The Giants don't really have any kind of shot next year, of course. That team is an incredible mess.If the Giants believed they had a shot to win next year with Brady, are they really going to let Daniel fucking Jones get in the way?
The Giants don't really have any kind of shot next year, of course. That team is an incredible mess.If the Giants believed they had a shot to win next year with Brady, are they really going to let Daniel fucking Jones get in the way?
Well, there is the fact that Brady usually sucks in Florida. See the "Miami Dolphins."Plus, the warm, humid weather would be better for his old joints and bones.
I forgot Brees is a free agent. Maybe Bill should sign Drew and Tom can go play with Sean!The 2020 number on Brees is a void year, same as how the Pats structured Brady’s deal. His deal was essentially a 2yr, $50mn deal (2018-19 with a void year added in ‘20 for cap purposes, and another in ‘21 added later) with $27mn guaranteed at signing and he was paid the full $50mn over the past 2 years.
Speaking of which, it's my understanding that Mahomes is set for an extension. This former NFL executive thinks he will get upwards of $165M in guaranteed money before next season starts. Between Mahomes this year and Lamar next year, the QB market is going to explode.League MVP only makes 2.5m. No reason to pay Brady more than 500k.
Agreed - if I was a Giants fan I'd be livid if they signed Brady. They'd be destroying their cap space, probably irreparably damaging their relationship with Jones, and even with Brady they would be far from a lock to even win their division, much less make a deep run in the playoffs over the next two-three years and then after that they'd have to start from scratch at the QB position again.Well, there is the fact that Brady usually sucks in Florida. See the "Miami Dolphins."
Guys, I will literally give up trying to figure out anything in the NFL if Brady ends up with the Giants. They just drafted Daniel Jones with the 6th overall pick in the draft last year, and he had a good enough season that he'll probably finish in the top 3 of the Offensive Rookie of the Year voting (if it weren't for his fumbling issues, a lot of which was caused by that brutal offensive line, he'd probably win it). The quickest way to NFL success is finding a rookie QB on a rookie deal for 5 years and spread the 20+ million you're saving on the cap around to the rest of the team (see Lamar Jackson, Pat Mahomes, Dak Prescott and every other good young QB in the league in the last 5-10 years, going back to Russell Wilson's rookie deal which got Seattle 2 trips to the SB and a win). Benching or getting rid of Jones and spending 25mil on Brady would literally be insanity for a team that just isn't competitive already. They need a defense and an offensive line.
The Chiefs basically own his rights for this year and 2021, so they don't necessarily have to work out an extension with him, but they'd be pretty insane not to do so due to the cap hits. They have him under contract for 2020, which pays him 2.7mil (with a 5.2mil cap hit). They they have the "transition tag" they can use in 2021 (basically a club option), which will pay him the average of the top 10 at his position (about 24mil). If they sign him to say, 5 years, 200 million in this offseason, they can spread out the entire 200 million over the entire 7 years, as opposed to waiting and then having to pay a 40mil per year cap hit over 5 years.Speaking of which, it's my understanding that Mahomes is set for an extension. This former NFL executive thinks he will get upwards of $165M in guaranteed money before next season starts. Between Mahomes this year and Lamar next year, the QB market is going to explode.
If that's true, then he's gone. Of course, it's OMF, so it's probably not worth thinking about at this point.Just heard a snippet from OMF on WEEI. They're going with Brady won't get an offer from the Pats greater than 1 year, and it will be in the $15-20 million range. What they are basing this on, I have no idea.
Not giving him an extension when he asks for it is also a good way to ensure that Mahomes walks when his rookie contract expires.The Chiefs basically own his rights for this year and 2021, so they don't necessarily have to work out an extension with him, but they'd be pretty insane not to do so due to the cap hits. They have him under contract for 2020, which pays him 2.7mil (with a 5.2mil cap hit). They they have the "transition tag" they can use in 2021 (basically a club option), which will pay him the average of the top 10 at his position (about 24mil). If they sign him to say, 5 years, 200 million in this offseason, they can spread out the entire 200 million over the entire 7 years, as opposed to waiting and then having to pay a 40mil per year cap hit over 5 years.
Drafting the right QB is so fucking important in the NFL.
Can't they just exercise the 5th year option for 1st round picks in 2021? They don't need a transition tag.The Chiefs basically own his rights for this year and 2021, so they don't necessarily have to work out an extension with him, but they'd be pretty insane not to do so due to the cap hits. They have him under contract for 2020, which pays him 2.7mil (with a 5.2mil cap hit). They they have the "transition tag" they can use in 2021 (basically a club option), which will pay him the average of the top 10 at his position (about 24mil). If they sign him to say, 5 years, 200 million in this offseason, they can spread out the entire 200 million over the entire 7 years, as opposed to waiting and then having to pay a 40mil per year cap hit over 5 years.
Drafting the right QB is so fucking important in the NFL.
I look forward to seeing what Mahomes does when they have to lose the skill position players around him, so he can get his 200million.Not giving him an extension when he asks for it is also a good way to ensure that Mahomes walks when his rookie contract expires.
Yeah, I wrote that poorly. It's a 5th year club option, but it's based on the transition tag amount (although I don't think another team can't make him an offer that the Chiefs have to match). This is from the article WBCD posted earlier:Can't they just exercise the 5th year option for 1st round picks in 2021? They don't need a transition tag.
That said I completely agree they'd be smart to start the clock on spreading the bonus money now instead of in two years.
Got it, thanks. Even the 2021 figure is a huge jump vs. current. Will be interesting to see how the Chiefs play it. They better win a title this year or next, because otherwise they're going to go through a bit of a down period similar to the 2015-2018 Seahawks.Yeah, I wrote that poorly. It's a 5th year club option, but it's based on the transition tag amount (although I don't think another team can't make him an offer that the Chiefs have to match). This is from the article WBCD posted earlier:
The Chiefs are likely to quickly exercise the fifth-year option on Mahomes as a 2017 first-round pick (they have between the last regular-season game this season and May 3, 2020 to do so). That will lock Mahomes in at his scheduled $2.7 million in 2020, and for 2021, as a top-10 pick in his draft class, he would be at the transition tag amount — the average salary of the top 10 quarterbacks in 2020 (estimated at $24 million).
Isn't the spreading out of signing bonuses for cap purposes limited to five years?If they sign him to say, 5 years, 200 million in this offseason, they can spread out the entire 200 million over the entire 7 years, as opposed to waiting and then having to pay a 40mil per year cap hit over 5 years.
It is. There are other ways to spread money over longer periods, though, like roster bonuses.Isn't the spreading out of signing bonuses for cap purposes limited to five years?
Not to turn this into Mahomes thread, I didn't know this until just this moment but Rappaport reported that Chiefs and Mahomes expect to enter into an extension this off-season. https://sportsnaut.com/2020/01/report-patrick-mahomes-expected-to-land-contract-extension-this-offseason/It is. There are other ways to spread money over longer periods, though, like roster bonuses.
It's worth noting that the CBA expires at the end of the season.There are some rules about contracts which span from one CBA to another (they can't increase more than 30% year-on-year for instance). And the Chiefs may expect that the conditions on the next CBA are more favorable and want to wait to extend Mahomes. I bet we see less action this offseason than usual with the CBA's expiration looming.
If they cut Hill after 2020, they will only incur $5.3M in dead cap charge. Most of his guarantees will have been amortized by then.I look forward to seeing what Mahomes does when they have to lose the skill position players around him, so he can get his 200million.
Tyreek Hill has a cap hit of 17.65million in 2020 (then 15mil in 2021 and 20mil in 2022). They can cut him after 2020 and pay about 30mil in dead money over 3 years.
...
Watkins is obviously gone from the Chiefs after this year and it's fair to say Hill might not make it to 2021 with the Chiefs. Someone had it right up above, the Chiefs are going to have no money to move things around. If Mahomes gets paid that much, you can pencil that team in for mediocracy for his career.If they cut Hill after 2020, they will only incur $5.3M in dead cap charge. Most of his guarantees will have been amortized by then.
If he’s as good as he appears to be, they’ll be fine. The NFC playoff field had five guys making big money. Peyton led great teams even while making enormous dollars. It can be done but your QB better be truly outstanding. Mahomes, I believe, really is.Watkins is obviously gone from the Chiefs after this year and it's fair to say Hill might not make it to 2021 with the Chiefs. Someone had it right up above, the Chiefs are going to have no money to move things around. If Mahomes gets paid that much, you can pencil that team in for mediocracy for his career.
Some of these guys basically have tenure no matter how wrong they are and for how long. People have literally measured this crap.King's article still hasn't been corrected, "New England was 4-6 in its last 10 games."
I didn’t know you were still here.If he’s as good as he appears to be, they’ll be fine. The NFC playoff field had five guys making big money. Peyton led great teams even while making enormous dollars. It can be done but your QB better be truly outstanding. Mahomes, I believe, really is.
And guess what? This is where I am with Brady.Some of these guys basically have tenure no matter how wrong they are and for how long. People have literally measured this crap.
I'd love to see weapons around him and to let him have a solid running game where he can just manage games for the last 2 seasons. Tom Brady playing the Trent Dilfer role while we see if Stidham rises is fantastic in my book.And guess what? This is where I am with Brady.
The lip service that fans paid him for years appears to be just that for quite a few people.
Was there not a universal agreement regarding this man? He gets to stay as long as he wants and go out on his own terms. Full stop.
A lot of people that echoed that same idea over the years seem to be putting a whole lot of caveats behind his ability to return to the Patriots. I dont care if bringing Brady back hamstrings the cap, makes them a non-contender for the next 15 years, or makes it so we never see another Patriots SB in our lifetime. Hes given us all the Lombardi's we could have ever wanted, and was the most consistent (non-family division) force in most of our lives for 20 years.
Ask what he wants and give it to him. Consequences be damned.
You understand Giselle chose him, right?For some perspective
Thank you for this. I cannot believe how little you hear this sentiment. I am glad the Celtics never traded Bird and don't want to see Brady in another uniform. No matter what that does to the cap or following few seasons. Thankfully, he looks like he is still the best option so as fans we are potentially not even sacrificing short term performance.And guess what? This is where I am with Brady.
The lip service that fans paid him for years appears to be just that for quite a few people.
Was there not a universal agreement regarding this man? He gets to stay as long as he wants and go out on his own terms. Full stop.
A lot of people that echoed that same idea over the years seem to be putting a whole lot of caveats behind his ability to return to the Patriots. I dont care if bringing Brady back hamstrings the cap, makes them a non-contender for the next 15 years, or makes it so we never see another Patriots SB in our lifetime. Hes given us all the Lombardi's we could have ever wanted, and was the most consistent (non-family division) force in most of our lives for 20 years.
Ask what he wants and give it to him. Consequences be damned.
A-Fucking-MenAnd guess what? This is where I am with Brady.
The lip service that fans paid him for years appears to be just that for quite a few people.
Was there not a universal agreement regarding this man? He gets to stay as long as he wants and go out on his own terms. Full stop.
A lot of people that echoed that same idea over the years seem to be putting a whole lot of caveats behind his ability to return to the Patriots. I dont care if bringing Brady back hamstrings the cap, makes them a non-contender for the next 15 years, or makes it so we never see another Patriots SB in our lifetime. Hes given us all the Lombardi's we could have ever wanted, and was the most consistent (non-family division) force in most of our lives for 20 years.
Ask what he wants and give it to him. Consequences be damned.
I have always assumed that the "plan" is something along those lines. Whether it's BB and Kraft or some other pair that those two have blessed, the team archetects will understand that zero wins is the same as 6 *this* season, but zero is far better for *next* season. Just as we appreciate the marvel of competing every single year, we will get a chance to witness the best tanking ever.Even if they signed Brady to a ludicrous contract and extension.....the way the NFL salary Cap is set up arent we really only talking about 1 year of Cap Hell?
Brady signs large potentially cap crippling contract.
Brady gets hurt/ production falls off a cliff/ decides to go to Costa Rica/ Becomes a senator So you cut him and escalate his salary and bonuses.
Cut everybody. Tank for a season and pay Brady his money.
Come back in 2024 ready to rock and roll, no doubt with a high draft pick. BB is probably gone and RK may be gone. So we Trust JK and whomever BB has groomed to bring on the next success.
I don't think this is Belichick's mindset, and analytical studies (such as Massey / Thaler's "The Loser's Curse") suggest tanking is not a winning strategy in the NFL. I also don't know why you sound *excited* about this.I have always assumed that the "plan" is something along those lines. Whether it's BB and Kraft or some other pair that those two have blessed, the team archetects will understand that zero wins is the same as 6 *this* season, but zero is far better for *next* season. Just as we appreciate the marvel of competing every single year, we will get a chance to witness the best tanking ever.
I don't think BB will have any problem with doing a rapid descent (ascent?) out of salary cap hell (assuming that's where they'll be immediate post-dynasty) even if it means one shitty season.I don't think this is Belichick's mindset, and analytical studies (such as Massey / Thaler's "The Loser's Curse") suggest tanking is not a winning strategy in the NFL. I also don't know why you sound *excited* about this.
I don't know why you assume they'll be in salary cap hell; they aren't now, won't be next year as things stand, and have never positioned themselves that way.I don't think BB will have any problem with doing a rapid descent (ascent?) out of salary cap hell (assuming that's where they'll be immediate post-dynasty) even if it means one shitty season.
"Excited" is relative. Sucking will be no fun. But sucking when things are bound to get better is better than sucking when Jimmy Haslam or Dan Snyder is the owner. In hindsight, maybe its like 2000, when he "took" an 8-8 team to 5-11.
you had me at hello...you had ME at helloAnd guess what? This is where I am with Brady.
The lip service that fans paid him for years appears to be just that for quite a few people.
Was there not a universal agreement regarding this man? He gets to stay as long as he wants and go out on his own terms. Full stop.
A lot of people that echoed that same idea over the years seem to be putting a whole lot of caveats behind his ability to return to the Patriots. I dont care if bringing Brady back hamstrings the cap, makes them a non-contender for the next 15 years, or makes it so we never see another Patriots SB in our lifetime. Hes given us all the Lombardi's we could have ever wanted, and was the most consistent (non-family division) force in most of our lives for 20 years.
Ask what he wants and give it to him. Consequences be damned.
Why should we see drafting smart and tanking as alternative strategies?An NFL team has 45 roster spots, and even the best QB and LB of all time can each only play half of a game's snaps. On average, each team gets roughly 7 draft picks (ignoring compensatory picks for now), but nearly half of those picks will, on average, be players where Braxton Berrios is a reasonable average projection. Drafting near the top of the round helps, but is neither a guarantee nor even a requirement for rebuilding. Drafting smart, along with a decent smattering of luck, will go much further than tanking.
The Colts lucked into Luck; they got as far as the AFCCG. The Browns still are awaiting their first playoff game since their first 0-16 season. The Cowboys are the only team I can recall that successfully tanked, and that required a blockbuster trade that will likely never be repeated, as well as a big assist from the pre-Kraft Patriots.
Yes. 1000 times yes.Why should we see drafting smart and tanking as alternative strategies?
Most bad teams are bad because they have terrible coaching, front office, owner combinations. Its not a surprise that these teams don't draft or manage their rosters very well and they tend to stay bad.
The real question is whether, assuming a decent-to-very-good coach/front office/owner combination, it could be sometimes advantageous for a franchise to intentionally jeopardize its expected wins for a single year or perhaps two years (by not spending to the cap, taking a lot of cap pain to relieve it in future years, or trading assets for future draft picks). I honestly don't see the argument against this ("Sometimes tanking will be a good strategy") as a general proposition. This doesn't mean its a good idea specifically for the Patriots in 2020.
In this offseason, my hope is that the Patriots can resign Tom Brady at a reasonable cap number that allows them the flexibility to improve other parts of the team and that they roll the dice, focus on drafting and signing well, and see what happens, even knowing that getting back to Super Bowl contender status is somewhat of a long shot.
But if for whatever reason TB12 is not coming back, then I'd much rather see some version of "tanking" than the Patriots doing everything possible to bring their win expectation up to 8-9 games. By this I mean stuff like rolling with Stidham rather than signing somebody like Teddy Bridgewater, letting veteran FAs like McCourty and Van Noy walk rather than signing them to multiyear deals, if they sign FAs trying to structure contracts that are more front loaded and therefore create more flexibility later, not spending up to the cap and therefore creating some significant rollover into 2021 and beyond, and opportunistically looking to deal guys like Sanu who aren't signed past 2020 or otherwise part of the future for draft capital.
Agree, pretty much across the board.Why should we see drafting smart and tanking as alternative strategies?
Most bad teams are bad because they have terrible coaching, front office, owner combinations. Its not a surprise that these teams don't draft or manage their rosters very well and they tend to stay bad.
The real question is whether, assuming a decent-to-very-good coach/front office/owner combination, it could be sometimes advantageous for a franchise to intentionally jeopardize its expected wins for a single year or perhaps two years (by not spending to the cap, taking a lot of cap pain to relieve it in future years, or trading assets for future draft picks). I honestly don't see the argument against this ("Sometimes tanking will be a good strategy") as a general proposition. This doesn't mean its a good idea specifically for the Patriots in 2020.
In this offseason, my hope is that the Patriots can resign Tom Brady at a reasonable cap number that allows them the flexibility to improve other parts of the team and that they roll the dice, focus on drafting and signing well, and see what happens, even knowing that getting back to Super Bowl contender status is somewhat of a long shot.
But if for whatever reason TB12 is not coming back, then I'd much rather see some version of "tanking" than the Patriots doing everything possible to bring their win expectation up to 8-9 games. By this I mean stuff like rolling with Stidham rather than signing somebody like Teddy Bridgewater, letting veteran FAs like McCourty and Van Noy walk rather than signing them to multiyear deals, if they sign FAs trying to structure contracts that are more front loaded and therefore create more flexibility later, not spending up to the cap and therefore creating some significant rollover into 2021 and beyond, and opportunistically looking to deal guys like Sanu who aren't signed past 2020 or otherwise part of the future for draft capital.
I think there's a part of Belichick that would relish the opportunity to tear down this club and rebuild it.I don't know why you assume they'll be in salary cap hell; they aren't now, won't be next year as things stand, and have never positioned themselves that way.
As for "bound to get better" ... I dunno. Belichick's Cleveland tenure is a pretty clear example that a quick turnaround is far from guaranteed. And at 67 (68 in a couple months) Belichick might not be sticking around a whole lot longer anyway. I think there's a pretty big difference between 2000 (when Belichick inherited a bunch of players that he didn't pick and that didn't fit) and anything BB would be facing anyway (unless you're talking about the post-BB coach).
He originally said he didn't ever see himself coaching past 70, but a recent interview he did contradicted that. I think we have another 5+ years with BB, which gives him time for a rebuild if he desires.I think there's a part of Belichick that would relish the opportunity to tear down this club and rebuild it.
You said it better than I did.Why should we see drafting smart and tanking as alternative strategies?
Most bad teams are bad because they have terrible coaching, front office, owner combinations. Its not a surprise that these teams don't draft or manage their rosters very well and they tend to stay bad.
The real question is whether, assuming a decent-to-very-good coach/front office/owner combination, it could be sometimes advantageous for a franchise to intentionally jeopardize its expected wins for a single year or perhaps two years (by not spending to the cap, taking a lot of cap pain to relieve it in future years, or trading assets for future draft picks). I honestly don't see the argument against this ("Sometimes tanking will be a good strategy") as a general proposition. This doesn't mean its a good idea specifically for the Patriots in 2020.
In this offseason, my hope is that the Patriots can resign Tom Brady at a reasonable cap number that allows them the flexibility to improve other parts of the team and that they roll the dice, focus on drafting and signing well, and see what happens, even knowing that getting back to Super Bowl contender status is somewhat of a long shot.
But if for whatever reason TB12 is not coming back, then I'd much rather see some version of "tanking" than the Patriots doing everything possible to bring their win expectation up to 8-9 games. By this I mean stuff like rolling with Stidham rather than signing somebody like Teddy Bridgewater, letting veteran FAs like McCourty and Van Noy walk rather than signing them to multiyear deals, if they sign FAs trying to structure contracts that are more front loaded and therefore create more flexibility later, not spending up to the cap and therefore creating some significant rollover into 2021 and beyond, and opportunistically looking to deal guys like Sanu who aren't signed past 2020 or otherwise part of the future for draft capital.
Why? He's the one who built this team in the first place. Do you think he thinks he did a crappy job at it?I think there's a part of Belichick that would relish the opportunity to tear down this club and rebuild it.
I agree, this team does not need a rebuild. It has good players all over and excellent players under contract in the secondary.Why? He's the one who built this team in the first place. Do you think he thinks he did a crappy job at it?
Both of the ones who attempted it had at least moderate success. Marv Levy had Buffalo at 10-6 in 1996. George Halas was NFL coach of the year in 1965.How many coaches were successful head coaches in their 70s.
Exactly well said.And guess what? This is where I am with Brady.
The lip service that fans paid him for years appears to be just that for quite a few people.
Was there not a universal agreement regarding this man? He gets to stay as long as he wants and go out on his own terms. Full stop.
A lot of people that echoed that same idea over the years seem to be putting a whole lot of caveats behind his ability to return to the Patriots. I dont care if bringing Brady back hamstrings the cap, makes them a non-contender for the next 15 years, or makes it so we never see another Patriots SB in our lifetime. Hes given us all the Lombardi's we could have ever wanted, and was the most consistent (non-family division) force in most of our lives for 20 years.
Ask what he wants and give it to him. Consequences be damned.