Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornboy
You're absolutely right that any one player can be fit into any situation, but I strongly disagree with the overall point. That's focusing on one tree rather than the forest. The Chandler Jones - Stephon Gilmore thing is a great example, you're right that they could have afforded both players in 2017 with creative cap management but they had just $3mm in cap space left with just Gilmore and $7mm this year. What other players would they have had to cut either in 2017 or 2018 (or 2019/2020) to afford Jones, too? Those decisions become due at some point. The teams that have had the most sustained success over the last couple of decades (Patriots and Steelers and I'd say the Ravens even with the Flacco contract) are the ones that manage the cap the harshest. When a player is let go, how that money is used matters in the calculation of whether letting them go is a smart move.
I mean, my point in the Jones-Gilmore thing is more that Jones is arguably a more valuable player and it makes more sense to keep him, though I guess it does make sense to get a pick and then sign someone else. They traded Jones a full year before they signed Gilmore; it's not like they knew Gilmore would become available and sign with them. Uncertainty about where you might actually be able to spend the money is another reason it's good to lock up very good players at important positions when you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornboy
I know they love Harmon and wouldn't do it. He was outstanding for them last year - his interception rate is pretty absurd. Those 3 are basically starters in their system.
I chose Harmon because he's listed as the backup on the depth chart. If you want to choose Patrick Chung, or even better, Jason McCourty, or Lawrence Guy, then fine. Point is I think the difference between Clayborn and Jones is bigger than the difference between replacing a few of those other guys with veteran-minimum guys or rookie contracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
1) why couldn't they just get creative and sign Chandler Jones and Stephon Gilmore?
2) yeah, of course that's what they do. Just look at last year's transactions. Do you think they traded Garrapolo and Cooks bc they thought they could easily replace those players with draft picks, or bc they couldn't keep them all under the cap? To a lesser extent same question with Nate Solder (and others) - I doubt they were psyched to roll the dice at left tackle but they couldn't just creative contract their way into a solution
1)I mean, they probably could have. The Saints do stuff like this all the time, their frequent misses on the actual players they sign notwithstanding.
2)Cooks is quite different from Jones, given that he's a WR (less important position) who was headed into his option year and going to be overpaid as a result. And they got more for him than they did for Jones. Garoppolo is a strange example to cite given all the rumored circumstances surrounding his trade and how cheaply they let him go. Solder I'll give you, but even then, it's a calculus-- is player X worth Y salary cap / cash figure? The Patriots are pretty ruthless in that calculus, but I still think Chandler Jones
is worth his cap number.
Anyway, the whole genesis of this discussion was Khalil Mack, and I just think it's important to retain star players at the critical positions in football, and that that's also probably the best use of money and cap room.