 60 Super Bowls. 

[Calvert28]

32 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Exactly. Thats how you manage a roster and your cap. Guess who they didnt get rid of? Their QB. 

Cause they already gave him a 90 million dollar contract. They would have to find a new starter and pay him too if they did that. They would be royally screwed for half a decade before they recovered. 

[Matts4313]

5 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Lmao bro that's just from 1999 and I forgot to add the Falcons in that mix too. Also there hasn't been 60 Super Bowls. 

Why 1999? Even then - you really arent listing the QBs out. You are just randomly saying teams. So 40 QBs have played over that time; lets figure out how many of them were bad/average/above average. 

List them. 

4 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Cause they already gave him a 90 million dollar contract. They would have to find a new starter and pay him too if they did that. They would be royally screwed for half a decade before they recovered. 

Sunk cost. The money to cut/trade him is negligible. In fact, they would have added like $20m+ to the cap (trade). But you are right. You lose your QB and you are screwed for a long time.

[Calvert28]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Why 1999? Even then - you really arent listing the QBs out. You are just randomly saying teams. So 40 QBs have played over that time; lets figure out how many of them were bad/average/above average. 

List them. 

Matt's I'm sure you can name most right off the top of your head. Average to good to great QBs have competed and went to the SB. 

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Sunk cost. The money to cut/trade him is negligible. In fact, they would have added like $20m+ to the cap (trade). But you are right. You lose your QB and you are screwed for a long time.

When you give him a 140M yes you do. 

[Dallas94Ware]

7 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

Is it? I'd ask the Eagles, 49ers, Ravens, Giants, Panthers, and the Rams if its a absolute  necessity to have a great QB to reach/win the SB.

The goal is not to reach the SB once and then flail in the water like a fat kid who cant swim. The goal is to win it, and to regularly compete to win it. All those teams who made it there, didnt win, then fell to persistent mediocrity is evidence to why a great QB is essential to sustained success. The eagles have been arguably worse than our team since their SB win, which was on the heels of great QB at albeit for one year and a great D. Why? QB play has cost them, it hurt their run game, it handicaps their defense, and it holds them back. The Rams bought all those players and now are doomed with no quality draft picks, over priced vets, and a mediocre passer who cant elevate the team. Carolina, well, Newton was a great QB. Injuries have hindered him, and a rebuild neutered the team as a whole. 

I dont get it. When this team doesnt have good QB play, the cry is always we need a better Qb. When it does have a great QB plays the cry is that we should let him go and spend the last money on more easily replaced positions. I just dont get this fanbase.

[Dallas94Ware]

I dont get the notion that a 27m$ cap hit prevents this team from doing anything else. All its top players have been paid save for a few, and outside of Clowney I dont know who you guys are expecting us to sign that instantly fills a void and provides a boost. 

If you are talking about next year, the cap is looking to be like 210mil next year. Crawford contract is done. Tyron may be gone or at least severely restructured, and not because of Dak but because of injury, years of wear and tear and decline. That frees a chunk of money and we have a big increase in cap (pandemic not withstanding). 

And even a 15 or even 20 percent cap hit, when all the other top guys have been paid to stay, say that is 35 percent on top of Daks 15 percent. That still leaves 50 percent of the cap. Where are you hurting so bad that you cant hire guys you need? 

Besides I think most of you are forgetting about how well we have drafted at the top of the draft lately, and how the mutton of the roster, those middle tier guys, really do not cost too much. Are you expecting a high priced 1st round pick at every position? That is unlikely. Atlanta does it on offense right now, but most of.those guys were wash outs and didnt cost them much for resources. At some.point those 5th round guy, those no name FA signings for chump nfl changes have to step up. That's how a team wins. 

[Matts4313]

 

[Dallas94Ware]

7 hours ago, buddy_z34 said:

And what did the 9ers do with that first round pick? They replaced said 21 million dollar player with one on a rookie deal. Same position as well. 

That was a chance thing. I dont think they intended that entirely. It just unfolded that way when the guy was available, it fit a need, and it was a good value as per their board. 

[Calvert28]

17 minutes ago, Dallas94Ware said:

The goal is not to reach the SB once and then flail in the water like a fat kid who cant swim. The goal is to win it, and to regularly compete to win it. All those teams who made it there, didnt win, then fell to persistent mediocrity is evidence to why a great QB is essential to sustained success. The eagles have been arguably worse than our team since their SB win, which was on the heels of great QB at albeit for one year and a great D. Why? QB play has cost them, it hurt their run game, it handicaps their defense, and it holds them back. The Rams bought all those players and now are doomed with no quality draft picks, over priced vets, and a mediocre passer who cant elevate the team. Carolina, well, Newton was a great QB. Injuries have hindered him, and a rebuild neutered the team as a whole. 

I dont get it. When this team doesnt have good QB play, the cry is always we need a better Qb. When it does have a great QB plays the cry is that we should let him go and spend the last money on more easily replaced positions. I just dont get this fanbase.

Ravens won both times, Eagles won, Giants won, yes you can. 

[Dallas94Ware]

11 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Ravens won both times, Eagles won, Giants won, yes you can. 

Eli played lights out in those games, in fact his playoff run that first time was one of the all time great playoff performances to a SB ring. The 2000 Ravens with that D and Trent Dilfer was it? That was 20 years ago, and not exactly a common way of.winning anymore in today's NFL. Flacco played well that year. 

And Eli for his second win was one well paid man. 

And none of those teams spent on a slew of high price vets. They built in the draft, paid their guys, and middle roster low pay guys pitched in tremendously. Today's NFL is about those mid tier guys finding a valuable role and making a play when its crunch time. If your middle tier, those guys not making minimum but not making star money either, isn't making plays for you, you wont win. Tour top players get you there. Your nobodies win it.

[TheGame316]

4 minutes ago, Dallas94Ware said:

Eli played lights out in those games, in fact his playoff run that first time was one of the all time great playoff performances to a SB ring. The 2000 Ravens with that D and Trent Dilfer was it? That was 20 years ago, and not exactly a common way of.winning anymore in today's NFL. Flacco played well that year. 

And Eli for his second win was one well paid man. 

And none of those teams spent on a slew of high price vets. They built in the draft, paid their guys, and middle roster low pay guys pitched in tremendously. Today's NFL is about those mid tier guys finding a valuable role and making a play when its crunch time. If your middle tier, those guys not making minimum but not making star money either, isn't making plays for you, you wont win. Tour top players get you there. Your nobodies win it.

Eli was making 11% of the Giants cap and their DLine carried the 9-7 Giants to the Superbowl, Eli also had a career playoff run

So, if the formula is to go 9-7, Have a segment of the team play absolutely lights out and the QB play over his head like he never has before then you'll have to figure out how to do it with 9% less cap space than Dak is asking for now for that to equal a Superbowl win

[Dallas94Ware]

25 minutes ago, TheGame316 said:

Eli was making 11% of the Giants cap and their DLine carried the 9-7 Giants to the Superbowl, Eli also had a career playoff run

So, if the formula is to go 9-7, Have a segment of the team play absolutely lights out and the QB play over his head like he never has before then you'll have to figure out how to do it with 9% less cap space than Dak is asking for now for that to equal a Superbowl win

As usual you are intentionally missing and avoiding the point.

Firstly Eli making 11% was still something new to the league of at the time. And his mid tier roster made plays to win the game (Steve Smith, David Tyree, the ILB I forget his name, that corner too). 

It does not matter they went 9-7. They won when it mattered. And they did it with a market setting contract at QB, and a HOME BUILT squad built from The draft and low end FA pickups. If you review the last 4 draft classes of every SB winning team, well aside from the Pats cause they draft terribly, you will see why each team was able to win. Even those late picks contributed when it mattered.

You pay the top hard to replace studs, you pay your QB, and you turn over the bulk of your roster regularly. You may not win a SB every year, but you ALWAYS have a chance to do so because you retained the key ingredients to the winning recipe.

You are going to sit here and tell me Carolina with Newton, GB with Rodgers, NO with Brees, those Eli led Giants, Rivers led Chargers, Big Ben led Steelers, Wilson and the Seahawks, even Minny with Cousins, all these teams who paid a market setting contract to their passers REGRET it? That they dont feel they have a chance to win it all every single year BECAUSE they paid their passer? You are being ridiculous. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Dallas94Ware