2015 Free Agent Signing Tracker

guaranteeed said:
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter <small class="time" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(136, 153, 166);"> 2m2 minutes ago</small>
Randall Cobb back to Green Bay on a 4-year, $40 million deal, per source.
Click to expand...

So pumped... He doesn't turn 25 until August. So different than not paying James Jones or Greg Jennings. Cobb, Jordy, and Rodgers together through 2018. Won't be happy without one Super Bowl championship over that time.
 
Nice resign for GB. I was reading yesterday he was probable to a few dumpster fires...didn't make sound sense.
 
Who among us wouldn't like to see Suh punch Big Ben in the nuts a couple times a year?
 
tipyerbartender said:
Suh's really good. Good players make teams good.
Click to expand...

For sure. But, if you have to use 15-20% of your salary cap on one player, doesn't that limit how good the rest of your roster can be?

Suh is really good too. The Lions have a better offense than the Browns, and a better defense. Suh played on that team, as a really good player, and the Lions won what exactly in his time there?

Honestly, it would be a move that most would expect from the Browns (or the Bills, Raiders, etc.)....signing a big name (and a really good player) for a ridiculous amount of money, which will do nothing more than sell tickets because the team isn't going to be better because of the move.
 
The Browns are 50-million under the cap. They have been since Haslam bought the team. Spend a little money for crissakes. We all know they suck at the draft.
 
tipyerbartender said:
The Browns are 50-million under the cap. They have been since Haslam bought the team. Spend a little money for crissakes. We all know they suck at the draft.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter anyway, reports are out now that Suh is signing with the Dolphins. 6 years, $114 million with $60 million guaranteed.
 
Damn. I knew it was a long shot, but I wanted that guy in orange and brown ... or whatever metallic colors we're going to get.
 
tipyerbartender said:
The Browns are 50-million under the cap. They have been since Haslam bought the team. Spend a little money for crissakes. We all know they suck at the draft.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing the Browns are at $114 million right now, with the new salary cap at $143 million....so they're close to $30 million under the cap, not $50 million. Suh's contract would have eaten up $19 mil of that $30 mil.

And they still don't have a QB they pay anywhere near the league average (let alone an elite-ish QB), don't have a WR they pay anywhere near the league average (probably want a really good WR or two right?), and they don't pay any RBs anywhere near the league average. If they're going to get better over the next few years, they're going to need to spend some serious money to upgrade at least the QB and WR positions. Signing Suh would have really inhibited how they could possibly do that.
 
They still have to play 16 games next year. There are no quarterbacks, probably should have swallowed it and paid Hoyer. Browns D had its moments but was dead last against the run last year. I'd welcome Suh. Or would have.
 
tipyerbartender said:
They still have to play 16 games next year. There are no quarterbacks, probably should have swallowed it and paid Hoyer. Browns D had its moments but was dead last against the run last year. I'd welcome Suh. Or would have.
Click to expand...

You'd welcome him based on him being a great player....most fans would want the same thing. But, if you care about actually winning a SB at some point in the near future, signing Suh made no sense. Unless you can explain how they would be able to pull off getting everything they need after paying Suh what would have amounted to 66% of their cap room, then it wasn't a good decision to make for their franchise.

If you just want to sell some tickets, create some hype, and then predictably disappoint and have to blow it all up in a few years because of the huge contract you paid to one guy, then you're right they should have signed Suh.
 
Hoyer sucks, but he sucks less than the quarterbacks on their team. Why not pay the least sucky option? They're paying McCown more than Hoyer wanted prior to last season. Makes no sense. I think they think Hoyer threatens Manziel's development. Which is ridiculous, because Manziel's going to be sitting on a metal chair signing A&M jerseys in Las Vegas next to Pete Rose in about two years.
 
tipyerbartender said:
They still have to play 16 games next year. There are no quarterbacks, probably should have swallowed it and paid Hoyer. Browns D had its moments but was dead last against the run last year. I'd welcome Suh. Or would have.
Click to expand...

There are no QBs right now on the market, you're right about that. But we're talking about building a franchise in the next few years to compete for a SB right? You're going to have to get a QB at some point in order to do that. Whether it be through trade, free agency (next year, or in 2017), or the draft....you'll have to pay someone to play that position an awful lot more than they're spending on it now. AND you're going to have to do that same at WR (at least one). You may not have to at RB, as we've seen their values decline, but you may have to do that as well.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Hoyer sucks, but he sucks less than the quarterbacks on their team. Why not pay the least sucky option? They're paying McCown more than Hoyer wanted prior to last season. Makes no sense. I think they think Hoyer threatens Manziel's development. Which is ridiculous, because Manziel's going to be sitting on a metal chair signing A&M jerseys in Las Vegas next to Pete Rose in about two years.
Click to expand...

Sure, pay him the $5 mil they paid him. They aren't winning the SB this year, even if they had Suh, so I don't get the point. You're going to have to upgrade that position (in skill AND in money) to be a contender. That $19 mil a year they aren't paying Suh will probably come in handy at some point.
 
We've seen too many NFL teams go from zero-to-hero in one year to accept a 6th consecutive 3-year rebuild. The Seahawks stunk. They got a coach, a defense, and a quarterback in about a year and a half.
 
tipyerbartender said:
We've seen too many NFL teams go from zero-to-hero in one year to accept a 6th consecutive 3-year rebuild. The Seahawks stunk. They got a coach, a defense, and a quarterback in about a year and a half.
Click to expand...

Yep. What they didn't do was pay one guy $19 mil/yr at the beginning of that process. Thank you for proving the point.

If you have examples of these teams that went from zero to hero in one year (and either won a SB, or sustained success for more than just that one year), and did so by paying one player, and a defensive lineman at that, close to $20/mil a year (when they only had $30 mil in cap space at the time)....I'd love to see them.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Browns are fine at RB. The Crow's a beast.
Click to expand...

crowellx-large.jpg
 
Lareux, it's not baseball. There's no money balll in the NFL. Every team in the league has overpaid players, then they cut 'em loose. Really, you just need a quarterback and everything else magically falls into place. While I wait, I wish they'd stop the run.
 
We've talked about this before with the Browns (and the Bills, Raiders, etc) and the never ending 3 year rebuilds....at what point does the franchise realize that the way they're enacting that 3 year rebuild is the issue? These horribly run teams do the same exact thing every time they undertake one of these 3 year rebuilds, yet somehow, expect different results.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lareux, it's not baseball. There's no money balll in the NFL. Every team in the league has overpaid players, then they cut 'em loose. Really, you just need a quarterback and everything else magically falls into place. While I wait, I wish they'd stop the run.
Click to expand...

While you wait, and they stop the run, when they find that QB they're going to need to pay him with the money they're currently paying that guy to stop the run. You aren't going to have both of them on your team if the guy who stops the run is making that much money. You just said it, the QB is what you need. Why spend money on window dressing now when you're going to inevitably have to cut ties with him somehow when you find that QB?

And sometimes, even when you are paying that run stopping guy AND the QB, like the Lions were, you don't come close to winning anyway.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lareux, it's not baseball. There's no money balll in the NFL. Every team in the league has overpaid players, then they cut 'em loose. Really, you just need a quarterback and everything else magically falls into place. While I wait, I wish they'd stop the run.
Click to expand...

Of course there's "moneyball" in the NFL. It exists in all sports. The point of the book wasn't the exact blueprint that the A's used, it was to be ahead of the curve and value things more before other teams do. It was about trying to find the 'new thing' before the next guy, and exploiting that to your advantage before everyone else catches up.
 
Lions were pretty damn close, probably still are. They got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that threw a pass on 2nd-and-goal.

The Browns and the Bills don't have to save cap space for a fucking quarterback. Those guys will most probably be drafted.
 
Lareux said:
Of course there's "moneyball" in the NFL. It exists in all sports. The point of the book wasn't the exact blueprint that the A's used, it was to be ahead of the curve and value things more before other teams do. It was about trying to find the 'new thing' before the next guy, and exploiting that to your advantage before everyone else catches up.
Click to expand...


"Money Ball" means something when the playing field is not level. When the $80-million Tribe wins more than the $200-million Yankees, the phrase has some teeth.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lions were pretty damn close, probably still are. They got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that got jobbed against the team that threw a pass on 2nd-and-goal.

The Browns and the Bills don't have to save cap space for a fucking quarterback. Those guys will most probably be drafted.
Click to expand...

Yes, the overall point was simply about one year, and one game. Ugh.

If they're still close, and they aren't paying Suh anymore (by choice, because even franchise tagging him would have cost them $26 million), why would you want the Browns to sign Suh? Doesn't the point that the Lions are still close, now without Suh, go against your thoughts they should sign Suh? You're proving the points against your argument better than you are proving the points for your argument.
 
tipyerbartender said:
"Money Ball" means something when the playing field is not level. When the $80-million Tribe wins more than the $200-million Yankees, the phrase has some teeth.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who didn't understand the overall premise of the book. Which, based on recent threads, isn't surprising.
 
Why pay anyone?

Jesus, Lar, I think the Lions are close because they have Stafford. They're less close now because they don't have Suh.
 
Lareux said:
Spoken like someone who didn't understand the overall premise of the book. Which, based on recent threads, isn't surprising.
Click to expand...


Enlighten me. I think the philosophy to squeeze more out of less fits best when your sport has no salary cap.
 
Fondybadger said:
So pumped... He doesn't turn 25 until August. So different than not paying James Jones or Greg Jennings. Cobb, Jordy, and Rodgers together through 2018. Won't be happy without one Super Bowl championship over that time.
Click to expand...

smart for him too, if the reports that the most he got from 3 other teams was 4 years 48m, it makes sense to stay with Rodgers, cause when he's 29 his stats are going to be better then for his upcoming next deal anyway
 
when I think of a coach that seems well equipped to handle a guy with anger issues who could cause problems in a dressing room, it's Joe Philbin

the 60m guaranteed is all in the first 3 years, 6 year deal
 
tipyerbartender said:
Enlighten me. I think the philosophy to squeeze more out of less fits best when your sport has no salary cap.
Click to expand...

Sure, it fits there of course. But, it also clearly fits in a sport with a salary cap. If everyone is paying the same amount, overall, to their rosters, doesn't it make sense that finding that next 'big factor' becomes even more valuable? If you can find the one thing that other team's haven't found yet, how does that not put you ahead of them, since everyone is handcuffed as to what they can spend?

Let's say a team realized, a few years before everyone else, that RBs are less valuable than other positions because you can plug and play with many guys, and you don't need an elite RB. They would then be able to spend more of their salary cap on positions other than RBs, and since there's a set limit on what teams can spend, they can 'overpay' another position based on their savings at RB.

This may sound an awful lot like what the Pats have done, and why they've consistently been able to win. Of course, they have Brady, but that's not the point in any of this (talking about "money ball"). That situation was purely hypothetical as well, although as I typed it I realized it sounded like the Pats so I mentioned it....the point is that being able to correctly assess the value of a position before the rest of the league is clearly advantageous, even in a salary capped league, and is the direct application of the overall premise of MoneyBall.
 
The Bills don't seem too swift at this moneyball thing either. McCoy?
 
tipyerbartender said:
The Bills don't seem too swift at this moneyball thing either. McCoy?
Click to expand...

No, of course they aren't. You obviously aren't going to get an argument from me....I've always said the Bills are a horribly run franchise. That's why I've always included them with the Browns and Raiders (a few other too) when we talk about how poorly run some of these franchises are.
 
I feel like I could run the Browns for the next couple years. How could it get any worse?
 
Lareux said:
No, of course they aren't. You obviously aren't going to get an argument from me....I've always said the Bills are a horribly run franchise. That's why I've always included them with the Browns and Raiders (a few other too) when we talk about how poorly run some of these franchises are.
Click to expand...

please dont include a team with a SB appearance and a playoff win since the early 90s with those 2 others

6iBaBZx.png
 
I'm actually shocked that every franchise has a playoff victory in the last 25 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VirginiaCavs
Saints vs. Chiefs Preview Article
Replies
5
Views
253
sportcap
sportcap
G-Man
***G-Man's NFL Opening day - Thursday -Monday***
Replies
13
Views
447
G-Man
G-Man
Administrator
****** BetOnline MILLION DOLLAR NFL Score Predictor Contest ******
Replies
1
Views
57
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
Reno Week #4
Replies
22
Views
701
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
Pick Club -- Week #1 Lines
2
Replies
91
Views
888
Loves2kickass
L
Back
Top