Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith! Or Not!! (M.E.T.) NO kirk talk---that goes in ATN forum

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I'm so confused now, those numbers aren't what they have on their website.

 

They show the 2020 post June 1st cut as $5.4M in dead cap.

 

OK, yeah seems crazy that the numbers are that high if he retires so maybe that tweet by them is wrong.

[Morneblade]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, yeah seems crazy that the numbers are that high if he retires so maybe that tweet by them is wrong.

 

It makes sense to me. The next 2 years are basically guaranteed. Then, you have the signing bonus being distributed over the length of the contract. I think the difference we see is that in the tweet, he's not making Alex a post June 1st cut, hence the 10.8 million as opposed to 5.4 million.

 

And then 5.4 million in dead cap for both 2021 and 2022 (pro rated signing bonus).

[JSSkinz]

I hope its wrong or things are going to be much worse than expected and it was already bad.

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I hope its wrong or things are going to be much worse than expected and it was already bad.

 

Well, some of us saw how bad this was months ago. I pointed out several times that Alex's contract had a high % of guaranteed money compared to other top contracts. And for a 34 year old QB, I thought back in the Spring that it was a big mistake to do so. Not even so much from a injury aspect (Alex has been healthy) but from a falling off in production aspect. I did not think 2017 was him getting better (like many did) but that it was a blip that would return to normal, and then likely declining play.

 

Just another reason why I really don't want Bruce Allen here anymore.

[Llevron]

Honestly at that price they might as well have signed Kirk!

[Morneblade]

Just now, Llevron said:

Honestly at that price they might as well have signed Kirk!

 

At least with that, we'd be getting closer to our money's worth.

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

At least with that, we'd be getting closer to our money's worth.

 

Not thinking that a 33 year old QB with prior injury history could ever get hurt is just dumb. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Yeah, I’m not seeing all the doom and gloom.  This team was locked in to Alex/Colt through to 2020 and locked in to .500ish football through to 2020...and it still is.  Not much has really changed.  And if it bottoms out, that’s just better draft position for the next HC/QB.

 

Considering the prevailing opinion concerning Smith was that he was ill-equipped for this offense, this injury should elevate our optimism.  I am one of Smith’s more consistent defenders and Im not freaking out at all.

 

I don’t think anyone is freaking out about Smith not playing, it’s more about the tens of millions of salary cap being paid out for an already meh QB to not even play.  Any way you dress this up, it’s really bad.

[Est.1974]

18 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

My turn...I'm not trying to be underdramatic, but I always assumed our next QB would be a drafted player anyway. So, I could easily see us paying off the Smith contract, keeping Colt around, and adding a rookie contract. The guys who end up taking the snaps might be different, but the cost we counted on would be roughly the same. 

 

I agree with this. The net cost across the books/cap more than likely stays the same, but we're potentially just having to ride Smith's contract out for a couple of years. Doesn't make that a great situation, but it does seem probable right now as the facts filter out.

 

Colt may well earn himself a decent contract extension bolted on for 2020 if he can keep us in the race over the next month and a bit.

[HardcoreZorn]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I don’t think anyone is freaking out about Smith not playing, it’s more about the tens of millions of salary cap being paid out for an already meh QB to not even play.  Any way you dress this up, it’s really bad.

Yeah it's not good. Any attempt to spin it otherwise is just trying to make oneself feel better.

 

In theory, if McCoy balls out and Smith is his backup, sure nothing is different and we might be OK. But doesn't change the fact we'd have been much better off just rolling with McCoy in the first place and have even more money to surround him with more talent.

[TradeTheBeal!]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I don’t think anyone is freaking out about Smith not playing, it’s more about the tens of millions of salary cap being paid out for an already meh QB to not even play.  Any way you dress this up, it’s really bad.

 

So youre talking about roughly $23M of yearly cap dedicated to the QB position through the end of 2019.  If Colt plays fairly well (and we all think he will) and Alex has a successful 9+ month rehab (certainly a plausible outcome),  what is the great cataclysm?

 

20M in dead cap in 2020?  Is that the worst case scenario?  Cause if it is...that’s really not that bad.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

So youre talking about roughly $23M of yearly cap dedicated to the QB position through the end of 2019.  If Colt plays fairly well (and we all think he will) and Alex has a successful 9+ month rehab (certainly a plausible outcome),  what is the great cataclysm?

 

20M in dead cap in 2020?  Is that the worst case scenario?  Cause if it is...that’s really not that bad.

It is when you could have just had Colt and 20+ million in cap to provide some weapons to hopefully make him better.

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Yeah it's not good. Any attempt to spin it otherwise is just trying to make oneself feel better.

 

In theory, if McCoy balls out and Smith is his backup, sure nothing is different and we might be OK. But doesn't change the fact we'd have been much better off just rolling with McCoy in the first place and have even more money to surround him with more talent.

 

Thats a good point.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.  Not sure any part of the fan base was gonna sign up for the Colt/Fitz/Tyrod  show for 2018.

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It is when you could have just had Colt and 20+ million in cap to provide some weapons to hopefully make him better.

 

Be honest with yourself.  You would’ve trashed the FO for that, and rightly so.

[KDawg]

17 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

we'd have been much better off just rolling with McCoy in the first place and have even more money to surround him with more talent.

 

Someone on this board said that McCoy would have been a good candidate for the job... and everyone said he was stupid.

 

 

I'm not still hurt by that. Nope. Not me. I am a robot. No feelings.

 

#feelsbadman

[Morneblade]

9 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Thats a good point.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.  Not sure any part of the fan base was gonna sign up for the Colt/Fitz/Tyrod  show for 2018.

 

Be honest with yourself.  You would’ve trashed the FO for that, and rightly so.

 

That depends. If we're using them as a spot gap and the goal is to get a QB in the draft in the next year or 2 (or even have drafted on high this year and give him a chance to learn), I think the fans are somewhat ok with it. Probably better than paying 71 million for what we have now.

13 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

So youre talking about roughly $23M of yearly cap dedicated to the QB position through the end of 2019.  If Colt plays fairly well (and we all think he will) and Alex has a successful 9+ month rehab (certainly a plausible outcome),  what is the great cataclysm?

 

20M in dead cap in 2020?  Is that the worst case scenario?  Cause if it is...that’s really not that bad.

 

It's really bad. 20 million in dead cap for one player is huge. I don't know what your though process is on that, but it's way off.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Be honest with yourself.  You would’ve trashed the FO for that, and rightly so.

No doubt but they are supposed to be smarter than me.

[JSSkinz]

Its crazy that I'm even looking at hypotheticals like this but if the NFL and the players don't get a CBA extension done early before it expires after the 2020 season we could see 2020 as an uncapped year just like in 2010, I'm not sure anyone knows if an uncapped 2020 season would be structured like the 2010 uncapped year but if it is we might get lucky and have an out to dump that 3rd year without penalties.

 

Can contracts be dumped in 2010 with no salary cap consequences?

 

Yes.  In past years, teams had to weigh the decision to cut a player against the acceleration of bonus money applicable to future years.  In some cases, it cost more under the cap to get rid of a player than it did to keep him.

In 2010, bad contracts can be wiped off the books with no ramifications, since there will be no salary cap and thus no acceleration of bonus money.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

Someone on this board said that McCoy would have been a good candidate for the job... and everyone said he was stupid.

 

 

I'm not still hurt by that. Nope. Not me. I am a robot. No feelings.

 

#feelsbadman

 

Good? I'm not sure sure.

Better than 71 million for bad? Yeah, I think we can get behind that. Honestly, back in the spring I would have preferred Colt over Smith. But I don't think Colt is "good".

1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

Its crazy that I'm even looking at hypotheticals like this but if the NFL and the players don't get a CBA extension done early before it expires after the 2020 season we could see 2020 as an uncapped year just like in 2010, I'm not sure anyone knows if an uncapped 2020 season would be structured like the 2010 uncapped year but if it is we might get lucky and have an out to dump that 3rd year without penalties.

 

Can contracts be dumped in 2010 with no salary cap consequences?

 

Yes.  In past years, teams had to weigh the decision to cut a player against the acceleration of bonus money applicable to future years.  In some cases, it cost more under the cap to get rid of a player than it did to keep him.

In 2010, bad contracts can be wiped off the books with no ramifications, since there will be no salary cap and thus no acceleration of bonus money.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

 

Just remember the last time we did that? "Spirit of the Cap" and all that. No thanks.....................

[JSSkinz]

4 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Good? I'm not sure sure.

Better than 71 million for bad? Yeah, I think we can get behind that. Honestly, back in the spring I would have preferred Colt over Smith. But I don't think Colt is "good".

 

Just remember the last time we did that? "Spirit of the Cap" and all that. No thanks.....................

Yeah but wasn't the issue that we restructured the deal so that we could unload more money in the uncapped year by consolidating all our bad debt to 2010 to take advantage?

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Morneblade said:

 

Good? I'm not sure sure.

Better than 71 million for bad? Yeah, I think we can get behind that. Honestly, back in the spring I would have preferred Colt over Smith. But I don't think Colt is "good".

 

 

 

Step away from the traditional reference to the term "good" when it refers to player that only reflects their skill.

 

"good" doesn't just mean their talent level. It means their talent, their schematic fit, their cap cost, their locker room presence, their availability etc.

 

Saying Colt would have been a "good candidate" doesn't mean that I think he's an all-pro quarterback. Read deeper. His cost combined with his understanding of the scheme and all of that means he would have been a good quarterback candidate for the near future.

 

I also want to point out that I bolded availability there. That's not necessarily re: this QB situation, but the way this roster is built in general. We have a lot of players who have ability, but are missing the most important ability... avail. But that's a topic for a different thread.

[Morneblade]

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Step away from the traditional reference to the term "good" when it refers to player that only reflects their skill.

 

"good" doesn't just mean their talent level. It means their talent, their schematic fit, their cap cost, their locker room presence, their availability etc.

 

Saying Colt would have been a "good candidate" doesn't mean that I think he's an all-pro quarterback. Read deeper. His cost combined with his understanding of the scheme and all of that means he would have been a good quarterback candidate for the near future.

 

I also want to point out that I bolded availability there. That's not necessarily re: this QB situation, but the way this roster is built in general. We have a lot of players who have ability, but are missing the most important ability... avail. But that's a topic for a different thread.

 

Well, part of the issue, availability, has been a problem with Colt in the past. He gets hurt, which is going to affect his availability, right?

 

I would have been ok running with Colt only if there was a immediate plan to have a better QB under center in 1-2 years, max. Not a 3+ year plan, like Alex was (and I also disagree with).

 

I agree with him being a better scheme fit, as well as being very comfortable in the offense. And he is cheap, allowing us to go after other pieces. Everyone likes the guy, another plus. Does he make it through a 16 game season? Dunno, Colt is reckless and injury prone, so you really can't count on him being available.

 

So for me, it's hard to think a guy that is likely going to get hurt, with nothing behind him as being a good solution.

20 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Yeah but wasn't the issue that we restructured the deal so that we could unload more money in the uncapped year by consolidating all our bad debt to 2010 to take advantage?

 

 

I don't know, but is there a big difference? But let me ask you another question.

 

Do you think Mara is NOT going to find a way to **** us raw if we do ANYTHING that is remotely questionable?

[skinny21]

I would assume future guaranteed money is usually waived if a player retires, but since he’s not likely to retire before the (2020) guarantee kicks in at the start of the ‘19 season - i.e. retiring in the next 4 months - we’d owe him through 2020.  

2021 guaranteed money is separate from that though, right?  Hard to imagine still owing him in 2021 though (if he retired in 2019).  

 

I’ll try not to go on about this, but to get it off my chest - I really wish we’d rolled with Colt and drafted a mid rounder.  Our secondary would almost certainly be better with Fuller in the slot, we’d have saved a large cap hit and a 3rd rounder.  Ugh.  Allen should be gone as soon as our season ends, IMO.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

I would assume future guaranteed money is usually waived if a player retires, but since he’s not likely to retire before the (2020) guarantee kicks in at the start of the ‘19 season - i.e. retiring in the next 4 months - we’d owe him through 2020.  

2021 guaranteed money is separate from that though, right?  Hard to imagine still owing him in 2021 though (if he retired in 2019).  

 

I’ll try not to go on about this, but to get it off my chest - I really wish we’d rolled with Colt and drafted a mid rounder.  Our secondary would almost certainly be better with Fuller in the slot, we’d have saved a large cap hit and a 3rd rounder.  Ugh.  Allen should be gone as soon as our season ends, IMO.  

 

 

 

There is no guaranteed money for Alex in 2021. There is however a 5.4 million dollar cap hit in 21' and 22' (pro rated signing bonus). But no other parts of his contract are guaranteed after 2020.

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Morneblade said:

It's really bad. 20 million in dead cap for one player is huge. I don't know what your though process is on that, but it's way off

Here’s my thing, that’s a sunk cost becaus Allen is a complete idiot.  

 

Alex’s contract isn’t a reason to play him or even keep him on the roster if he’s not the best QB on the team.  Don’t compound a bad decision by making more bad decisions.

 

If he comes back and is healthy, assuming Colt plays well, then it’s a competition to see who starts. 

 

Alternatively, if you just want to draft a guy and let colt play, you can do that.  

 

The 20 mil salary cap hit is what it is, but there’s no reason to play a guy who can’t play and lose games because your dumbass GM made a stupid mistake.