Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What is Wrong with Alex Smith?


NoVaSkins21

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

He hasn't been activated yet. Only Byron Marshall.

 

 

I am going off of this... 

 

"We’ll get Trey Quinn back here pretty soon," Gruden said Monday on the Redskins Talk podcast. 

Quinn could be back as early as Week 9 against Atlanta, and it sounds like Gruden expects to see him then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

He hasn't been activated yet. Only Byron Marshall.

And @ThomasRoane mentioned Perriman. Well he's been cut week ago...

 

Well... that's what we have you for WB :)

20 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

I am going off of this... 

 

"We’ll get Trey Quinn back here pretty soon," Gruden said Monday on the Redskins Talk podcast. 

Quinn could be back as early as Week 9 against Atlanta, and it sounds like Gruden expects to see him then.

 

Didn't Bibbs get dinged up?  That may have caused a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Personal perspectice is a critical and most important piece when discussing nuance and probabilities of what a team might do 3 or 4 years down the line. Not surprised to learn we fall on opposite lines in regards to Smith and team’s commitment to him financially lol

 

Yeaahh, I wouldn’t say it’s as much “personal perspective” as it is simply reality when talking about a contract structured to have an easier out after three years for a 34 year old QB. I’m not surprised either, lol. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

I appreciate the information backend outs and ramifications of doing so financially for team. Your opinion is the Skins will get out after year 3 and incur a $13.5mil hit in dead cap. This is what a glut of your argument rests on, correct? If team were to do this (I don’t think they will, but I value Alex at his pay rate) it would appear on the 4th year, not 3rd year, as that calendar season will have already been played. 

 

In essence, if Alex gets cut after year 3, his dead cap hit will be on year 4 (2021). So total money is spread over the 4 years, not 3 years. Again, I don’t think this will happen as Alex will be entering his age 37 season. The new norm is for franchise QBs and others (back ups and journeymen) to continue playing into their 37 and 38 aged seasons, especially those with pedigree of Alex (former #1 pick).

 

You appear here to be correcting me, as if I said the dead cap money would occur in his 3rd year. Sorry, but I never said that. You might want to look over what I posted again. 

 

Here’s where we differ and where you probably got confused, and I think it’s a confusion on your part in terms of some economic principles I’m applying. 

 

It doesn’t make as much sense economically to spread it over 4 years. That dead cap money could’ve and would’ve been used for contracts we signed in 2019 and 2020, so it affects our cap previous to that. Furthermore, in this instance Alex is no longer on the team and he provided his services for only 3 years. So, yes, it makes more sense to view it as $73.7 million over three years of cap space. That’s what you paid to have him for three years, and that final $13.5 million counts against that. 

 

Again, that dead cap is not only affecting us in 2021 and beyond, it affects us before that for someone we are not gaining any benefit from in that year. 

 

I made sure to explain that in my post. That we should account for that dead cap that occurs were we to move on after his 3rd season, that is a solid assumption as to what will happen, and why it affects us previous to that. You ignored all that, unfortunately. ?

 

Furthermore, you consistently bring up the Alex contract in terms of three years, so since that’s what YOU want to do when discussing his “cap percentage”, I think it’s unfair you ignore the potential dead cap as well as the assets lost in the trade. You either don’t talk about his value against the cap, or talk about it while including the entire cost. Your way makes zero sense economically. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

In essence, if Alex gets cut after year 3, his dead cap hit will be on year 4 (2021). So total money is spread over the 4 years, not 3 years. Again, I don’t think this will happen as Alex will be entering his age 37 season. The new norm is for franchise QBs and others (back ups and journeymen) to continue playing into their 37 and 38 aged seasons, especially those with pedigree of Alex (former #1 pick).

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with my assumption versus yours that the organization would want to move on after year 3. The structure of the contract itself suggests it, and I don’t think Alex is the caliber of player that you hold on to into their late thirties. 

 

I don’t agree with your “new norm is for franchise QBs and others (backups and journeymen) to continue playing...” statement, as that’s at best vague and at worst disingenuous.

 

That new norm might only really fit in with top tier franchise QBs. As for backups and journeymen, the vast majority of them are out of the league by then on the aggregate. Those who stay are being paid like backups and journeymen, not anywhere near Alex’s rate right now. So that has nothing to do with anything since he’s neither a top tier franchise QB, nor just a backup journeyman getting paid like that. 

 

A little more nuance needs to be applied to that thinking. It’s not just “welp, I see a bunch of old QBs playing now so that means it applies to Alex and his contract”. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

Your opinion also also eliminates potential forward thinking from team. If Skins cut Alex or he retires after the 4th year and have a 2nd year guy who benefitted from sitting a year and learning from Smith and is being paid a rookie salary of 1-4 million, is that not a good plan?

 

No, my opinion actually includes forward thinking and, unlike yours, isn’t based off of the most unrealistic of expectations. 

 

That sounds like an awful plan to me and likely anyone else who’s got a solid enough read on Alex’s abilities. I really don’t want to see Alex here for a 4th year. It seems like EVERY franchise he plays for can’t wait to move on from him. And, like I said, judging by the contract as it’s setup by the team, neither do they. It’s not an accident they set it up for a more convenient out after three years, as their “forward thinking” includes the likelihood that they’d want out. 

 

Hopefully we get a good rookie prospect in here either next year or in 2020 so we can cut bait by 2021, his fourth year.

 

Your plan suggests that we’d wait until the 2021 draft to nab a rookie, have Alex play his 4th season here, then go into 2022 with our rookie QB. 

 

Hold on while we all collectively puke. :ols:

 

I think the majority of Skins fans are looking forward to us getting some legitimate prospects at QB this upcoming draft or the next at the very latest. Waiting until the 2021 draft with Alex going into his fourth year? I’m confident you’re in the minority there and I’m pretty sure the last thing anyone would label that as would be “forward thinking”. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

—1-4mil (rookie salary) +13.7 (dead cap, if cut after 2020 season) would put Skins at roughly 6-8% of the cap, or thereabouts. 15-18mil for the QB position in year 2021. 

 

—1-4mil (rookie salary) +6.7 (dead cap, if cut after 2121 season) would put Skins at roughly 4-6% of the cap, or thereabouts.

$8-10 mil for the QB position in year 2021

 

This is probably the least sensical thing you said in your entire post. I can hear anyone who has even the most basic understanding of economic principles gasp when reading this. 

 

First, I think you meant to say a 2nd year player after the third year of Alex, not fourth. Because these numbers don’t make sense, then. 

 

Second, in what world do we add dead cap money to anything and call it a good thing or forward thinking? Wouldn’t we rather just NOT have that dead cap space and it’d be even less of a percentage? 

 

But most of all, you’re arguing against yourself. Because while you want to spread the dead cap over a 4 or 5 year period in this case, you acknowledge that we’re paying that premium to have the rookie “learn under Alex” the year prior. So it’s being used for what occurs before it, not after it, like I said. And, like I said, it affects how the team structures any long term contracts they sign before that, as well.

 

Franchises don’t look at cap space on a per year basis, they usually have a 3-5 year lump sum outlook that goes up to their longest-termed contracts. So they know how much they can maneuver and when. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

The team team also has control of Alex for next five seasons, this represents positive value when building a team. Many variables are in teams favor, this why some players are choosing shorter term deals. Alex took a traditional deal that provided long term security for a lower per year salary. Alex himself states he left a few million on table in a per year sense. 

 

*Kirk’s guarantees are spread over 3 years. 

*Alex’s guarantees are spread over 5 years.

 

Kirk will obviously receive new money in year 4 and 5 in relation to Smiths deal. 

 

A team not having control after year 3 is for the teams benefit—- Kirk and reps wanted a shorter term deal to position self to take advantage of new collective bargaining agreement and have the control in relationship with team. Not what a team wants. 

 

Except, one guy is 34 and the other is 30. 

 

And the benefit for the team here is that they can actually get out of the contract with less damage than were they to stay into it. Which is what you’ve been suggesting they won’t want to do. Otherwise, the contract is in the player’s benefit if he’s not as good as his salary and the team is forced to pay it. 

 

So, no, it’s not always as simple as the player wants short term and the team wants long term. Again, you need a bit more nuance applied to your stance. Many players, especially at positions that take a toll on their bodies, want more long term security. It’s not always to their advantage to get out fast. 

 

I think it’s safe to say Alex won this contract big time. It’s what he wanted and what we gave him. And judging by the reports @Skinsinparadise, no other team wanted to do. Very little about this is good for the team economically, especially if his play doesn’t improve considerably. If he ends up improving to where he’s putting up top 15 numbers consistently, then there’ll be some relief, but even that wouldn’t change the 3 year outlook as it gets very dangerous to assume he’ll continue at that level, especially when his athleticism is a big part of his game. 

 

6 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

The traditional Smith deal is what a team prefers, as it provides outs in backend with minimal losses. The team will have leverage to restructure contract in later seasons when guarantees in that year are much lower——-> We agree! 

 

Can careless about the Fuller trade when discussing Smiths contract value. For me, it has no meaning to me as it relates to this discussion. My opinion. 

 

 

Lol, you are all over the place, man. You spent the entire time arguing about how good it is we can keep him for a 4th year and that your “personal perspective” differs from mind in that we will, then end it saying we agree about how it’s nice for the team be able to get out after 3 years. :ols: 

 

And if you care less about losing Fuller and a 3rd round pick when discussing Alex’s contract and value to the team, then I have no idea why you decided to even respond. You aren’t anywhere close to looking at this in terms of basic economics and team-building, which is what I’m doing. You’re simply saying “I like Alex and everything this team does, here’s my attempt in justifying that”. 

 

I mean, come on now. You can’t throw out that trade when talking about what Alex costs the team (to no fault of his own, of course). Really!? :( 

4 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

That 13.5m looks incorrect to me. That is a 2/4ths of his 27mil signing bonus I believe, which can't be right as it starts to kick in from year 1, leaving 10.8mil after year 3, being 2/5ths of 27mil.

 

Take it up with them here:

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/alex-smith-3337/

 

They’re usually correct, so I’ve got no reason to question it. Might be something to the contract you’re missing. 

 

Either way, it’s still a significant chunk that shouldn’t be overlooked when discussing Alex being here over the next three seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Take it up with them here:

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/alex-smith-3337/

 

They’re usually correct, so I’ve got no reason to question it. Might be something to the contract you’re missing. 

 

Overthecap has it correct. Spotrac is wrong. 

 

I'm just adding the factually correct information to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they'd need to take any cap hit to deal Smith.  There's always plenty of teams that will take an Alex Smith or lesser player as their starting QB.  The talk about dead cap space doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Historically, Alex Smith doesn't come into a new system and blow out the first year.  He doesn't lose you games, rather, he wins you games. Look no further then his first year in KC which is what he's on pace for... 11 wins, 3,300 passing yards, 23 TD's 7 INT's.   That's basically what he's doing now.  Right now, he's trending up slightly with more successful targeting of Reed and Doctson. 

 

I'm not thrilled with A.Smith, like most and I'm also not disappointed because he's winning.  Just keep Trending Up A.Smith!!  

 

If you look at the more expensive alternative (Cousins), Vikes are 4-3-1  (a tie in the NFL is as good as a loss unless you go 10+wins), Cousins has turned the ball over 9 Times...4 INT's and 5 Lost Fumbles.  His turnovers have cost them games....but we all knew this about him.  His 2,500 yards and 16 TD's essentially don't mean **** unless you're talking Fantasy Football.  Stats show that teams that Tie don't have a very good chance at making the playoffs.  Since this year there are already 4 Teams with Ties, statistics since 1970 indicate that only 1 of those 4 teams will make the playoffs if they win over 10 games.  Steelers are the only team on pace to do that...so there you have it.  Odds are the Vikings and Packers won't make the playoffs.  With a look at their schedule I'd suspect that the Vikings likely go .500

 

I'm sticking with the Alex Smith trend.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Overthecap has it correct. Spotrac is wrong. 

 

I'm just adding the factually correct information to the discussion.

 

You didn’t say that in the post I responded to. Could’ve just linked to that and I would’ve accepted it. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zskins said:

 

I am going off of this... 

 

"We’ll get Trey Quinn back here pretty soon," Gruden said Monday on the Redskins Talk podcast. 

Quinn could be back as early as Week 9 against Atlanta, and it sounds like Gruden expects to see him then.

I know I've read those articles as I've posted them in BHRBN.

 

But since then there hasn't been any talk about that. And considering #treyQuinnSZN, if he was to be activated, they would be talking about it. Which is not the case right now. So this story seems to have cool down by itself. Maybe we'll know more about it next week.

 

The most interesting part here is that there was no leaks of Marshall coming back prior to this. So from a PR standpoint, that makes it surprising. As I doubt opposing teams would care much about the activation of Marshall over Quinn. Marshall probably won't play much, while Quinn could be on extensive duty with all our banged up WRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

I know I've read those articles as I've posted them in BHRBN.

 

But since then there hasn't been any talk about that. And considering #treyQuinnSZN, if he was to be activated, they would be talking about it. Which is not the case right now. So this story seems to have cool down by itself. Maybe we'll know more about it next week.

 

The most interesting part here is that there was no leaks of Marshall coming back prior to this. So from a PR standpoint, that makes it surprising. As I doubt opposing teams would care much about the activation of Marshall over Quinn. Marshall probably won't play much, while Quinn could be on extensive duty with all our banged up WRs.

 

Finlay if I recall had a post recently that I thought said Quinn will be back against the Texans.

 

Actually I misremembered, it was Hoffman

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

You appear here to be correcting me, as if I said the dead cap money would occur in his 3rd year. Sorry, but I never said that. You might want to look over what I posted again. 

 

It appears so. 

Quote

 

 

Here’s where we differ and where you probably got confused, and I think it’s a confusion on your part in terms of some economic principles I’m applying. 

 

It doesn’t make as much sense economically to spread it over 4 years. That dead cap money could’ve and would’ve been used for contracts we signed in 2019 and 2020, so it affects our cap previous to that. Furthermore, in this instance Alex is no longer on the team and he provided his services for only 3 years. So, yes, it makes more sense to view it as $73.7 million over three years of cap space. That’s what you paid to have him for three years, and that final $13.5 million counts against that. 

 

I don’t agree with economic principle being applied. It’s common place and expected by NFL teams to incur dead cap year to year. Yes, the goal is to have the least amount as possible, but Smiths $10.8mil remaining is harmless. 

 

Also, understand we’re having discussion under premise the relationship doesn’t work out. You appear convinced it’s not going to, Im not. 

Quote

 

Again, that dead cap is not only affecting us in 2021 and beyond, it affects us before that for someone we are not gaining any benefit from in that year. 

 

I made sure to explain that in my post. That we should account for that dead cap that occurs were we to move on after his 3rd season, that is a solid assumption as to what will happen, and why it affects us previous to that. You ignored all that, ?

 

 

I did get confused. Your attempt to decrease gap of Kirks 84mil guaranteed in 3 years and Smiths “$73.7” (its $71mil) guaranteed over 5 years through me off. My fault. I don’t agree with this line of thinking. I believe Alex will be around for duration of contract. 

Quote

 

 

Furthermore, you consistently bring up the Alex contract in terms of three years, so since that’s what YOU want to do when discussing his “cap percentage”, I think it’s unfair you ignore the potential dead cap as well as the assets lost in the trade. You either don’t talk about his value against the cap, or talk about it while including the entire cost. Your way makes zero sense economically. 

 

I often shared 3 year numbers with understanding so much will take place in future years with new deals and contracts. Smiths contract value gains in value as years  stack up. 

 

Quote

 

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with my assumption versus yours that the organization would want to move on after year 3. The structure of the contract itself suggests it, and I don’t think Alex is the caliber of player that you hold on to into their late thirties.

 

All opinion. I disagree. 

Quote

 

 

 

I don’t agree with your “new norm is for franchise QBs and others (backups and journeymen) to continue playing...” statement, as that’s at best vague and at worst disingenuous.

 

Disingenuous? Alex Smith signed a 5 year extension with 71million guaranteed spread over 5 years at his age 34 season. Is this a sign of a guy headed towards retirement or someone lacking employment opportunity. Alex will be playing into late 30s. Yes, that’s my guess, but hearing him talk, the deal signed leads me to believe he plans to continue playing. 

 

Quote

 

That new norm might only really fit in with top tier franchise QBs. As for backups and journeymen, the vast majority of them are out of the league by then on the aggregate. Those who stay are being paid like backups and journeymen, not anywhere near Alex’s rate right now. So that has nothing to do with anything since he’s neither a top tier franchise QB, nor just a backup journeyman getting paid like that. 

 

A little more nuance needs to be applied to that thinking. It’s not just “welp, I see a bunch of old QBs playing now so that means it applies to Alex and his contract”. 

 

You disagree QBs are playing longer these days? Alex just signed a 5 year extensions going into his age 34 season. He will play into his late 30s. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

No, my opinion actually includes forward thinking and, unlike yours, isn’t based off of the most unrealistic of expectations. 

 

That sounds like an awful plan to me and likely anyone else who’s got a solid enough read on Alex’s abilities. I really don’t want to see Alex here for a 4th year. It seems like EVERY franchise he plays for can’t wait to move on from him. And, like I said, judging by the contract as it’s setup by the team, neither do they. It’s not an accident they set it up for a more convenient out after three years, as their “forward thinking” includes the likelihood that they’d want out. 

 

All opinion. I disagree. 

Quote

 

Hopefully we get a good rookie prospect in here either next year or in 2020 so we can cut bait by 2021, his fourth year.

 

Perspective is critical. I have believed in direction of roster for last 3 years and have felt team would have a chance to compete for a playoff spot. This perspective led me to being open to the Smith trade. 

 

I completely understand those who voiced displeasure with roster and it’s potential for next 2-3 years and those feelings not aligning with paying a guy like Smith. 

 

I had zero interest in starting a rookie QB this year or starting over, but I believe in the roster.

 

This perspective has led me to being good with the Alex signing and vision of FO to maximize aging studs/solid vets on roster (Williams, Norman, Kerrigan, Reed, Brown, Foster, Moses) and maximize younger talent on rookie or cash friendly deals (DJ, DLINE, Thompson, Dunbar, Scherff, P Smith). 

 

Quote

 

Your plan suggests that we’d wait until the 2021 draft to nab a rookie, have Alex play his 4th season here, then go into 2022 with our rookie QB. 

 

Hold on while we all collectively puke.

 

Draft a rookie whenever, but love the value of a guy sitting under Smith for 1,2, or 3 years. I value this kind of stuff, the intangibles... its not a right or wrong. 

Quote

 

I think the majority of Skins fans are looking forward to us getting some legitimate prospects at QB this upcoming draft or the next at the very latest. Waiting until the 2021 draft with Alex going into his fourth year? I’m confident you’re in the minority there and I’m pretty sure the last thing anyone would label that as would be “forward thinking”. 

 

Once again, I like the value of a guy sitting under and learning from Smith. I don’t want the Skins to draft a QB in rounds 1 or two next year. Stockpile the talent and might be a contender next year. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

This is probably the least sensical thing you said in your entire post. I can hear anyone who has even the most basic understanding of economic principles gasp when reading this. 

 

It’s easy to say it’s non sensical with position you’ve provided yourself in this discussion we are having. You’re coming from a make believe angle the Skins are going to want to get out of deal. I’m attempting to discuss normal damage control if that were to take place. 

 

But yes go ahead and rip my position from your make believe NFL world of zero dead cap. 

Quote

 

First, I think you meant to say a 2nd year player after the third year of Alex, not fourth. Because these numbers don’t make sense, then. 

 

Second, in what world do we add dead cap money to anything and call it a good thing or forward thinking? Wouldn’t we rather just NOT have that dead cap space and it’d be even less of a percentage? 

 

 I’m having a discussion as if Smith didn’t work out and team wanted an out. I dont believe this will happen. Dead cap is a part of the NFL. 

Quote

 

But most of all, you’re arguing against yourself. Because while you want to spread the dead cap over a 4 or 5 year period in this case, you acknowledge that we’re paying that premium to have the rookie “learn under Alex” the year prior. So it’s being used for what occurs before it, not after it, like I said. And, like I said, it affects how the team structures any long term contracts they sign before that, as well.

 

Franchises don’t look at cap space on a per year basis, they usually have a 3-5 year lump sum outlook that goes up to their longest-termed contracts. So they know how much they can maneuver and when. 

It’s clear in my view the Skins were insistent on having the deal be no more than 10% of the YEARLY cap. I support this line of thinking, as I don’t believe QBs 8-25 move the needle consistently enough to warrant top pay. 

 

Quote

 

 

Except, one guy is 34 and the other is 30. 

 

And the benefit for the team here is that they can actually get out of the contract with less damage than were they to stay into it. Which is what you’ve been suggesting they won’t want to do. Otherwise, the contract is in the player’s benefit if he’s not as good as his salary and the team is forced to pay it. 

 

So, no, it’s not always as simple as the player wants short term and the team wants long term. Again, you need a bit more nuance applied to your stance. Many players, especially at positions that take a toll on their bodies, want more long term security. It’s not always to their advantage to get out fast. 

 

Kirks deal was first of its kind. It allows Kirk to maintain leverage throughout the 3 years. Larger deals in many cases allow teams to gain more control in years 4 and 5, due to the guarantees being gone. Kirk eliminated this possibility for the Vikings. Good for him. 

 

The player loses control in later years of long term deals. Once the guaranteed money dries up the team has more control. 

Quote

 

I think it’s safe to say Alex won this contract big time. It’s what he wanted and what we gave him. And judging by the reports @Skinsinparadise, no other team wanted to do. Very little about this is good for the team economically, especially if his play doesn’t improve considerably. If he ends up improving to where he’s putting up top 15 numbers consistently, then there’ll be some relief, but even that wouldn’t change the 3 year outlook as it gets very dangerous to assume he’ll continue at that level, especially when his athleticism is a big part of his game. 

 

I disagree. The Skins provided long term stability to Alex and received a lower per year salary (average of 10% or less of cap each year). Clearly a goal of the organization. Time will tell on Alex, I’ll grant you that. 

Quote

 

 

Lol, you are all over the place, man. You spent the entire time arguing about how good it is we can keep him for a 4th year and that your “personal perspective” differs from mind in that we will, then end it saying we agree about how it’s nice for the team be able to get out after 3 years. :ols: 

 

Once again, I was defending a position of Smiths situation now working out. The “get out” terms aren’t bad in my view is what I was agreeing to. Years 4 and 5 total $10.8mil owed, not bad. 

 

Lol...

I take full responsibility for a messy response. You guys do this from your phones as well? Difficult ha

Quote

 

And if you care less about losing Fuller and a 3rd round pick when discussing Alex’s contract and value to the team, then I have no idea why you decided to even respond. You aren’t anywhere close to looking at this in terms of basic economics and team-building, which is what I’m doing. You’re simply saying “I like Alex and everything this team does, here’s my attempt in justifying that”. 

 

Stuff happens. Kirk left. Team did best to get a guy in to replace him. Fuller came at this expense. 

 

Yes, I’m on side of Skins are doing a great job of being fiscally responsible, valuing draft picks, developing younger cheaper players, consistency through organization. You have made it clear over the years you’re not. We’ll see. 5-2 is pretty awesome though, riiiight? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 12:14 AM, TheShredder said:

I don't think they'd need to take any cap hit to deal Smith.  There's always plenty of teams that will take an Alex Smith or lesser player as their starting QB.  The talk about dead cap space doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Historically, Alex Smith doesn't come into a new system and blow out the first year.  He doesn't lose you games, rather, he wins you games. Look no further then his first year in KC which is what he's on pace for... 11 wins, 3,300 passing yards, 23 TD's 7 INT's.   That's basically what he's doing now.  Right now, he's trending up slightly with more successful targeting of Reed and Doctson. 

 

I'm not thrilled with A.Smith, like most and I'm also not disappointed because he's winning.  Just keep Trending Up A.Smith!!  

 

If you look at the more expensive alternative (Cousins), Vikes are 4-3-1  (a tie in the NFL is as good as a loss unless you go 10+wins), Cousins has turned the ball over 9 Times...4 INT's and 5 Lost Fumbles.  His turnovers have cost them games....but we all knew this about him.  His 2,500 yards and 16 TD's essentially don't mean **** unless you're talking Fantasy Football.  Stats show that teams that Tie don't have a very good chance at making the playoffs.  Since this year there are already 4 Teams with Ties, statistics since 1970 indicate that only 1 of those 4 teams will make the playoffs if they win over 10 games.  Steelers are the only team on pace to do that...so there you have it.  Odds are the Vikings and Packers won't make the playoffs.  With a look at their schedule I'd suspect that the Vikings likely go .500

 

I'm sticking with the Alex Smith trend.  Cheers!

 

Smith has dropped back to pass just 241 times, fumbled 6 times, and thrown 2 interceptions. He therefore is producing a potential turnover on 3.32% (8/241) of his dropbacks.

 

Cousins has dropped back to pass 364 times, fumbled 7 times, and thrown 4 interceptions. He therefore is producing a potential turnover on 3.02% (11/364) of his dropbacks. In addition to being about ~10% more cautious with the ball, Cousins is also producing about 8% more yards per attempt and 34% more touchdowns per attempt.

 

Your perception of Smith being less turnover prone this season is almost entirely driven by the fact that he's dropped back for ~33% fewer passes than Cousins. This is due to the Redskins' defense and running game helping us establish early leads, leading to a lower volume of pass attempts. The Vikings defense and running game have been virtually non-existent, which has resulted in a lot of passing by Cousins. Despite having had to drop back to pass more than any other QB in the league this year, Cousins still has a winning record. That is quite an accomplishment. Generally speaking, leading the league in pass attempts is correlated with having a losing record (unless you are an elite QB like Tom Brady).

 

That being said, Cousins has not had a particularly great year. He's having a career low in yards per attempt and is continuing his poor sack-taking rate from last year. I'd also like to see him keep the ball on more read-option plays - he is athletic enough to do damage there, and I don't feel like the the defense is respecting his threat to run on those plays (which partly makes him such an effective read option threat in the red zone).

 

But he is being more careful with the football than Smith.

 

Even if Smith were being more careful with the ball than Cousins, I would strongly hesitate to put as much emphasis on turnovers as you do. Not turning the football over is important - sure, that's a given. But there's a balance that a QB needs to take between taking risks and not taking risks. I don't think many people here (as well as on our coaching staff) are happy with the balance that Alex is striking this season, and many would prefer to see a balance closer to what Kirk was able to do over the past few years (assuming that it also results in more explosive plays overall).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

 

I don’t agree with economic principle being applied. It’s common place and expected by NFL teams to incur dead cap year to year. Yes, the goal is to have the least amount as possible, but Smiths $10.8mil remaining is harmless. 

 

Also, understand we’re having discussion under premise the relationship doesn’t work out. You appear convinced it’s not going to, Im not. 

 

It’s been some time since I really dug into a debate here... so I’ve got some built up energy to expend, lol. This’ll be fun. 

 

For someone who is so concerned with "overpaying average to above average" QBs, I'm surprised you call $10.8 million of cap space harmless. No, it's not. Like you said, the goal is to have the least amount possible, so the fact that it's a very real possibility should be discussed and should be included in any talk of what Alex costs over three years.  

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

 

I did get confused. Your attempt to decrease gap of Kirks 84mil guaranteed in 3 years and Smiths “$73.7” (its $71mil) guaranteed over 5 years through me off. My fault. I don’t agree with this line of thinking. I believe Alex will be around for duration of contract. 

 

The fact that you consider what I said an "attempt" to "decrease the gap" of Kirk's contract and Alex's says a lot. The only thing I "attempted" was to introduce a basic economic principle in that one should discuss every factor that goes into Alex's contract, including the dead cap as well as the assets we lost to acquire him from KC. I compared it, at the end, to Kirk's contract since it's constantly brought up by those, like you, who "attempt" to increase the gap and act like Alex is this massive bargain over the course of the next three years.

 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

I often shared 3 year numbers with understanding so much will take place in future years with new deals and contracts. Smiths contract value gains in value as years  stack up. 

 

 

So my entire point is that after three years, it's likely we'll move on from Alex both based on the structure of the contract itself along with his value as a QB and finally his age. Here, you're essentially admitting that after the 3 year period much will likely change. You just don't want to accept that the most reasonable position to hold is that we'll move on. There is plenty evidence to suggest that's what will happen, including the history of contracts similar to his. 

 

Smith's contract doesn't gain value as the years stack up because his price also goes up in 4th and 5th years considerably.  

 

Either way, even if you don’t accept that as the most reasonable position, you still need to include the entire cost when discussing his contract over a three year period versus a four  or five year period, as doing so leaves out significant cap ramifications as well as what we’ve lost in acquiring him. 

 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

All opinion. I disagree. 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

All opinion. I disagree. 

 

You wrote the above twice. Aside from this being extremely annoying, I hope you can understand that this is a discussion board where the majority of posts are opinion-based. The question is, which opinion is presented with more evidence and/or is more objective and/or well-grounded? Writing stuff like the above does nothing to further the discussion. Just ignore the points if you don't want to address them, but this type of posting here violates two of our rules (3 & 12), though not necessarily in an egregious manner, so no worries.  

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Disingenuous? Alex Smith signed a 5 year extension with 71million guaranteed spread over 5 years at his age 34 season. Is this a sign of a guy headed towards retirement or someone lacking employment opportunity. Alex will be playing into late 30s. Yes, that’s my guess, but hearing him talk, the deal signed leads me to believe he plans to continue playing. 

 

I said vague at best, disingenuous at worst. Hopefully you were just too vague and/or general for me.

 

This isn't about Alex's plans. I'm sure he'd love to play until he was 50. But he's not the kind of guy you want to pay the type of money that contract has for him in his 4th and 5th year just on his abilities alone. Factor in his age and, yes, it becomes very difficult to see him here after 3 years. I’m not applying some innovative or unique ideas to contracts that have guaranteed versus non-guaranteed years in them. 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

You disagree QBs are playing longer these days? Alex just signed a 5 year extensions going into his age 34 season. He will play into his late 30s. 

 

I'm not going to even reiterate what I said here, just going to post what I said so you can read it again: 

 

Quote

That new norm might only really fit in with top tier franchise QBs. As for backups and journeymen, the vast majority of them are out of the league by then on the aggregate. Those who stay are being paid like backups and journeymen, not anywhere near Alex’s rate right now. So that has nothing to do with anything since he’s neither a top tier franchise QB, nor just a backup journeyman getting paid like that. 

 

A little more nuance needs to be applied to that thinking. It’s not just “welp, I see a bunch of old QBs playing now so that means it applies to Alex and his contract”. 

 

There's no way your take away should've been something as simple as "you disagree QBs are playing longer these days?", after reading that. 

 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Perspective is critical. I have believed in direction of roster for last 3 years and have felt team would have a chance to compete for a playoff spot. This perspective led me to being open to the Smith trade. 

 

I completely understand those who voiced displeasure with roster and it’s potential for next 2-3 years and those feelings not aligning with paying a guy like Smith. 

 

I had zero interest in starting a rookie QB this year or starting over, but I believe in the roster.

 

This perspective has led me to being good with the Alex signing and vision of FO to maximize aging studs/solid vets on roster (Williams, Norman, Kerrigan, Reed, Brown, Foster, Moses) and maximize younger talent on rookie or cash friendly deals (DJ, DLINE, Thompson, Dunbar, Scherff, P Smith). 

 

You are conflating two issues here incorrectly. One can both be satisfied with the direction of the roster overall while being frustrated at the trade in terms of resource management. The latter is also separate, to a degree, from how Alex is viewed as a QB. I mean, are you saying that being satisfied overall means no one can recognize any faults or mistakes made on the way? 

 

Not sure why this was brought up at all as the focus has been about including the dead cap involved in Alex's contract along with the assets given up to acquire him when looking at his total cost over a three year period. 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Draft a rookie whenever, but love the value of a guy sitting under Smith for 1,2, or 3 years. I value this kind of stuff, the intangibles... its not a right or wrong. 

 

That's ok to value those intangibles, but I'd hesitate to say a rookie would need to sit under Smith for more than one year. Jay has already shown an ability to develop QBs quickly with Dalton and we've seen Mahomes need no more than a year to gain whatever he needed to from Smith, if that was even a thing at all. 

 

So, yeah, I shudder at the nonchalance of your statement there to "draft a rookie whenever". I think it's a bit more urgent than that, and with good reason. 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Once again, I like the value of a guy sitting under and learning from Smith. I don’t want the Skins to draft a QB in rounds 1 or two next year. Stockpile the talent and might be a contender next year. 

 

I think it's important we address the position as soon as we can, but I'm a proponent of a pretty extreme version of BPA where I assign very little weight to need (I believe need is much more of a factor within Free Agency, as do most teams when they discuss this, including ours), so I definitely wouldn't want to go into a draft saying "we need to spend a 1st or 2nd" or whatever.

 

I'd hope the FO recognizes where someone they like at QB will go and assesses the value of ensuring they get him, whether that means trading up for him or not. It just may be that they properly recognize they can wait for a guy later on that they really like. So, basically, it all depends. 

 

But the idea here that you're espousing is certainly contrary to that. You're essentially fixing them into a position where they simply don't take one no matter what. I think that's incredibly foolish and short-sighted. If a guy they believe can be a franchise QB for years to come falls to them, they'd be incredibly stupid to not select him because of some predetermined notion of "not drafting a QB in rounds 1 or 2". 

 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

It’s easy to say it’s non sensical with position you’ve provided yourself in this discussion we are having. You’re coming from a make believe angle the Skins are going to want to get out of deal. I’m attempting to discuss normal damage control if that were to take place. 

 

But yes go ahead and rip my position from your make believe NFL world of zero dead cap. 

 

Make believe? My goodness. It's a totally reasonable assumption that Alex will be here for three years and no more. The structure of the contract itself suggests that along with the other factors I've previously stated. 

 

So, according to you, I'm ripping your position from my "...make believe NFL world of zero dead cap". I mean, what!?

 

You're all over the place, honestly. We are NOT discussing how much dead cap is reasonable for an NFL franchise to carry within a year. If we were, then maybe I can see where you're coming from. You yourself have stated that the lesser the better, obviously, so taking ANY amount of dead cap from ANYONE'S contract into account when discussing their cap hits is significant. 

 

You've went from discussing Alex's cap hit within a three year window (which is where I posited the very reasonable economics of including his dead cap hit that occurs immediately after) to discussing his contract as a 4-5 year deal. Those are two different discussions with different numbers involved. We'll get to that.    

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

 I’m having a discussion as if Smith didn’t work out and team wanted an out. I dont believe this will happen. Dead cap is a part of the NFL. 

Quote

 

Yes, dead cap is indeed a part of the NFL. It's also a part of Alex's contract specifically. Hence, this discussion. :) 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

It’s clear in my view the Skins were insistent on having the deal be no more than 10% of the YEARLY cap. I support this line of thinking, as I don’t believe QBs 8-25 move the needle consistently enough to warrant top pay. 

 

 

I have no idea where you get that from. That is total speculation on your part and you don't even give any evidence of that. You just say "it's clear in my view". Why? 

 

It's just as likely that Alex is not worth a single penny more than they paid him and that he maximized his value. We don't know if the Skins even negotiated at all what the price would be to bring it down to what is acceptable to them. We do know, from reliable sources, that another team didn't want to pay him as much as we were willing to. 

 

As far as this very weird and arbitrary ranking you keep mentioning about QBs 8-25... man, that is, uhm, weird and arbitrary to be totally redundant. :ols:

 

There are so many problems with it I don't even know where to begin. 

 

First, who are these QBs in your mind that rank there? 

 

Second, to think the value of QB #8 is anywhere near the value of QB #25 in terms of "moving the needle" is outrageously simplistic and would be devastating to any FO who applied that line of thinking. Imagine a GM saying “meh, pay QB #25 about the same as QB #8, doesn’t make much of a difference either way”. ? 

 

I’d imagine him being instantly fired. 

 

For instance, there's no way we made the Alex trade and paid him what we did thinking he's going to be around QBs #20-25. I find it utterly confounding that someone like you who's been constantly proliferating his fear about overpaying "average to above average" QBs has no problem overpaying for one that has played below average thus far.

 

Now, I get that we all hope Alex will improve, and I believe he will as well, but right now it should be a major concern, right? Shouldn't you be real worried we've got a below average QB (according to your own words) right now at a price you think is average (disagree with that myself, but for the sake of this argument)? And, if you aren't worried, doesn't that belie your entire philosophy, since you're just happy we're 5-2 and overpaying him hasn't hurt us, which means the whole "overpaying" thing you constantly harp on is way overblown? 

 

Finally, you're viewing these QBs as totally static entities versus the dynamic ones they are in reality. QB #8 can become QB #5; and QB #20 can become QB #25; and QB #13 can become QB #7 or regress to QB #19; etc... 

 

A good Front Office will operate with foresight, valuing what players will become and paying them accordingly versus what players have been without projection. They’ll also recognize strengths and weaknesses properly so as to surround them with personnel that highlights those strengths and minimizes those weaknesses. Which increases their chances of progression. 

 

I'll just leave it there, though. There are a ton of reasons I can get into why this obsession you have with "QBs 8-25 not moving the needle enough" is, again, weird and arbitrary.      

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

 

Kirks deal was first of its kind. It allows Kirk to maintain leverage throughout the 3 years. Larger deals in many cases allow teams to gain more control in years 4 and 5, due to the guarantees being gone. Kirk eliminated this possibility for the Vikings. Good for him. 

 

The player loses control in later years of long term deals. Once the guaranteed money dries up the team has more control. 

 

Anyone paying attention will recognize that Kirk's deal isn't really that ground-breaking, especially once the novelty of the phrase “the first fully guaranteed contract ever” wore off.

 

The reality is, most NFL contracts are for 2-3 years. After that, most contracts either get renegotiated or the team moves on as they enter the non-guaranteed portion of the contract.

 

Furthermore, that non-guaranteed portion of the contract usually has pretty hefty yearly sums in it. For instance, Alex's contract in his 4th year goes up about 35% in terms of cap hit when compared to his first year cap hit and about 12% more from his third year - in other words, it's a significant chunk of change and likely as much, if not more, than he'd get as an unrestricted FA. 

 

So, sure, does Kirk get to hit unrestricted FA at the end of three years and maximize his worth? Yes. But acting like he wouldn't have been paid a lot more anyway that year, or that he wouldn't be able to renegotiate, or even that the team might want to move on at that point is naive to say the least.  

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

I disagree. The Skins provided long term stability to Alex and received a lower per year salary (average of 10% or less of cap each year). Clearly a goal of the organization. Time will tell on Alex, I’ll grant you that. 

Quote

 

I don't know where you're getting "10% or less". Over the Cap has it at 10.4% or more every year. Minor nitpick, I know, but let's fix it before @UK SKINS FAN '74comes storming in. :P

 

 Maybe I should get all snarky and say something like "in your attempt to increase the gap between Kirk and Alex's contract", but I won't. ;)   

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Once again, I was defending a position of Smiths situation now working out. The “get out” terms aren’t bad in my view is what I was agreeing to. Years 4 and 5 total $10.8mil owed, not bad. 

 

Lol...

I take full responsibility for a messy response. You guys do this from your phones as well? Difficult ha

 

The interesting thing here is I didn't actually state whether it was good or bad, I just said it's important that we include that amount when discussing Alex's cap hits for the next three years. Now, I think it's horrendous as a whole when you take into everything we've spent on the position from 2016 and on, but I digress.

 

 If we're going to look at it in terms of a three year contract, then the dead cap hit in the 4th year absolutely matters as it's part of the portion guaranteed to him and we're only benefiting from his services for those three years. 

 

If we're looking at it in terms of a 4 year or 5 year deal, then suddenly the AAV that @Morneblade was unjustly criticized for posting is actually more correct. Because then Alex's deal suddenly becomes worth more than a total of $71 million guaranteed (including the dead cap), it becomes a total of $90 million for 4 years (including $5.4 million dead cap) or $111 million for 5 years (no dead cap since that's the full term). The non-guaranteed portion becomes a part of the contract. 

 

Do you see the difference? It's economically unjustified to jump all over the place and talk about Alex's contract either as a three year deal or more than that without including the total costs (and, yes, the assets given up in the trade should absolutely be included).  

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Stuff happens. Kirk left. Team did best to get a guy in to replace him. Fuller came at this expense. 

 

 

Seems like a lot of "stuff happens", often unprecedented and just as often an unnecessary hindrance, when it comes to the Skins' top executives. ;) 

 

I mean, geez, what's the point of this if you're just going to throw out comments like "stuff happens" and downplay anything that doesn't fit into the positive reinforcement you're looking for? Oh well, Fuller, oh well, 3rd rounder, oh well dead cap, oh well Alex is playing well below average or worse right now, meh meh meh, stuff happens. 

 

Come on, now. ? 

 

On 11/2/2018 at 1:05 PM, wit33 said:

Yes, I’m on side of Skins are doing a great job of being fiscally responsible, valuing draft picks, developing younger cheaper players, consistency through organization. You have made it clear over the years you’re not. We’ll see. 5-2 is pretty awesome though, riiiight? 

 

Again, you're doing some serious conflating of positions here. I’m not even sure why you’re bringing this up in a thread about Alex, but ok.

 

I’m going to address this point by point since you went there because I've liked the direction of this roster before you ever started posting here consistently. Maybe you should try really getting a grasp of where I'm coming from and going through the posting history before you tell me what I've made clear? I'm going to provide links to some of those posts so you can do just that. 

 

In terms of being fiscally responsible, I think the FO under Bruce has actually been irresponsible there more often than we think. No, they don't go crazy in Free Agency and spend big on over the hill players like they used to, but they do give out too many contracts to bargain bin players who end up contributing little value and, on the aggregate, take up a considerable amount of cap space. Instead of quality it’s quantity, so it’s not like they’re actually saving. The positive is that we can generally get out of those contracts easily, but the problem is that the collective production from those players doesn’t amount to the cap space they take up, never mind that it can delay the development of other younger players as they take up reps. 

 

And, of course, two franchise tags in a row at the QB position is anything but "fiscally responsible". So it's definitely a lot more nuanced than just, "oh, they're being fiscally responsible". In some ways, yes, in others, heck no! 

 

Valuing draft picks? That's been pretty good overall as has been our college scouting the last few years. I've never stated otherwise and was probably one of the most ecstatic members on this board when we selected interior Dlinemen in the 1st round the last couple years. Still, I'd like to see someone within the organization who excels at personnel-evaluating be able to implement an overarching vision and build the team accordingly. I think it's important it all ties together, and there’s so much more to team-building than just hitting on draft picks (for example, Payne is the perfect complement to Allen since one is better at occupying blocks and space while the other is better at winning one on ones, that’s the kind of stuff we need more of). Hence why most successful organizations have that kind of a person leading the charge. 

 

Developing younger players? No one on this board has defended Jay Gruden and his staff more than I have. One of the most significant justifications I give for said defense is the fact that they've excelled at developing younger players.

 

Consistency through the organization? Again, in some ways, yes, in others no. Hiring a GM, firing that GM, then not replacing that position shouldn't ever be considered a display of "consistency". Jay getting saddled with RG3, having to wait until Scot convinces Dan to start Kirk, and then losing the guy he developed after two consecutive franchise tags is not “organizational consistency” (and I think the QB can be considered an “organizational” figure, or as many like to label it, “the face of the franchise”). They’ve improved their college scouting department considerably, so that’s good. It seems like they’ve elevated the right people as well within the scouting department like Kyle Smith, which is key and certainly helps maintain consistency. But that took far, far too long under Bruce. He’s going on 9 years here! 

 

Can get into a lot more about that, but I’ll just leave it there. 

 

After the 2015 season, I was okay with the roster moves because I viewed us as still within the building phase of establishing a stronger core/depth. I understood that it was more important to build that core/depth than attack positions of weakness, like the Dline, because we were too far away from being a complete roster anyway. We just needed to improve where we can as the opportunities presented themselves. However, I, along with quite a few others, recognized just how lacking our Dline was in terms of resources put into it. We saw that as a major problem going into the 2016 season and that panned out.

 

Unfortunately, the other spots on the defense I thought would be strengths with certain players like Spaight and Everett panning out ended up failing, too. In the end, our defense suffered considerably and so did the entire team as a result. The difference is, none of that came as a real surprise to us so we weren’t losing our minds when we missed the playoffs. 

 

Moving on to the 2017 offseason, this is where I felt the roster was at a point where it was solid enough in most areas, maintain the roster as is (losing one of Djax or Garcon was assumed) and that we just needed to aggressively address the Dline and solve the running game be it via a dynamic back or more help on the Oline.

 

It was frustrating to see that not happen.

 

Instead, we let both Djax and Garcon go. We signed McGee and McClain instead of a legitimate difference maker at the position. Suffice to say, it was disappointing and panned out as expected. We were extremely fortunate Jonathan Allen fell to us in the draft, but that was really dangerous to go into it assuming we’d be able to get him. That is not a way to live as a Front Office. And we saw how fast the fall off occurred as soon as he got hurt, which proved once again that the resources put into the position was lacking. 

 

What’s frustrating is that we could’ve been a contender much earlier than we are now, and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to see it. It just took better executive leadership from Allen to where they understood the moment and got slightly more aggressive. Knowing when to strike and when not to is important. Being flexible enough to adapt no matter what your core philosophy is about is key to any successful operation. 

 

Which brings me to my final point. When you ask me if I’m happy we’re 5-2, I’ve got to say, that just comes off as straight up trolling. I mean, really? Of course I am! Why are you bringing that up in a thread about Alex’s issues right now? What does that have to do with anything? Did I post elsewhere suggesting I’m unhappy? For God’s sake, my first post in months was out of excitement regarding the trade for Ha Ha! 

 

I recognize that the biggest reason for our record has been the defensive play, and specifically the Dline. The next would be Adrian Peterson. Now look up at what I told you how I felt about the team going into the 2017 season and where I was disappointed. What do you see? That’s called vindication. 

 

It comes at absolutely NO surprise that we’re doing well with a Dline that has major assets invested into it and that our running game has taken off with improved personnel there. THIS IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN SCREAMING FOR TO HAPPEN! 

 

Am I happy? Heck yeah. Do I also recognize this didn’t need to take so long, that we could’ve done all of this with better QB play from a player we drafted and developed on our own? Is that frustrating to think about? Of course! 

 

I’m concerned that Alex might not improve enough to make us contenders. That the passing game will limit us. 

 

If we had Kirk’s exact level of play from last year on this team, with this defense and this running game, we are absolutely contenders and there’s no question about it. If we want to argue from the standpoint that Kirk’s contract as it is with Minny would’ve been an hindrance (that’s ignoring that had we dealt with it correctly we could’ve signed him much cheaper much earlier, but let’s just go with that for argument’s sake), then maaaaybe Kirk’s contract would’ve kept us from signing a guy like Richardson (and even that’s debatable), but that’s it. So it would’ve been (Kirk - Richardson) versus (Alex + Richardson) - (Fuller and a 3rd round pick). That’s tough to think about. 

 

And we saw Kirk still perform with a decimated Oline and receiving group that didn’t include Richardson last year. 

 

So, yes, those of us who were asking for those things Alex is now surrounded with have every right to be frustrated that we took a step back in the passing offense in the process.

 

And who suffers the most for it? Those within the organization who actually know what they’re doing, like Jay. I want to see these people set up for success, not provided obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.

 

What I see is a Head Coach who came here without a first round pick his first year, had a dysfunctional FO structure above him, only for that to supposedly be fixed with the Scot hire, only for that to fail and then go back to a mishmash of a structure, only to pay elite money in consecutive franchise tags to keep the guy he aided in developing, only to then lose him for nothing while having to trade a stud slot corner and a third rounder while paying out another hefty contract to another QB who was supposed to just be “plug and play” and has been anything but that.  

 

From 2016-2020 (sticking with viewing Alex’s contract as a three year deal), we will have spent a whopping $115 million, Kendall Fuller and a 3rd round pick on the position. And what do we have to show for it? Developing Kirk for another team to benefit from and then having to acclimate Alex Smith, hoping it’ll improve but having no certainty it will. That type of spending should be reserved for the elite of the elite, yet this is what we’ve done! 

 

Look around the league and tell me who has managed their resources as horrendously bad as that? Do you not understand how that affects everyone within the organization? I’m seeing coaches and players of like or less quality than ours get so much more from their Front Offices while everyone ignores the resources they’ve benefited from and simply hails them as brilliant strategists and awesome players. They then get compared to our guys like it’s apples to apples. Ugh. 

 

Yes, that frustrates me because I actually care about them succeeding. I actually care about these human beings enjoying the best possible environment conducive to their success. I don’t view them as nothing but objects to be used and discarded while they wear the burgundy and gold, where I simply root for the colors and nothing more. It’s just not my style. 

 

If that’s just too much for you to take, and you think those of us who think like that are livid about being 5-2... well, you’re suffering from a severe case of Allenitis and maybe you should start writing press releases for him. 

 

I’m extremely happy for Jay and co. I’m very impressed with how the players and coaches have overcome a terribly pedestrian passing offense, which was once the only consistent strength of the team, in obtaining their current record. 

 

It’s perfectly reasonable to be seriously concerned that Alex will remain a liability and that we’ll never be able to truly contend with him at the helm. And that’s not saying he brings zero to the table, just that he brings very little and it’s not enough. It’s not even his fault, but it’s really unfortunate because we were so friggin close. It’s unfortunate because I know damn well who will get attacked and targeted by the fans because of it. It’s unfortunate because I’ve seen how often the owner and his top exec also target the wrong people within the organization and create an atmosphere of division and factionalism that leads to their regression and/or demise, which only renews a cycle of the same thing happening again with whomever replaces them. 

 

Hopefully Alex improves enough that we don’t have to witness all that. I’m praying for that, as much as you’d think otherwise. But, yeah, it’s frustrating that the concern is even there and it can take away from the sheer joy of watching these guys succeed like they are right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I don't know where you're getting "10% or less". Over the Cap has it at 10.4% or more every year. Minor nitpick, I know, but let's fix it before @UK SKINS FAN '74comes storming in. :P

 

? that's funny, I will give you that.

 

Personally I think the the more logical break point in Smith's contract is after year 4, all subject to performance and results of course.

 

I recall Doug pretty much saying that Smith would be able to play his deal out and then some more here. Impossible to see that scenario at present, but I could see us paying him 19m in 2021 when the likes of Cousins could be dropping the best part of 35m. All very subjective though.

 

Best see how today's game goes first. Could be carnage in here later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

here. Impossible to see that scenario at present, but I could see us paying him 19m in 2021 when the likes of Cousins could be dropping the best part of 35m. All very subjective though.

 

He’s set to make $24.4 million in 2021, though. Where’s the $19 million come into play? Or are you saying he’d take a pay cut? 

 

If so, yeah, definitely very subjective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

? that's funny, I will give you that.

 

Personally I think the the more logical break point in Smith's contract is after year 4, all subject to performance and results of course.

 

I recall Doug pretty much saying that Smith would be able to play his deal out and then some more here. Impossible to see that scenario at present, but I could see us paying him 19m in 2021 when the likes of Cousins could be dropping the best part of 35m. All very subjective though.

 

Best see how today's game goes first. Could be carnage in here later.

 

If we have not thrown significant resources at the QB by then, someone needs to be fired. And by significant resources, I mean either a high draft pick or a better, younger FA, someone needs to be fired. Someone named Bruce Allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

He’s set to make $24.4 million in 2021, though. Where’s the $19 million come into play? Or are you saying he’d take a pay cut? 

 

If so, yeah, definitely very subjective. 

 

The 19mil is cash, what we are scheduled to pay him. The 24.4mil is total cap hit.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

If we have not thrown significant resources at the QB by then, someone needs to be fired. And by significant resources, I mean either a high draft pick or a better, younger FA, someone needs to be fired. Someone named Bruce Allen

 

I could see us picking a QB in 2020. This forthcoming draft we will continue to load up on D and solidify the OL. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

The 19mil is cash, what we are scheduled to pay him. The 24.4mil is total cap hit.

 

 

 

Honest question, why is that at all important as opposed to the actual cap hit? 

 

I mean, it’s not our cash so who cares, right? Am I missing something? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Honest question, why is that at all important as opposed to the actual cap hit? 

 

I mean, it’s not our cash so who cares, right? Am I missing something? 

 

I don't care either. I'm simply saying that I believe that the FO will be happy to pay him 19mil and see out year 4 of his contract. Therefore they will also not have an issue with the 24.4mil cap hit. Thats why I think that year 4 is a more logical break point than year 3, which I think is your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty I think this will be Smith's "Big game" of the season. He is a great fantasy sleeper today for those of you who throw money at draft kings and fan duel. I'm usually on the money when i get a hunch like this, No where near the level of the "Vegas Mystery Man" who predicted we will win the Super Bowl in the other thread but i can hold my own.

 

5 Opposing QB's this season have gone over 300 yards vs the ATLANTA defense including Eli Manning ?

In 7 Games Atl has given up 17 Touchdowns through the air

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

In all honesty I think this will be Smith's "Big game" of the season. He is a great fantasy sleeper today for those of you who throw money at draft kings and fan duel. I'm usually on the money when i get a hunch like this, No where near the level of the "Vegas Mystery Man" who predicted we will win the Super Bowl in the other thread but i can hold my own.

 

5 Opposing QB's this season have gone over 300 yards vs the ATLANTA defense including Eli Manning ?

In 7 Games Atl has given up 17 Touchdowns through the air

 

 

It's a good set up for it for sure. Atlanta's defense is on the bottom in most key categories.   Just watched Jay's coaches show, he mentioned things he likes, things he doesn't like about the passing offense.  Specific to Alex he more or less said he'd like to see him pull the trigger more, where receivers don't have to be wide open.  So i am guessing that's been preached this week and we will see a more aggressive Alex, today.  Will see.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

I don't care either. I'm simply saying that I believe that the FO will be happy to pay him 19mil and see out year 4 of his contract. Therefore they will also not have an issue with the 24.4mil cap hit. Thats why I think that year 4 is a more logical break point than year 3, which I think is your opinion.

 

No way, unless Smith dramatically improves.  Those later years are written to be team options, where very few players ever justify the cap hit.  Same deal with the decision coming up with Josh Norman after this season.  

 

By the 2021 season, we should have addressed the QB position through the draft, we can designate him as a post-Jun 1st cut and only carry a dead cap of $5.4 M, and realize $19 M in cap savings.   

 

Worst part about it to me (other than the amount of money) is that, the contract was structured to give us an out after next season, and someone apparently gave it away during negotiations.  Now, if Smith is on the roster the fifth day of the 2019 league year, his entire 2020 salary is guaranteed.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, megared said:

 

No way, unless Smith dramatically improves.  Those later years are written to be team options, where very few players ever justify the cap hit.  Same deal with the decision coming up with Josh Norman after this season.  

 

By the 2021 season, we should have addressed the QB position through the draft, we can designate him as a post-Jun 1st cut and only carry a dead cap of $5.4 M, and realize $16 M in cap savings.   

 

Worst part about it to me (other than the amount of money) is that, the contract was structured to give us an out after next season, and someone apparently gave it away during negotiations.  Now, if Smith is on the roster the fifth day of the 2019 league year, his entire 2020 salary is guaranteed.  

 

 

I agree that Smith clearly needs to improve. I also concur on the fact that making him a post June 1st cut is a very viable option. I personally am not overly worried over the whole dead cap debate, even though dead cap is never a good thing in the strictest sense.

 

By the looks of the contract to me, the SB of 27mil takes away any out after 2 years. Perhaps the size of SB was the give away in negotiations? Although the guarantee kicking in next year takes that away too....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...