NFL 2012

[Dak]

The original article on NFL.com is not by a NFC East blogger as far as I know.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82867f59/article/
dallas-cowboys-washing-redskins-salarycap-hearing-set

By Albert Breer
Reporter, NFL.com and NFL Network

Graziano's followup makes perfect sense.

 

[skeptik]

Graziano's followup is a deliberate misreading of Breer's, which itself does not explain the full issue. Graziano denies the claim outright that the deals "gain a competitive advantage in future years", saying that the rest of the league is "full of it", while completely missing the point that it does. By dumping such a disproportionately large percentage of the contract's full value into the first season of the contract, in which the cap hit is irrelevant, it allows them to give players very large contracts without suffering the adverse affects of a large cap hit for future years. This is precisely why the league penalized them with cap hits after they were warned not to write contracts that seek to find a loophole in that way.

 

[Dak]

Graziano's followup is a deliberate misreading of Breer's, which itself does not explain the full issue. Graziano denies the claim outright that the deals "gain a competitive advantage in future years", saying that the rest of the league is "full of it", while completely missing the point that it does. By dumping such a disproportionately large percentage of the contract's full value into the first season of the contract, in which the cap hit is irrelevant, it allows them to give players very large contracts without suffering the adverse affects of a large cap hit for future years. This is precisely why the league penalized them with cap hits after they were warned not to write contracts that seek to find a loophole in that way.

A warning with no legitimate basis in an uncapped year, caused by those same owners trying to not pay players.

And the idea that the teams could whisper together behind closed doors about acting as though there was a cap when there wasn't and expect every owner to go along with the plan is (and always was) utterly foolish.

Please explain how Graziano's followup was a "misreading" of Breer's piece.

Breer:

A number of teams were adversely affected by the actions of the Cowboys and Redskins and were active in supporting the league pursuing the punishment, reflected by the 29-2 vote of owners (Washington and Dallas voted against it, and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers abstained) taken at the March league meeting to move forward with the penalties.

Among those hit were the San Diego Chargers, Miami Dolphins and Baltimore Ravens.

Austin's contract was instrumental in pushing the franchise receiver price tag from $9.5 million in 2010 to $11.3 million in 2011. San Diego franchised Vincent Jackson at the latter number in 2011. The leverage Jackson gained from having an $11.4 million tender made him difficult to sign to a long-term deal, and the resulting 2012 franchise figure -- by rule, 120 percent of the previous number, which came out to $13.7 million -- made it even harder for the team to tag him again.

So San Diego, which likely would have tagged Jackson again had the number been more affordable, let Jackson walk. He signed a five-year, $55.6 million contract with the Bucs this offseason.

Similar to Austin's deal, Haynesworth's contract with the Redskins was central to the defensive tackle number soaring from $7 million to $12.5 million. Baltimore subsequently tagged Haloti Ngata at that figure in 2011. And while the Ravens wound up getting Ngata signed to a five-year, $61 million contract, having that extra $12.5 million on the cap from July until September cost them the ability to be more aggressive in free agency, according to team sources.

A similar dynamic existed, from a budget standpoint, in Miami, where Paul Soliai played 2012 under the $12.5 million defensive tackle tag figure.

The franchise tag number also soared at Hall's position (cornerback), jumping from $9.6 million to $14 million. No player was franchised at the corner position in 2011.

The top 2011 free agent at that position, Nnamdi Asomugha, would've had a high number regardless, because of his already high financial numbers, and the Oakland Raiders contractually couldn't tag him anyway. But Johnathan Joseph is an example of a player who might have been franchised if the number was lower than $14 million. The Cincinnati Bengals franchised kicker Mike Nugent instead, and Joseph bolted to the Houston Texans.

That's the whole article after giving a "status of the matter" to open. It's the background of what was done and how it affected the other teams, and Graziano pointed out the other teams are pulling some petty bullshit in response. Notice none of it goes into any sort of imagined competitive advantage gained from Austin/Haynesworth/Hall.

 

[skeptik]

Clearly it had a legitimate basis. There would have been no penalty issued if there was no legitimate basis.

Graziano's was a misreading of the piece because it was not, as he attempts to infer, claiming that the 29 teams that voted for the penalties were mad because they had to pay their players more. Breer never stated that. He merely gave examples as to how their actions impacted what the other teams were able to do, while coming far short of saying that their actions to vote were inspired by "petty bullshit".

Besides, other teams are well within their right to take action against teams that improperly inflate the value of contracts. And this is not something that the NFLPA would necessarily be up in arms about anyway because teams work under a salary cap. Only a certain amount of money can be given to players regardless of how it is dispersed amongst the players, so more money for one player means less for others.

I already pointed out that Breer's piece doesn't explain the issue, and I then proceeded to explain more of the issue. The main issue is that the Cowboys and Redskins wrote up contracts designed to use as much hypothetical cap space as possible when there was no cap, and because all teams were warned not to do this, the teams that did are paying for it now.

 

[Dak]

Clearly it had a legitimate basis. There would have been no penalty issued if there was no legitimate basis.

Graziano's was a misreading of the piece because it was not, as he attempts to infer, claiming that the 29 teams that voted for the penalties were mad because they had to pay their players more. Breer never stated that. He merely gave examples as to how their actions impacted what the other teams were able to do, while coming far short of saying that their actions to vote were inspired by "petty bullshit".

But they were.

Besides, other teams are well within their right to take action against teams that improperly inflate the value of contracts. And this is not something that the NFLPA would necessarily be up in arms about anyway because teams work under a salary cap. Only a certain amount of money can be given to players regardless of how it is dispersed amongst the players, so more money for one player means less for others.

Only on a team that runs close to the salary cap. Plenty of teams will regularly run a gap in the tens of millions. This means less money to players on a league wide basis, particularly for notable FAs, when a team with deep pockets refuses to spend, it leaves them taking less money from the teams that will, not to mention the players already in house that aren't getting any sort of raise.

While they certainly have a history of overpaying overrated players, at the very least you have to admit players on the Redskins and Cowboys get more generously compensated than players on teams like the Bengals, Jaguars, and Buccaneers.

Saving capspace for a high need position and future flexibility is one thing. Saving capspace on a regular basis so you can pad your pocket at the expense of parity and competitiveness is doing a disservice to the players and the rest of the league.

I already pointed out that Breer's piece doesn't explain the issue, and I then proceeded to explain more of the issue. The main issue is that the Cowboys and Redskins wrote up contracts designed to use as much hypothetical cap space as possible when there was no cap, and because all teams were warned not to do this, the teams that did are paying for it now.

And why this sort of backroom bullshit is bullshit has already been addressed.

 

[skeptik]

It's "petty bullshit" to you because your team is being adversely affected by a punitive response to doing something they were told not to do. If it was just the Redskins, I kind of doubt you would care very much. Casting it as hang-wringingly evil, smoke-filled "backroom bullshit" (there's that word again) still fails to justify anything that they did. The fact is that they violated instructions from the league.

Most teams do not come close to being tens of millions under the cap. I'm confident, in fact, that it's somewhat uncommon outside of places like Cincinnati and Tampa Bay. 9 out of 10 teams that are in contention are likely to be relatively close to the cap.

All players on a 53 man roster are generously compensated. I also do not see how what you mention does a disservice to the rest of the league, although I'm guessing it's not a particularly important point anyway.

The bottom line is this, since I don't feel like going around on this: It is my belief that the league's instructions to the 32 NFL teams not to dump cap hits into the uncapped year was tantamount to any other rule the teams are obligated to follow in any other given year, and accordingly, the teams that violated those instructions are deservedly susceptible to punishment. I don't think either of us will be changing the other's opinion.

 

[Dak]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-games

New Orleans is a rotten cesspool of a city as it is, looks like the atmosphere rubbed off in more ways than one.

 

[skeptik]

Anybody that is a Saints fan is a scumbag of a human being.

 

[Dak]

Anybody that is a Steelers fan is a scumbag of a human being.

:Spin:

 

[skeptik]

If it's true that the Eagles only got a 6th round pick out of Asante Samuel, then they are idiots. Samuel was their best cornerback, even if they didn't realize it.

 

[Dak]

If it's true that the Eagles only got a 6th round pick out of Asante Samuel, then they are idiots. Samuel was their best cornerback, even if they didn't realize it.

I'm not an Andy Reid fan, but I will give the guy credit when it's due: He knows when it's time to cut players loose.

 

[skeptik]

Uh, do you have some examples that aren't no-brainers like McNabb and Kolb? Letting Dawkins go obviously was not the right decision, as they're still trying to replace him, and I don't believe their cap situation at all necessitated this move. Who is their third CB now?

Edit: And now it's confirmed that they got a 7th round pick. Stupid. Excellent move by the Falcons, stupid move by the Eagles.

 

[Dak]

If Asante goes on to have a banner year for the Falcons then so be it, but the Eagles secondary was not amazing last year, and the younger corners need to earn their pay. Another year or two and the Eagles would be out the money to Asante and no compensation draft pick wise whatsoever.

 

[skeptik]

The secondary would have been better if they realized that Samuel was their best cornerback (and he still was last year). And they would get compensation if he signed with another team (chances are, better than a 7th rounder, which is not much of a compensation). Unless they use the money they save to make their team better in another way, like shoring up LeSean McCoy and one of the other young receivers, then I just don't get it. They're more concerned with sticking to their guns than putting out the best possible team. A 7th round pick doesn't exactly set you up for future success either, so this move was clearly about philosophy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

If it's true that the Eagles only got a 6th round pick out of Asante Samuel, then they are idiots. Samuel was their best cornerback, even if they didn't realize it.

He was a great fit fot Jim Johnson's scheme but is totally out of place in the new scheme. We're trying to playing press man coverage and he would just freelance, totally disrupting what the other ten players were doing. We have young safeties and linebackers and Asante's refusal to stay within the scheme only compounded the problems that were already there.

He's also selfish and the opposite of a team player, so he wasn't really willing to do what the coaches asked of him. He might do great for Atlanta (assuming they run a scheme that fits his skills) but he really was not helping the Eagles. Better to get 10 M off the books and extend Maclin, McCoy and possibly DRC.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Uh, do you have some examples that aren't no-brainers like McNabb and Kolb? Letting Dawkins go obviously was not the right decision, as they're still trying to replace him, and I don't believe their cap situation at all necessitated this move. Who is their third CB ?

Tre Thomas, Jon Runyan, Brian Westbrook, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor. It's a philosophical system regarding aging players that has mostly paid off. Sure, they're is the occasional Dawkins situation, but on the whole the system ha been successful.

That said, I would think Samuel has 2-3 elite years left, but like I said before, he didn't fit the system and was hurting the team. It's like when the Cowboys let TO go; yes, he was still elite, but he we holding the ret of the offense back. It's addition by subtraction.

As far as 3rd CB, I think they want to see what Curtis Marsh, a 2011 3rd rounder has to offer. He came in very raw but has nice size and athleticism. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them use on of their 2nd rounders on a corner. They need someone who can excel in the slot.

 

[skeptik]

How exactly was he holding the team back last year when he played better than the other two CBs?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How exactly was he holding the team back last year when he played better than the other two CBs?

Football is a team game and if one guy isn't playing the same scheme as the rest of the players, it throws everyone else off. It's pretty simple. The safties and linebackers had certain responsibilities that were compromised with Asante refused to play man. If for example, the strong safety is supposed guard the slot receiver, but Asante is playing zone on the outside reciever, there's gonna be a gap. So either the coach has to compensate, or the player has to. I think Jaun tried, but it really didn't work. You can't have it both ways; you need everyone on the same page.

They had their two best defensive performances in the last two games when Asante was out. In part because they were playing the Cowboys B team and the Redskins, but it also helped to not have someone just doing whatever the hell he wanted to do.

 

[skeptik]

I don't need to be explained the nature of team sports. I just find it hard to believe that Asante Samuel was literally running around the field doing whatever the hell he wanted to, or that you would even be able to determine how he was deviating from the set play without knowing what the play actually is, so I do not accept your account. They're still giving up a Pro Bowl player at a premium position for a 7th round pick in favor of inferior football players.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

You don't need 3 starting corners on defense. He was their oldest corner. His contract with Philadelphia called for him to earn $9.9 million in 2012 and $11.4 million in 2013. He was a pain in the ass.

What don't you understand? It's a dump, They just saved money. They basically cut the dude, rid themselves of a costly contract and got a 7th round pick. You're not going to get much else for a 31 year old corner with a heavy contract. Maybe unless you headed the franchise lol

The guy gave up touchdowns non stop. Dude got burned CONSTANTLY. His gambles to make a play on the ball failed more often than not and he couldn't tackle to save his life. Eagles defense will be far more solid playing Nnamdi and Rodgers-Cromartie man to man on guys, like they did towards the end of the year (when their D greatly improved as a result).