Josh Norman is now a player on the team based in Washington D.C.
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
The Vernon situation is different than Norman's because they removed the tag before FA so he had all teams available to him before they started their offseasons. I forgot about the Hill situation. His was actually worse than Norman's because it was after the draft. He ended up having to restructure his 6 year deal a year later to to just a 1-year deal for just over $2 million due to both injuries and off-the-field issues.
Time to say again that reputation lags performance. Small sample size, but since McCloughan was given the keys, this team has been well run.
You can make a good argument that Washington's window is now -- they have found a good, young QB, and their division rivals are all in decline or disarray. A long-term deal for Cousins, a back-loaded deal for Norman, and a couple gap-fillers on defense could put them in command of that weak division for the next couple of years and give them a puncher's chance in the playoffs against truly elite teams like Arizona, Seattle and (maybe) Green Bay.
I agree with all about the division but not sure if I would be so confident they have "found a good, young QB" considering the defenses he went up against in the second half last year. They may have, but I guess I would want to see it for another year. I seem to recall that after a year, they had thought they had found a good young QB previously....
As a Jags fan I am hoping the Synders do sign him since I am hoping that Caldwell doesn't suddenly get that Olivier Vernon look in his eyes and start bidding like a madman again.(thank you G-men) That said, I would prefer he stay in the NFC as he enjoyed playing against Bortles a little too much for my taste....
Honest question - have they had the cap space to make any big splurges in recent years?
@AdamSchefter
As CB Josh Norman is (meeting) with Redskins, Saints are making strong push to sign him, per sources. Decision down to Redskins and Saints. 8m
As CB Josh Norman is (meeting) with Redskins, Saints are making strong push to sign him, per sources. Decision down to Redskins and Saints. 8m
Saints? There's going to have be a lot of creative accounting or significant cuts to get him under their cap.
Washington gets him on a 5/75
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15306513/josh-norman-sign-washington-redskins
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15306513/josh-norman-sign-washington-redskins
Rather interesting parallel to Revis > Patriots. In both cases, there was a significant need.
Whether he is worth it depends on guaranteed money and other important details. More importantly, it depends on whether last year was an aberration and whether the Redskins use him right.
I recall two massive fails involving CBs to the Eagles.
edit -- $50 MM guaranteed, if accurate, strikes me as a lot of money for a guy who has had one excellent season.
And $51 mil is due over the first three seasons. Highest paid corner in the NFL. For a 28 year old with one great season on his resume, who played in a scheme that doesn't ask much of its corners (though the Panthers did put more on his plate last season).
Whatever one may think of the Panthers rescinding the Franchise tag, I think we can all agree that this is a terrible contract.
Whatever one may think of the Panthers rescinding the Franchise tag, I think we can all agree that this is a terrible contract.
Assuming ordinary creep in the value of the franchise tag for the position, they have effectively franchised him for three years, which I would not have done based on one great year playing in an excellent defense. I'm not an expert in CB play, but this strikes me as a significant overpay.
it really is amazing how sports team owners love to set money on fire, isn't it?
Two regular season match ups with ODB though!
I don't understand the hate for this deal. FA signings are usually overpays, and players of Norman's caliber seldom hit the market. So a team that expects to be in the playoffs the next two seasons overpaid for an elite player at a position of need -- it could end badly, but it isn't stupid.
The players' share of total league revenue is essentially fixed by contract. The franchise tag rules simply take a portion of the money that would go to high-end talent and redistribute it to middle-market veterans. (It's not just guys who get tagged -- the presence of the tag drives down long-term contract values for elite players.)
I guess it comes down to how one views Norman. I see Norman more as an Asante Samuel-type than a Darrelle Revis-type. That doesn't mean he isn't a fine player, but I would certainly hesitate to throw a ton of money at a guy who is very good, but not elite.
Maybe he proves me wrong, but he's only been a great CB for a year and change, in a defensive scheme that is designed to cover up for the flaws of its corners. Carolina opened it up a bit, and put more on his plate last season, but he's not the kind of guy you can put one-on-one against a team's top receiver and expect him to shut the other guy down. Those are really the only corners I would open up the vault for. Norman is more of a scheme player.
I would guess that the Panthers end up looking more intelligent at the end of this contract than the Redskins will.
Assuming it is 5/$75 and the Washingtons can get out of it after year three (Norman's age 30 year) with minimal obligation, I don't hate it either. The con is that they will have almost $30M in their cap tied up in their top three corners with Culliver, DeAngelo Hall and Norman, which isn't the best roster construction. I like paying a top 5 corner like Norman $15M per much more than I like paying a top 15 Edge Rusher like Vernon $17M per. Further, He's making $1.1 M more than Trumaine Johnson, and only $2.5M more than Janoris Jenkins. I like Norman's deal the best of those three given out this summer. Of course, the Sean Smith deal with the Raiders for $9.5M per and only $15m guaranteed sure does look good right now, considering Smith and Norman are the same age.
They play four games a year against Dez Bryant and ODB Jr, so I can see the need for the potatoskins.Considering that they are also "adding" Junior Gallette back to their defense this year, it is reasonable to think they will be a much better unit next year with Norman as a #1 corner (and Hall as the nickel) and and a better pass rush. After paying Norman $15M, they will still have ~$40M in cap space in 2017, though they will need to spend about half of that on Cousins, so this move isn't crippling them in the future.
They play four games a year against Dez Bryant and ODB Jr, so I can see the need for the potatoskins.Considering that they are also "adding" Junior Gallette back to their defense this year, it is reasonable to think they will be a much better unit next year with Norman as a #1 corner (and Hall as the nickel) and and a better pass rush. After paying Norman $15M, they will still have ~$40M in cap space in 2017, though they will need to spend about half of that on Cousins, so this move isn't crippling them in the future.
The issue isn't whether they need him (they do) or can afford him (they can). The concern is that they are paying him like Peterson and Haden, and better than Sherman, when the consensus seems to be he is not on that category.
So it's a gamble; they are projecting. And they are not one player away. The secondary is set but they need pass pressure and depth on D.
On the other side, the o-line needs some work, and they don't have a proven reliable running back.
These things may come. McCloughan is a gifted personnel guy; last year's draft appears solid. But now you're gambling on all these elements coming together AND on Norman proving out.
Finally, the aura surrounding this signing is all too familiar and disturbing to people around here. Dispatch Redskins 1 to got get him; don't let him out the door. Well of course he's going to hold you up for every last dollar.
Don't get me wrong. I wish the best for him. And I'm really happy he got his money to spite Richardson. But they paid a Rolls Royce price for a Mercedes and that generally is not a good way to do business.
Edit -- Gunfighter: it's a good bet Culliver may be cut, which addresses your point about roster imbalance. That option is one of the reasons they can afford him easily enough. Andre Roberts is low hanging cap fruit too.
So it's a gamble; they are projecting. And they are not one player away. The secondary is set but they need pass pressure and depth on D.
On the other side, the o-line needs some work, and they don't have a proven reliable running back.
These things may come. McCloughan is a gifted personnel guy; last year's draft appears solid. But now you're gambling on all these elements coming together AND on Norman proving out.
Finally, the aura surrounding this signing is all too familiar and disturbing to people around here. Dispatch Redskins 1 to got get him; don't let him out the door. Well of course he's going to hold you up for every last dollar.
Don't get me wrong. I wish the best for him. And I'm really happy he got his money to spite Richardson. But they paid a Rolls Royce price for a Mercedes and that generally is not a good way to do business.
Edit -- Gunfighter: it's a good bet Culliver may be cut, which addresses your point about roster imbalance. That option is one of the reasons they can afford him easily enough. Andre Roberts is low hanging cap fruit too.
Last edited:
The kind of guys you're describing are pretty much never available in free agency. Washington won't get a chance to sign the likes of Patrick Peterson or Richard Sherman.
Even if Norman is more Asante Samuel than Darrelle Revis, he's likely to make a bigger impact than any other single player Washington could have acquired. Someone who knows more than me about their team perhaps could say whether it's the best use of their available cap space.
What are you saying in the bold?
You're right that the tag drives down contract values for elite players, which in turn helps depress salaries for all players. The tag also restricts player movement, and a "free market", and helps ownership retain ownership of labor which is un-American, if you believe America's PR. ;-)
I think you meant age 31 season. Norman is 28 in 2016.
Yours is a good, reasonable take on the situation. I don't hate it either. That is different from liking it. ;-)
Dez will eat Josh's lunch twice a year.
Total league-wide salaries = 50% of revenue, roughly speaking. Any rule that depresses salaries of some players will increase salaries of other players, and vice versa.
The franchise tag rules reduce the salaries of high-end players. Players on rookie contracts and veterans earning the minimum have salaries that are fixed by the terms of the CBA. The beneficiaries of the franchise tag, therefore, are players with 4+ years of experience who are good enough to command more than the minimum salary -- which I described lazily above as "middle-market."
Like the 1 catch for 6yds he had against Norman on Turkey day last year?
I don't understand the Josh Norman hate in this thread, he was statistically the best CB in the league last year. If we are going to start blaming CB's for the scheme they play in then I guess Richard Sherman is automatically disqualified from top CB consideration as well. Shutting down 1/3 of the field has significant value just as shutting down a single WR does.
Not only that but Norman did move around the field quite a bit last year and even when in Cover 3 he still did a great job of shutting down flat/screens at times. Some great examples in this article.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/10/22/what-makes-josh-norman-top-nfl-cornerback/
Norman is far more physical than Samuel ever was. Samuel made his $$ off his elite ball skills, Norman is much more complete than Samuel.
The gamble with Norman is that he doesn't have a long track record of elite play which is fair but if he did he probably wouldn't be available. If he continues his 2014/2015 play then it will be a good deal as there isn't likely going to be a better CB on the market for quite some time. He could even drop off some and this is still a good deal. That is how good he was last year.
But the deal was collectively bargained, which is absolutely American as much as some people wish it wasn't.
Make it an issue during the next negotiations if the players have a big problem.
Like, say Josh Norman? ;-)
Also, salaries are supposed to be 50% of league revenues, but we both know that the league has, and will do, what it can to hide revenue and therefore keep that % as close to the under as possible.
Lastly, by artificially suppressing the wage scale at the top, the owners can also depress it in this middle market by saying "you aren't worth what X is worth, and X only makes Y." If there were no tag, and no mechanism for suppressing the salaries of Von Miller, the other players at his position would benefit from higher salaries as a result -because of the suppression on the veteran minimums and rookie scale. The middle market would, in fact, do a bit better without the tag.
The history of how the tag came to be - and the owners absolute refusal to negotiate its existence - is a fascinating tale. The McNeil vs. NFL case is a must read.
I think it is fair to say that the tag has been a huge problem for players for more than 20 years, that they have tried to get it "on the table", and that owners view it as one of their non-negotiables.
Not everything in a collectively bargained agreement is actually up for negotiation. I would think Patriot fans would understand this 46 ways to Sunday. ;-)
@bagwell1 addressed this, but context matters. Dez was coming off a serious injury, trying to play himself back into shape, and had ... not his regular, good QB throwing the ball.
Like, context matters, man.
I'm not sure I understand. The NFL has clearly established salary caps and floors, and the teams all stay between them. Most of them pay up to or very close to the limit. If some group of players is seeing an artificially depleted percentage of that cap space, then some other group must be getting more to balance that.
Sort of. Those "floors" only apply every few seasons and can be functionally circumvented. The Jaguars and Raiders have done this for the past few seasons, and have had to spend $ this season to reach a three-year floor minimum... so while there are "clearly established" floors, it isn't quite as simple as 'every team spends to the cap every year' and thus the players get 50% of the revenues.
The accounting done by billionaires (i.e. the owners) to screw over the millionaires (i.e. the players) is both arcane and shady and designed to confuse everyone except the billionaire's accountants.
TL;DR - it's not as simple as that, or in how "they" present it to fans.
The accounting done by billionaires (i.e. the owners) to screw over the millionaires (i.e. the players) is both arcane and shady and designed to confuse everyone except the billionaire's accountants.
TL;DR - it's not as simple as that, or in how "they" present it to fans.
of course, the "floor" teams eventually become "excess" teams due to the cap carry over. In the Jaguars instance, yes they have been well under the cap the last few years but they will potentially have a huge competitive advantage in future years. The current regime inherited such a barren roster, there was literally no one worth keeping/ paying and it was pointless to spend more than they had to on free agents while they started the rebuild. Now that they actually have young talent, they will likely start going over the unadjusted cap in 17 and beyond to keep that talent as they will have a ridiculous amount of carry over even with the big spending spree this year.
I can't imagine too many teams not staying pretty close to the cap max over a range of years(eventually using the carryover)....unless they happen to be amazing drafters for an extended period of years.
I am with Soxfan on the major points. These owners are gangstas without the code of the old Mob.
That said, I think Norman emerged from this in good shape. He has been effectively franchised -- but with an $8 million premium. $36.5 ought to set him up for life. $51 certainly should -- and it's not a terribly difficult contract to live up to if he is as good as he played last year, or close.
This may be a win win for him and the team.
That said, I think Norman emerged from this in good shape. He has been effectively franchised -- but with an $8 million premium. $36.5 ought to set him up for life. $51 certainly should -- and it's not a terribly difficult contract to live up to if he is as good as he played last year, or close.
This may be a win win for him and the team.
The floor is misleading and while I'd like to think that Shad Khan is going to be the owner who does use the "excess" the way you're describing - we're a few years away from being able to say whether he/the Jags have done that. They could do it.
But the point is not about whether teams can spend to the cap; some do. Some... like Washington, spend the maximum allowed - but that leads to @BigSoxFan's critiques up thread and even then, they are just spending the proscribed amount, not exceeding what the cartel has decided.
And as DC deftly points out, the owners then engage in shenanigans about what "is is" as regards revenue, and the NFLPA has to triple-check the books to make sure the billionaires aren't trying to hide a million or so, in order so that the players aren't actually getting "50%" but are getting less than that.
We haven't even talked about the 89% rule. So... while it is TECHNICALLY correct to say that the tag, the CBA, and the revenue floors/caps are "on paper" - I have no idea why anyone would trust this cabal of owners to play by the rules, or even to think these rules apply to them. At this very moment, the owners have barely lived up to their promises in the CBA, use the franchise tag to suppress salaries, and generally act like gangsters with no code. There isn't one of them that isn't "IN" on the fix. Again, as Patriot fans y'all might be familiar with 46 reasons this is true, and even Saint Bob folded when he had a legit gripe with how the club acted. Ask Jerry Jones & Dan Snyder - two of the more personally odious members - about what happened when they dared to exceed that 50% threshold and dared pay players like it was a "free" market.
TL;DR - the owners are bad. The players, despite making lots of money, get screwed over - literally - with chickenshit stuff as their billionaire owners seek to hide pennies-on-the-dollar from the general revenue numbers. And the Jags (and Raiders) might eventually spend the money they've saved by playing by the CBA rules - or they might continue to hoard it to spend on stadium expenses - which aren't classified by the accountants as part of the revenue sharing agreements of the CBA.
Oh, and the owners got away with paying "up to $1 billion over the next 65 years" as part of their blanket concussion settlement last week - after holding Kevin Turner & Steve Gleason hostage. The NFL made $12 billion in 2014.
Yeah, it's better to just ignore this stuff and enjoy the games. Look too hard and you will make yourself ill.
The more I look at free agency the more I think paying market for a superstar might be the worst kind of free agent contract. When the Pats spend small or modest money for Jabaal Sheard or Scott Chandler or Alan Branch, at least there's a chance of surplus value - that you pay Sheard $4 MM and he's worth $8. When you pay Josh Norman $16 MM, the best-case scenario is that he's worth $16. He can't be worth $20MM because no CB is worth $20, and he's probably worth $12, and there's some chance that he gets hurt or last year is a semi-fluke and he's worth $5.
This is pretty much where I'm at, though I'm not as opposed to market value FA contracts for true, elite superstars. Yes, it will be extremely unlikely they will outperform their contract, but you're paying a premium for a certain level of comfort that you will receive elite performance in return. If someone wants to pay a Darrelle Revis like he's the best corner in the NFL, when he's shown that ability over a number of seasons, I take no qualms with that. Whether or not it's a smart contract for the hypothetical team signing him will be context dependent, but in a vacuum, I'm not opposed to it.
The problem with Norman is that he is not that kind of player. Or, to state it more accurately, he has not shown elite level performance over the course of his career. Nobody even knew who he was until this past season.
Cian Fahey from FO, who is generally an excellent read, hits a lot of the key points in his film analysis:
Last edited:
I agree with most of this post, but I don't think Shad Khan or Mark Davis were "saving" their money intentionally. I think their teams were bad enough and their destinations mediocre enough that they were having trouble spending their money on assets that were worth the price on the open market. I think the Jags and Raiders spent huge this off season because they actually could due to their teams being more attractive to quality free agents, rather than a race to hit the floor.