The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, Chris 44 said:

Wasn't he also coming back from COVID those last couple games? Didn't see that mentioned. Or am I not remembering correctly and just making that up?

 

That's true as to COVID. 

[mistertim]

20 minutes ago, Chris 44 said:

Wasn't he also coming back from COVID those last couple games? Didn't see that mentioned. Or am I not remembering correctly and just making that up?

 

Yeah, but it doesn't matter. He could have been coming back from a decapitation and the media would be talking about how not having a head was no excuse for such horrible play.

 

They hate Wentz, they hate us, so it's the perfect marriage for them to just pile on. 

[Gurgeh]

23 minutes ago, Chris 44 said:

Wasn't he also coming back from COVID those last couple games? Didn't see that mentioned. Or am I not remembering correctly and just making that up?

 

IIRC his play was poor when he came back from COVID. I've read from other sports that it can take a professional sportsman months to fully recover - you can come back quickly, but you're not 100%. It's by no means a universal problem, but it's not uncommon either.

 

Now whether that was why he played badly, who knows? Maybe he was just unhappy about it when he came back, maybe he felt he was forced back too early, and we know that when he's upset about something he's not worth putting on the field.

[Fresh8686]

12 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

 

IIRC his play was poor when he came back from COVID. I've read from other sports that it can take a professional sportsman months to fully recover - you can come back quickly, but you're not 100%. It's by no means a universal problem, but it's not uncommon either.

 

Now whether that was why he played badly, who knows? Maybe he was just unhappy about it when he came back, maybe he felt he was forced back too early, and we know that when he's upset about something he's not worth putting on the field.

 

Not only was he playing those games with COVID, but in the raiders game he was pressured a ridiculous 51% of the time on every drop back and IIRC 43% in the Jaguars game. His pass protection was pure **** in those games. For comparison Tom Brady's avg pressure rate last season was 21% IIRC. Dude was seeing over double the pressure. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Fresh8686

[Voice_of_Reason]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That's true as to COVID. 

DId he miss a game due to COVID?  I can't remember and I'm running out the door...

[Vandelay_Industries]

27 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

DId he miss a game due to COVID?  I can't remember and I'm running out the door...

 

No, he was tested positive on Monday and played the Raiders game on Saturday the same week.

[CommanderInTheRye]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

DId he miss a game due to COVID?  I can't remember and I'm running out the door...

 

He didn't miss a game but he played during that period.  I just watched my kid recover from COVID, he got it two weeks ago and he still doesn't physically feel right.

 

Wentz if i recall played against Jax recovering from COVID and with no practices leading up to that game. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 minutes ago, Vandelay_Industries said:

 

No, he was tested positive on Monday and played the Raiders game on Saturday the same week.

So two things:

 

1. Peter King was on with Kiem and said he missed a game.  Which follows the pattern of Peter along being an arrogant no nothing ass hat.  
 

2. I thought for unvaccinated players it was a mandatory 10 day quarantine.  Did they change the rule in the season? I don’t recall.

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

He didn't miss a game but he played during that period.  I just watched my kid recover from COVID, he got it two weeks ago and he still doesn't physically feel right.

 

Wentz if i recall played against Jax recovering from COVID and with no practices leading up to that game. 

I got it (and was vaxed and boosted) in Jan and had very minor symptoms.  But it lingered for a while longer than I would have liked.  I couldn’t really walk on our treadmill without getting winded. 
 

So I can see if you’re recovering and trying to play high level athletics it could be a hinderance.  

[SkinsFTW]

On 6/8/2022 at 11:01 AM, formerly4skins said:

 

He def would have...there are jack-shacks all over the place in nova.

 

At least that's what a friend told me. 

It's kind of sad to think about, because Dan and Deshawn could have bonded going to the massage parlor, like RG3 and Dan at the bowling alley.

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 Did they change the rule in the season? I don’t recall.

 

Yeah I read somewhere that they changed the rule the same week that Wentz got covid, originally he was listed as out, then he played anyway without practicing all week.

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

2. I thought for unvaccinated players it was a mandatory 10 day quarantine.  Did they change the rule in the season? I don’t recall.

I got it (and was vaxed and boosted) in Jan and had very minor symptoms.  But it lingered for a while longer than I would have liked.  I couldn’t really walk on our treadmill without getting winded. 
 

So I can see if you’re recovering and trying to play high level athletics it could be a hinderance.  

 

they waived those rules on COVID towards the end of the season.

 

Yeah my kid's muscles are achy and is winded too still.  Wentz got it without being vaccinated and is playing against A level athletes -- i bet it wasn't easy. 

[FootballZombie]

@Voice_of_Reason

You have already shown and endorsed the idea that contracts can be changed, yet you still insist that drawing conclusions on a 2 year contract provides definitive proof of its value. It simply does not work like that. At the end of the day the G money on Winston's deal, which isn't even a fully guaranteed 21 Million outside of injury, can be spent differently than its currently slotted, and just like the potential Terry McLauren contract framework you endorsed, the team knows full well it can alter the deal before it reaches its conclusion to fit its needs, and most likely intends to do so.

 

Who cares what year you take the hits, its considerably less of a finite source. A new deal changes the whole dynamic anyway so speculation on how that works out is pointless, but what is not is the fact that Winston costs 4Mil vs the cap this year and Wentz costs 28Mil.

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

- There is absolutely NO WAY the Commanders sign Winston to the same contract he signed in New Orleans.  New Orleans is so up against the cap, they HAD to structure the deal the way they did it to fit it (and other things), in.  Fine.  We would not have done that. 

 

So what, I'm supposed to make up my own contract for Winston on this team? Make up my own amount of cap hits? Say we could have had him for 1 yr 12 Million easy? No, that would be silly. I gotta work with what is there. For the sake of argument he gets the same deal, that is the only reasonable way to look at this situation. Whats not reasonable is to assume future contract structure that you are well aware can easily change, and in the same turn charge it against his current 2 year deal. You don't know how its gonna work out, and your simply making up numbers to try and justify your point.

 

Furthermore, If your gonna complain about the practice of bringing in Free Agents in general, then what is even the point of this hypothetical exercise? Its not like you would accept any proposed trades, all that can be reasonably done is list out available players and fit them under our team.

 

Can I only propose to sign players we actually signed? My big solutions to spending Wentz proverbial 28 Mil are limited to Obada and Norwell? Of course not, that would defeat the whole purpose of the argument. If your gonna try to shoot down potential FAs who were available to everyone for the taking because they signed somewhere else, then there is no pool of players for me to utilize outside of guys who are still Free Agents right now. That's the kind of corner your argument is trying to back me into and its silly when proposing a hypothetical situation. Where they actually ended up has no bearing here. These guys were Free Agents, as far as I'm concerned they are fair game. Its not like they were traded or in someway forced to go to specific teams. They had absolute freedom. With the narrative your spouting I have no ability to sign any FA that didn't sign with us.

 

And then there is your argument about the risk of Free Agency. This is a scenario where I'm filling in different uses for the money spent on Wentz. How else am I supposed to spend it, propose trades? Sign guys form the USFL? Pry away Carr from the Raiders? The only reasonable thing I can do is back-fill with Free Agents. In an exercise to spend money your trying to give me a wad of cash and no groceries to buy. The only option I'd have is to roll over all my Cap to next year. To even begin talking about this exercise, it should be generally understood that I have access to Free Agents, otherwise there is no point.

 

 

And just like other subjects, your stance on deferred money is all over the place and wherever you need it to be.

 

 

You called to give Terry AJ Browns exact deal, with the full knowledge of him “NEVER” (your word and capital emphasis) seeing the money in 2026. That is about as big as an endorsement you can provide, seen here:

 

On 6/6/2022 at 11:31 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

You can see, he has a really low 2022 cap number, but they are paying him $24M in cash.  That's good for both sides.  What sticks out like a sore thumb is the last year the salary jumps 100% from the previous year, is not guaranteed, and he carries a $37M cap hit, but only an $8M hit to release him.  He will NEVER see the 2026 numbers on this contract.  He will be extended or released before then. Without the 2026 numbers, the AAV is not $25M.  If I did the math right, he carries a total base salary of $37.5M, a Signing Bonus of $23.2M, an "Option Bonus" of $10.1M.  Minus 2026, his AAV is ~$17M.

 

There is no reason the Commanders couldn't give McLaurin this exact same deal.  Like, identical. 

 

But in this thread, you have done nothing short of rally against the very idea.

 

On 6/6/2022 at 9:10 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

And you’re wrong.  Spreading out the cap hit into future years is dumb.  The more you pay now and keep flexibility for later the better.

 

All the way to this absolution.

 

Your just altering your stance to fit whichever argument your in. You have made it very clear how you feel spreading out cap hit in general is "dumb", (again your word) and try to hold it against my proposal, but are more than willing to push the same angle in other places. You can try to rationalize it all you want but you can't have it both ways. Personally is see the act of generally shifting the cap around as a viable strategy. You strongly don't.... unless it fits your current argument...

 

But the idea that I am wrong here for spreading cap when you propose the same ideas elsewhere? No thanks, I'm not buying that one. Sure context matters, but your outcry against the method holds no weight to me when you campaign for the same in other threads. I was born at night, but not last night.

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

There is always context.  There are no absolutes.  Do you treat Rodgers, Wentz, Winston the same way?  No, you treat each one of those guys differently because they are different tiers.  

 

I wouldn't wanna pay those guys the same way either, but Wentz and Rodgers are separated by less than 300 thousand dollars in cap hit this year. Out of context, you'd think they were near equals, but of course, context matters.

 

 

Your actively trying to limit who I can sign, your disapproving of me from using contract practices you endorse elsewhere, there is no room for argument under your parameters outside of trotting out Cam Newton under center for 2022. Those restrictions make absolutely no sense in a hypothetical like this one, I don't know why you are so insistent to propose them.

 

 

Long response but you can't exactly reply with a "Nuh-uh" in the face of a self described tome.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by FootballZombie

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

So what, I'm supposed to make up my own contract for Winston on this team? Make up my own amount of cap hits? Say we could have had him for 1 yr 12 Million easy?

This is my point.  You look at the guaranteed money, the signing bonus, and you make an evaluation in aggregate.  

 

You can't make a yearly evaluation.  if you agree on the basics of the contract, and the same guy got an offer from each of the 32 team, each of the 32 offers would look different based on the situation the team is in. 

 

Which is why the "I'll take his $4m number" comment is so ludicrous.  It ignores all the other aspects of the contract, and ignores the fact the Commanders would absolutely NOT have a $4M hit for him.

 

So, the way you evaluate it is this:

 

Which is better (and this is SLIGHTLY simplistic, I've left a few contractual details out for the purposes of simplicity)

 

Winston:

- $15.2 Million guaranteed at signing

- There is an out after year 1, which would include an $11.2 Million dead cap hit

- Plays on both years at a value of $28M. ** I ignored the $5.8 Million becoming fully guaranteed on the 3rd day of the 2023 league year, but we'll get to that in a minute)

 

Wentz:

- One year at $28M, fully guaranteed.

- Years 2 and three not guaranteed, at $26M and $27M respectively.  

- Exit ramp with no cap ramifications after year.  

 

THAT'S how you make the evaluation from a contract perspective.  

 

You can't look at AAV, because they are completely meaningless.  The Brown contract is the example of that, where they lumped $30M of salary into the final year to boost the AAV for ego purposes.  You can't look at JUST the current year because you loose the impact of the rest of the contract.

 

You have to compare the contracts in aggregate.  And remember the team can spread it any which way they want to based on their current needs.  If the Saints had the ability to avoid voidable years, they might have.  But they couldn't. So they didn't.  We could have, so we probably would have.  

 

You can't assume the contract structure for one team will be applicable for another team.  You CAN assume the fundamentals of the contract will stay the same, including signing bonus, roster bonuses, guaranteed at signing, total guarantees.  At the end of the day, that's what the players care about most. The team can then wicker whatever they want to in order to make it fit into their cap plan.  

29 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

@Voice_of_Reason

You have already shown and endorsed the idea that contracts can be changed, yet you still insist that drawing conclusions on a 2 year contract provides definitive proof of its value. It simply does not work like that. At the end of the day the G money on Winston's deal, which isn't even a fully guaranteed 21 Million outside of injury, can be spent differently than its currently slotted, and just like the potential Terry McLauren contract framework you endorsed, the team knows full well it can alter the deal before it reaches its conclusion to fit its needs, and most likely intends to do so.

 

Who cares what year you take the hits, its considerably less of a finite source. A new deal changes the whole dynamic anyway so speculation on how that works out is pointless, but what is not is the fact that Winston costs 4Mil vs the cap this year and Wentz costs 28Mil.

Yes, contracts can change.  But it takes a re-negotiation to make it change. 

 

What I'm insisting on is you have to look at the entire contract, you can't look at year one, you have to look at the guarantee at signing, and when additional guarantees kick in, what the dead cap numbers are and when they hit.  You absolutely CAN'T look at one year when you're evaluating a contract.  Absolutely NOBODY looks at it that way in the league.  I've listened to a ton of agents and GMs over the years on a variety of podcasts, radio shows and TV shows and absolutely not one of them has ever said you look at any year individually.  Not one.  EVER.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded above.  You are right, I did go back and edit my post earlier.  $15.2M is guaranteed at signing, an additional $5.8 becomes guaranteed on the third day of the 2023 league year.  That's there so Winston gets paid if the Saints keep him through training camp 2023 and then cut him.  He would lose the rest of his year 2 salary ($7M), but he gets the $5.8 to attend the off-season. This is where the $21M fully guarantee comes from.  If he's on the team on day 3 of the 2023 season, he is guaranteed $21M.  If he plays the 2023 season, he gets $28M

 

Going back to the bolded, I don't understand what you mean "can be spent different than currently slotted."  They can't change the contract unless they rip it up and make a new one. The money is going to be spent in exactly this way unless there is a new contract.  And it CAN'T be less than the guaranteed amount.  Teams can't jus shuffle salary cap hits around without a re-do of the contract. If they wanted to ask Winston to take a pay cut, they could go after the non-guaranteed $7M in 2023.  If they wanted to extend him, they could do that, but they would be adding guaranteed money and years to the contract, because there is no way Winston would sign it otherwise.

 

So unless there is a new contract in place through an extension, this is how it is going to be spent. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next topic response:

Voidable years vs. Back Loaded contracts, and the way they are applied to Winston vs. Brown.

 

Brown DOES have a very minor $2M voidable year.   Do I love that?  No.  Do I care that much? No.  But there is a reason as to WHY:

 

The reason is because Brown has what amounts to a poison pill in his 2026 contract which essentially makes everything after that null and void.  But it's not a voidable year, it's a back loaded contract.  It's there for 2 reasons:

- To raise the AAV for ego purposes to $25M per year

- To force the eagles to release or extend Brown after 4 years of service after his age 28 season. One way or another, Brown is getting a new contract in 2026. 

 

Would I be fine with doing the same thing for Terry?  Absolutely.  Though you'll also notice I said I would be ok giving him the other contract as well, which doesn't have the poison pill.  The end result is the same because the other contract is a year shorter, so they enter FA at the same time or are extended at the same time.  I can see through the back-loaded deal and know what it means, and what the ramifications are, so I don't care about it.  That year is also not guaranteed, so the cap his is somewhat minimal.  

 

Does that conflict with anything else I've said about pushing money into voided years?  Nope, not at all.  Because they are different things.  

 

Also, they are different players.  Winston is currently a low-end starter, probably a good backup. (Ironically, Winston is what a lot of the Hive think TH is.) The last time he played a full season he threw 30 INTs.  Last year his coach wouldn't let him throw more than 23 times a game.  He's just not that good.  Though again, I like him more than Mitch, Mariota and Dalton.  

 

Terry McLaurin is a top 10-15 WR in the league.  You treat those two situations different.  Is it ok to have voidable years in one scenario and not in another? Yes.  

 

I do think I should have been more clear when I said spreading the cap hit into the future was dumb.  It's not ALWAYS dumb.  It's dumb if you don't have to do it.  It's dumb if you do it for a player who doesn't deserve it.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next topic: Free Agency.

 

I've always found the exercise of "Damn, we could have had this player and that player for the cost of this other player" to be a useless hypothetical exercise that ignores any degree of reality.  

 

Every team goes into FA with targets.  No team gets all of their targets.  You have no idea what the player wants, you have no idea what other teams are going to offer.  

 

All of us have players who we would love to target, and players we would like more than others.  But to try and play the contract game of "these 3 for this 1" is basically impossible.  

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

I wouldn't wanna pay those guys the same way either, but Wentz and Rodgers are separated by less than 300 thousand dollars in cap hit this year. Out of context, you'd think they were near equals, but of course, context matters.

This is a perfect example of why you have to look at the full contract.  Rodgers cap hit next year is $31M, then $40, $59, $53.  

 

He has $101M guaranteed at signing.  This means, no matter what, over time, he's going to hit the Packers cap for $101M.  There is no way out of that.  Period.  (And they really can't extend him, he's going to be 43 at the end of his contract.)

 

When you look at the contracts in total, looking at the guaranteed money, the signing bonuses, off-ramps, it's absolutely clear they are not equal.  You just can't look at one year.  

 

Wentz's cap number goes down the next 2 years.

 

If you look at just this year, you completely miss the entire picture.  Which is why you can't look at one year. You have to look at the whole contract.  

 

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

Your actively trying to limit who I can sign, your disapproving of me from using contract practices you endorse elsewhere, there is no room for argument under your parameters outside of trotting out Cam Newton under center for 2022. Those restrictions make absolutely no sense in a hypothetical like this one, I don't know why you are so insistent to propose them.

The reason is your hypothetical doesn't actually work.  It ignores the fact the contract Winston would sign here would not be the same as he signed with the Saints, it ignores the fact the players you might want wouldn't be available.  And when you said "these players would keelhaul any QB to a good record," well, that's not even remotely true.  

 

If you're going to propose a hypothetical, propose one that works.  Maybe you could get the other players, MAYBE, but you can't get HB.  He was never going anywhere other than the Saints.  

 

If you wanted to really propose a viable alternative, even one that couldn't really happen, compare the fully guaranteed amounts of the contracts over a certain period of time.  That would be a MUCH MUCH better way to look at it.  Trying to just look at one year and ignoring everything else is like putting your fingers into your ears and going LALALALALALALA.

[mistertim]

Can I just say that I think it's absolutely hilarious that Jameis Winston is the QB hill someone is choosing to die on? And I thought the Hive was weird.

[Skinsinparadise]

59 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Can I just say that I think it's absolutely hilarious that Jameis Winston is the QB hill someone is choosing to die on? And I thought the Hive was weird.

 

I'd add we are just assuming that would have been their Plan B.  Judging by beat guys, their Plan B in FA would have been Trubisky or Mariota.  

 

Didn't hear much smoke around Winston.  I gather considering their history with QBs and injuries, picking up a QB coming off an ACL wasn't hot on their agenda. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

Can I just say that I think it's absolutely hilarious that Jameis Winston is the QB hill someone is choosing to die on? And I thought the Hive was weird.

I can’t believe I got sucked into trying to be the guy who kills the guy who’s decided to die on that hill…

 

I guess since I quit my job I just have more free time than I know what to do with.  

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd add we are just assuming that would have been their Plan B.  Judging by beat guys, their Plan B in FA would have been Trubisky or Mariota.  

 

Didn't hear much smoke around Winston.  I gather considering their history with QBs and injuries, picking up a QB coming off an ACL wasn't hot on their agenda. 

If it wasn’t for the ACL, there might have been interest.  We won’t know because of the ACL, I think he was basically disqualified early.  
 

Also, when Sean Payton only trusts you to throw the ball 23 times a game, that’s not the best endorsement. 

[mistertim]

31 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I can’t believe I got sucked into trying to be the guy who kills the guy who’s decided to die on that hill…

 

I guess since I quit my job I just have more free time than I know what to do with.  

 

 

I think where you went off the trail is forgetting that he's a zombie so he's already dead and buried on that hill. You're just shooting holes in a corpse at this point. On a hill that nobody else cares about or even remembered existed until recently. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Can we ever have a QB thread that’s worth a ****? 
 

I had hopes for this one. Not really, but can’t we at least keep the salary cap stuff and the “he’s not very good” stuff separate? When those elements collide, it just puts a migraine on top of the existing **** pile. 

[Skinsinparadise]

57 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Also, when Sean Payton only trusts you to throw the ball 23 times a game, that’s not the best endorsement. 

 

I mentioned this on the board last year before we played the Saints, 2 different Saints beat guys were on local radio both saying they heard Sean wasn't a believer in Winston, he already saw enough that season and they expected them to pursue a different QB in the off season.   Obviously Sean retired so we don't know how it would have played out but i found it interesting at the time. 

 

Jonathan Allen is fully aware of what people say about Carson Wentz, but for Allen, what he's witnessed from the quarterback thus far doesn't match up with people's views of the passer.

"I think the thing that's bad about the NFL is how reputations can be built through the media," Allen told NBC Sports Washington's JP Finlay in a one-on-one interview on Wednesday. "I feel like he's been given a terrible reputation, and I haven't known him as long as some people so I'm not going to say they're wrong, but from what I've seen, I don't see where all the negative press comes from."

Allen's time with Wentz, like the rest of the Commanders, has been pretty limited up to this point. The team has been together for a handful of off-field workouts and recently completed three rounds of OTAs, and aside from a round of golf here or a chat in the cafeteria there, everyone in Washington is still getting acclimated with the new signal-caller. 

So, the Pro Bowl defensive lineman understands the pairing of Wentz and the Commanders is only in its early stages.

But even so, he's pleased with how those early stages have unfolded.

"Now, obviously, time will tell, but from what I've seen, he's a great leader, he wants to come out here and win, play hard, have fun and really just be a great teammate," Allen said. "I really have no complaints, I've loved everything I've seen. Communicates with everybody, doesn't seclude himself, very open to the team. I mean, he's fitting right in."

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[FootballZombie]

  

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

So let me get this straight.

I can't propose that we sign players because that ended up signing somewhere else, because we surely had no chance to sign them at all, and even if I could I can't use their existing contracts, I have to propose all new ones with new perimeters and structure.

 

That is an absolutely bonkers way of navigating this space.

 

Any attempt to sign any free agent I propose that is currently on another roster will be met with the reasoning that the player is unavailable. If I can't pick up free agents just because you say we had no shot, then it defeats the purpose of the exercise. I could try to use Mariota and it would be shot down since he gets to team up with an old coach at Atlanta. I could use Trubisky and it will be and waived off since we surely can't compete with Pittsburgh.

 

That's an absolute joke in a hypothetical exercise that examines different ways to spend our available money. I'm not going to limit myself from players who were available to everyone. It makes even less sense to forge new contracts from the very ether in order to fit them on my team. That is the absolute reverse of the logical way to undergo such an exercise. Anything less would be a demonstration of pure futility as I would have no ability to replace Wentz with anyone currently residing on another teams roster.

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I've always found the exercise of "Damn, we could have had this player and that player for the cost of this other player" to be a useless hypothetical exercise that ignores any degree of reality.  

 

What?

They are what-if scenarios. They are not real, but that does not make them detached from reality.
 

I'd also be more willing to believe your dislike of fantasy player mixup if you weren't doing the same basic things in other threads. Fitting players on different teams is not a whole lot different then fitting contracts on different players which you seem to be having a ball with in Terry's thread. If you think the specific practice of trading places with players is useless, you sure see the value in fitting other players contracts on each other. To tell me this hypothetical exercise is somehow less detached then what your actively doing... again no sale, unless you somehow believe your own efforts ignore reality in the same way since we are doing the same basic premise.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Going back to the bolded, I don't understand what you mean "can be spent different than currently slotted." 

 

The current purpose of Winston's G money is meant to pay his current deal, but the Saints have structured his deal with the full knowledge that they can bring him back to the negotiating table via his deal only being two years. That same G money that has yet to be paid, can be rolled over into a different contract structure. If they were to extend his contract for example, he would not instantly get paid his remaining G money and then start negotiations from scratch, the team will instead roll that unspent money into whatever structure the new contract possess. Suddenly that 2yr contract is no longer a 2 Year contract and everything changes, including the distribution of the G money. By no means are they locked into a 2 year 28Mil deal. In such an event, you have now changed the purpose of his money and any calculations about how that G money will be spread has changed with it. You can't guarantee new cap hits beyond the life of the contract, or know how many years it will be.

 

It does not matter if it does not get smaller in total, spreading the G money across a different set of years and structure changes how that entire contract is viewed. But your trying to determine the worth of a 2 year deal that is completely open and set up to change.

Edited June 9, 2022 by FootballZombie

[Voice_of_Reason]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I mentioned this on the board last year before we played the Saints, 2 different Saints beat guys were on local radio both saying they heard Sean wasn't a believer in Winston, he already saw enough that season and they expected them to pursue a different QB.    Obviously Sean retired so we don't know who it would have played out but i found it interesting at the time. 

My issue with the whole idea actually has less to do with Winston specifically and more to do with the outright false representation of his contract value.  
 

Absent the ACL, I liked Winston more than Mitch, Mariota and Dalton and the rest of the FA miscreants.  
 

But that’s not entirely high praise.  
 

I’ve always liked Wentz more than any of them.  Though I wasn’t a huge fan of his either for a bit, but I didn’t think he sucked. 

[TheShredder]

8 hours ago, HigSkin said:

Watching Wentz's interviews and noticed he uses his hands a lot.  As an observer of how that correlates to the person...

 

"Studies have found that people who communicate through active gesturing tend to be evaluated as warm, agreeable and energetic, while those who remain still (or whose gestures seem mechanical or "wooden") are seen as logical, cold, and analytical."

Physical tells of underlying psychological intent can be 50/50 initially, becoming more telling as repeated examples are quantified concretely.

As Wentz scratches his chest, from the beginning of the interview, facing the Jack DelTaco incident, he is pacifying himself by scratching his chest. He repeats this multiple times in this interview and in other past pressers. It's a calming measure, as he's preparing himself to answer. It's clear that his intention is to be genuine and points to his distrust of the media that's been out to get him. There is clearly no deception in his body language, which is magnified by his leaning forward, as he peers in, closer to the mic to be certain he's being heard clearly.

He's cautious of the media and has precisely chosen to be 100% honest, and humbly responsible. How can you not root for this guy!

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd add we are just assuming that would have been their Plan B.  Judging by beat guys, their Plan B in FA would have been Trubisky or Mariota.  

 

Didn't hear much smoke around Winston.  I gather considering their history with QBs and injuries, picking up a QB coming off an ACL wasn't hot on their agenda. 

 

Given some stories you posted earlier about Trubisky, I am extremely glad we didn't go that route.  It sounds like he might be the dumbest player in the NFL.

[Voice_of_Reason]

@FootballZombie

 

If you want to go ahead and give hypotheticals, by all means, go for it. I typically don't.  (And we'll get to the accusation I'm doing it in the Terry thread in a minute.)

 

I think the biggest crux of our disagreement is I don't believe you can really assume a renegotiation, you have to assume the contract will be executed as is, and you absolutely cannot look at just the current year to determine what the contract says.  What set me off is "Winston at $4M."  Which is just not a really accurate statement.  He is going to count $15.2 against the Saints cap at some point, period the end.  You're just ignoring that fact. And I think that's wrong and misleading. 

 

Now, the statement "you have to assume the contract is executed as is" might, at first, seem like it flies in the face of the Brown contract, where I said Brown will NEVER get the last year of his deal because it's completely bloated.  

 

But it's really not.  My assumption in looking at the Brown contract is it's a 3 year extension which pays him through 2025.  Signing bonus of $23M, $40M guaranteed at signing. $57M becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2023 league year.  And my assumption is he is a FA with an $8M cap hit for 2026.  At an absolute minimum, Brown will cost $40M against the Eagles cap, and most likely, at a minimum, he will count $57M against the cap because the rest becomes fully guaranteed next season.  That's the way I look at Brown's contract.  

 

I look at Winston's contract as a 2 year deal which at a minimum will cost $15.2M against the cap. My read is they either cut him before the 2023 league year starts, or he's on the roster for 2023.  I doubt they have him on the roster at the beginning of the 2023 league year and then cut him before the 2023 season.  So, under that scenario, at minimum, he counts $15.2M against the cap for one year, or $28M against the cap if he's on the team for 2 years.

 

I cannot predict the future and I cannot tell if the Saints will restructure/extend Winston after 2022 or 2023.  I can't tell you how well he will play, I can't tell you if they will be in a position to draft another QB, or anything like that.  I do not have a DeLorean Time Machine in my garage.  (I wish I did.)  So, all I can tell you is what Winston's contract is going to cost the Saints overall as of right now.  I freely acknowledge if he plays well, they might extend him, which will change the parameters of the deal.  I also freely acknowledge he might stink like the south end of a north bound skunk, where they will cut him after this season. And I guess the third possibility is they do nothing and he finishes out his current deal. I don't know which of those scenarios will play out.  So since I don't know which will play out, all I can go on is the current contract.

 

Now IF you want to take the position, which I think you do, that you don't know what's going to happen in the future, so all you can do is judge the current year, while I completely disagree (as does every single person I've ever heard speak on the subject), that's fine.  But what you're doing is ignoring the KNOWN future implications of the contract.  Winston CANNOT count less than $15.2M against the Saints cap.  Period.  You keep saying "spending a finite amount of assets."  Well, that minimum of $15.2 is spent.  Period.  It might not be spent THIS year, but it IS spent. 

 

My point is, you have to consider EVERYTHING that is spent.  Not just what is spent this year.  

 

With Brown, I'm confident he will be on the team at least through 2025 unless there is some type of a disaster.  After that, he will either be released with an $8M cap hit, or he will be extended.

 

These are the things which are known.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

And you keep saying I'm making wild hypothetical posts in the Terry thread.  I really haven't posted much in the thread at all.  I went back and looked back through May at what I have posted:

 

- I have a very consistent message that Terry will not play without a LTD this year because he would lose $20M in career earnings.  This has nothing to do with any hypothetical. I have posted this probably 20 different times.  

- I had done a breakdown of Stephon Digg's contract, and said I thought a deal for Terry would be of similar structure.  This wasn't a hypothetical.  Just "I think it will be structured similarly." I have posted this a few times.  

- I broke down the DJ Moore and AJ Brown contracts, and said they were viable comps, and I would be ok with using them as comps. This was ONE post. I guess this is maybe a hypothetical?  But not really, just saying either contract could be a good comp.

- I broke down Donald's contract as an answer to why we have to penny pinch and the Rams don't.  Nowhere did I really mention Terry in this post, and it was not part of a hypothetical.

- I said it was time for them to get a deal done. Clearly not a hypothetical.  

 

That's it.  I'm not "having a ball" with anything in that thread.  I haven't really advocated for anything except I'd be fine giving a similar contract as either DJ Moore or AJ Brown (which are REALLY different in structure) to Terry.  The only thing I've been absolutely clear on is there is absolutely no way on God's Green Earth Terry or his agent are going to go into this year with a $2.7M salary and play on that.  It won't happen.  He will get a deal here or he will get traded and get a deal elsewhere.  My guess, he gets a deal here.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 hours ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

 

Given some stories you posted earlier about Trubisky, I am extremely glad we didn't go that route.  It sounds like he might be the dumbest player in the NFL.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Pittsburgh.  They always think they can win.  Will Mitch win the job, or will Kenny Pickett win the job. I'm thinking Pickett has a real shot to be the opening day starter, though I haven't read one word of one report out of Pittsburgh to validate that.  

 

FWIW, the steelers can get out of Mitch's contract really easily.  If fact, it was structured in such a way it's like they knew they would want to get out of it in one year.  

 

 

He's a $3.6M hit against the cap this year, but he only had $5.25M guaranteed.  That's peanuts.  So, if they wanted to cut him after the 2022 season, they would eat $2.6M of cap space in 2024, but save ~$8M in the process.  

 

(As it pertains to my argument about looking at contract value, I would look at Mitch's deal as a 2 year deal worth $14.2M, but most likely, it's a 1 year deal worth $6.3M, which includes a $2.6M dead cap hit in 2023.  One way or another $6.285 is "spent." The rest is not.  His contract is a lot less than Winston's, which is guaranteed at $15.2. minimum.)

 

My guess is unless Mitch wins the job and plays well, he's released, because if Pickett is the starter going into 2023, $10M for a backup QB is pretty expensive.  I guess they could re-sign or extend him, but the key there is he has no guaranteed money in 2023, which basically means the Steelers can do whatever they want with him contractually. If they want him on the roster as a backup, my guess is they extend him another year but ask him to take a pay cut.  Which he probably wouldn't do, so they would cut him, and he would hit FA again.  And Mitch is your new Fitzpatrick/Case Keenum/all the other QBs who sign 1 year deals as backups for 10 years.  

 

Clearly, that's just a guess.  He could also ball out, win the job, and the Steelers could trade him to a team that wanted a starting QB, assuming Pickett was ready to start.  Or, they could extend him, and trade Pickett.  "Tough to tell.  Always in motion, the future is."