2020 NFL: Offseason News and Notes

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,388
How much is too much? I think we all agree that Mahomes is the best player in the world. Jackson is great, but Mahomes is really on another level entirely. There's nothing a QB needs to do that he doesn't do...at an elite level, at least as far as I can tell. And he's not even yet 25 years old. It's like when LeBron was in his prime - a lot of other great players, but nobody on his level.

But there's a salary cap - a real one. Every dollar spent on Mahomes is a dollar you cannot spend on someone else. How much money is too much? Let's not talk about length of contract. Let's just talk about on a one-year basis, how much money is too much even for Mahomes? $40 million? $45 million? $50 million? More? At a certain point, obviously mathematically it becomes too much - there is a literal limit he can be paid or else you cannot field a team. And obviously there's a point at which it's clear he's well worth THIS amount (whatever THIS is). So the truth lies somewhere in-between. But what is that line?
It's an interesting debate because I think what we have seen over recent football history is that a great QB can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast, but to win the Super Bowl you really need to have a well-rounded team. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, etc. all have had monster seasons, but only really won when they had a good defense around them. Even KC doesn't win the Super Bowl last year if they didn't have the 7th best defense in the league.

So yes, Mahomes by himself is probably worth 9-11 wins a season as long as he stays healthy, but I don't think that is what KC is going for, they want to win multiple super bowls, and historically that has been very tough to do unless you have a good defense and good players on offense. Even going back to Marino and Elway, those guys needed help to win (and Marino never got it and he was every bit as good as Mahomes).
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
It's an interesting debate because I think what we have seen over recent football history is that a great QB can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast, but to win the Super Bowl you really need to have a well-rounded team. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, etc. all have had monster seasons, but only really won when they had a good defense around them. Even KC doesn't win the Super Bowl last year if they didn't have the 7th best defense in the league.

So yes, Mahomes by himself is probably worth 9-11 wins a season as long as he stays healthy, but I don't think that is what KC is going for, they want to win multiple super bowls, and historically that has been very tough to do unless you have a good defense and good players on offense. Even going back to Marino and Elway, those guys needed help to win (and Marino never got it and he was every bit as good as Mahomes).
Agreed. So.........where's the line? How much is too much, do you think?
 

Cotillion

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
391
Raw number is not what is important though. It’s the percentage of the cap that matters. And yes there probably is a point where it is no longer sustainable.

What that number is? No idea, but there probably is a sweet spot. However the sweet spot is thrown off a bit by the idea of losing that person due to injury.

QB is probably the one place where the percentage taken up by one player can be justified as it’s almost impossible to have a Steve Young situation these days cause you can’t lock up that kind of money needed to keep a Quality starting QB on the bench. Belichick ran into that problem with Brady and Jimmy G.

The real economy savings are probably in the other skill position places. Where it’s possible to get 85% of what an elite receiver, slot, TE, corner, safety, etc for maybe 70% cost. Or something.

That is the real trick to roster management in this era. Finding the diamonds in the rough that allow you to underpay them while overpaying the ones where you can’t find that comparable enough person.

Chiefs ability to win multiple going forward is there ability to find those ones that they can underpay so they can offset what Mahomes will now eat up.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,388
Raw number is not what is important though. It’s the percentage of the cap that matters. And yes there probably is a point where it is no longer sustainable.

What that number is? No idea, but there probably is a sweet spot. However the sweet spot is thrown off a bit by the idea of losing that person due to injury.

QB is probably the one place where the percentage taken up by one player can be justified as it’s almost impossible to have a Steve Young situation these days cause you can’t lock up that kind of money needed to keep a Quality starting QB on the bench. Belichick ran into that problem with Brady and Jimmy G.

The real economy savings are probably in the other skill position places. Where it’s possible to get 85% of what an elite receiver, slot, TE, corner, safety, etc for maybe 70% cost. Or something.

That is the real trick to roster management in this era. Finding the diamonds in the rough that allow you to underpay them while overpaying the ones where you can’t find that comparable enough person.

Chiefs ability to win multiple going forward is there ability to find those ones that they can underpay so they can offset what Mahomes will now eat up.
The tricky part of that is that KC is going from getting insane value from a QB on his rookie deal, to a massive contract. I think we saw something similar in Seattle, Wilson gave Seattle incredible value on his rookie deal, but once he signed a big extension the team's depth cratered and it became more of a one-man-show than a well-rounded team. Wilson has gotten them to the playoffs, but not back to the Super Bowl since he became expensive.

In a lot of ways, the success of all NFL teams hinge on getting good value out of lowly-paid players, something that the Patriots have been excellent at while also avoiding overpaying veteran players. When you can get elite QB production by paying them peanuts, it is the best value in all of sports. Going from that to having him chew up 40% or whatever of the cap is like going from living at home with your parents and saving a ton of money, to paying for your own penthouse apartment.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,228
Hingham, MA
Raw number is not what is important though. It’s the percentage of the cap that matters. And yes there probably is a point where it is no longer sustainable.

What that number is? No idea, but there probably is a sweet spot. However the sweet spot is thrown off a bit by the idea of losing that person due to injury.

QB is probably the one place where the percentage taken up by one player can be justified as it’s almost impossible to have a Steve Young situation these days cause you can’t lock up that kind of money needed to keep a Quality starting QB on the bench. Belichick ran into that problem with Brady and Jimmy G.

The real economy savings are probably in the other skill position places. Where it’s possible to get 85% of what an elite receiver, slot, TE, corner, safety, etc for maybe 70% cost. Or something.

That is the real trick to roster management in this era. Finding the diamonds in the rough that allow you to underpay them while overpaying the ones where you can’t find that comparable enough person.

Chiefs ability to win multiple going forward is there ability to find those ones that they can underpay so they can offset what Mahomes will now eat up.
Exactly, % of cap. In the last 5 years, the only QB to make a SB accounting for 14% or more of the cap was Matt Ryan in 2016.
 
That's fine. He's not as good as Mahomes though.
He's not as good *now* as Mahomes is, but was he as good in 2016 as Mahomes is now? Pretty damn close. You seem determined to make this an apples-to-oranges comparison, even when there's an apples-to-apples comparison sitting right there in front of you. (And a 28-3 joke waiting to be made at my expense as well!)
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,183
Well I think we can all agree on one thing: it is a crime that neither Ryan or Mahomes got the ball back.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
He's not as good *now* as Mahomes is, but was he as good in 2016 as Mahomes is now? Pretty damn close. You seem determined to make this an apples-to-oranges comparison, even when there's an apples-to-apples comparison sitting right there in front of you. (And a 28-3 joke waiting to be made at my expense as well!)
No I'm just asking if Mahomes is worth a higher % of his team's cap than Ryan was. And where's the line you'd draw.

No need for us to get sidetracked.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,784
The Chiefs can always balance out their cap by signing perpetrators of domestic violence on the cheap or drafting them in later rounds after they slip.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
6,657
0-3 to 4-3
I like the idea of focusing on QB pay as a percentage of the cap. Is there a way to quantify what TB’s % was vs what market rate would have likely been during his peak(s)?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
Raheem Mostert requests trade. He actually doesn't make that much money, but obviously he's looking for more. Guy has electric speed and was terrific this past year.

 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
1,782
Arkansas
Raheem Mostert requests trade. He actually doesn't make that much money, but obviously he's looking for more. Guy has electric speed and was terrific this past year.

ne has little cap for him jackonvillie wouild be a good spot
 

DanoooME

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,469
Richmond, VA
I like the idea of focusing on QB pay as a percentage of the cap. Is there a way to quantify what TB’s % was vs what market rate would have likely been during his peak(s)?
OTC has it. Brady's highest % of cap was in 2006 at 13.9%. It was 12.6% in 2008 and 12.2% twice (2018 for the Pats and this coming season for the Bucs). Most of the time he's been in the 9-11% range, which is a ridiculous steal.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,753
Mansfield MA
I think aside from the high percentage Mahomes is getting, which is fair and probably navigable, the whole Chiefs approach to cap space is interesting. They've got top-of-market contracts at edge (Frank Clark), IDL (Chris Jones), WR (Tyreek Hill), S/DB (Tyrann Mathieu), and now Mahomes, and Eric Fisher's LT contract isn't far behind. Seems like it will be tough to build the middle class of the roster with all that invested at the top. It's the polar opposite of the Patriots' approach.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
10,814
South Boston
If I were a Chiefs fan, I would love this deal. Look, not every QB is going to take a Brady-like undervalued contract. The Chiefs have won their SB and are likely to make multiple nore runs (injuries notwithstanding). That's an NFL Fan's dream. We have been spoiled the last 20 years. Mahomes taking a big chunk of the cap is worth it. They are contenders with him alone. As a fan, I want to be entertained. He will do that as long as he is out there.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,228
Hingham, MA
I think aside from the high percentage Mahomes is getting, which is fair and probably navigable, the whole Chiefs approach to cap space is interesting. They've got top-of-market contracts at edge (Frank Clark), IDL (Chris Jones), WR (Tyreek Hill), S/DB (Tyrann Mathieu), and now Mahomes, and Eric Fisher's LT contract isn't far behind. Seems like it will be tough to build the middle class of the roster with all that invested at the top. It's the polar opposite of the Patriots' approach.
Reminds me of the Colts in the mid-aughts, with huge hits at QB, WR, RB, and DE.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
So SOSH....who would you rather have for 2021:

Patrick Mahomes at a $24.8 million cap hit
or
Lamar Jackson at a $3.0 million cap hit
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
2,471
NYC
And they were enormously successful with that approach. Just look at their year-by-year results during that time.


They just happened to be trying it at the same time the Patriots' dynasty emerged. Bad luck for them. haha
I mean the Pats only knocked them out of the playoffs twice. That team underperformed in the playoffs like most high power offenses do.

02 - Lost to Jets
03 - Lost to Pats
04 - Lost to Pats
05 - Lost to Steelers
06 - Should have lost to the Pats (Flu Game)
07 - Lost to Chargers
08 - Lost to Chargers
09 - Lost to Saints
10 - Lost to Jets

So what a high cap hits on the offensive side of the ball will get you to the playoffs and historically a bye (when top 2 seeds)...but a high powered offense is easier to beat than a top defense or well-rounded team.

The Chiefs got lucky this year that all the best teams got knocked out and they fell behind 24-0 to the Texans, not the Ravens or Pats.

Counterpoint - You want to be in the mix every year and all it takes a bit of luck (which the pats had in every SB run), so they should always be invited to the dance.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,753
Mansfield MA
The Colts had the #1 scoring D in 2007, and also good Ds in 2005, and 2008. Weirdly the 2006 D was probably their worst in the regular season, but then they benched Gilbert Gardner and Bob Sanders got healthy and they played really well in that playoff run.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
Cbssports ranking the most overpaid players in football. I came to this name:

9. Leonard Fournette, RB (Jaguars)
2020 cap hit: $8.6 million

When the Jaguars selected Leonard Fournette with the fourth overall pick in the 2017 NFL Draft, they probably thought he was going to be in Jacksonville for awhile, but instead, he's now the poster child for why you should almost never take a running back in the top-five. The Jaguars have been so frustrated with Fournette that they didn't even pick up the fifth-year option on his rookie deal. Instead, he'll almost certainly be leaving the team after 2020, but not before the Jags get hit with one more giant cap hit. Fournette's $8.6 million hit in 2020 is the fifth-highest among all running backs for the upcoming season.

Why are the Jags "so frustrated" with Fournette? Last year he had 265 rushes for 1,152 yards (4.3 ypc) to go along with 76 receptions for 522 yards. I get he makes a lot of money but why would any team be "so frustrated" with a RB that gives you that kind of production?
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
977
So SOSH....who would you rather have for 2021:

Patrick Mahomes at a $24.8 million cap hit
or
Lamar Jackson at a $3.0 million cap hit
Okay that's a fascinating question, I think for their respective teams I'd take Mahomes @ 25m. If you could put Lamar in KC for 3m I'd do that over Mahomes in Baltimore for $25m. I guess that just means I feel better about KC's roster and adding on more piece to it, with the 22m savings would probably be way better than subtracting 22m in Cap Space for Baltimore with Mahomes. But yeah either is amazing value.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
28,582

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,228
Hingham, MA
Okay that's a fascinating question, I think for their respective teams I'd take Mahomes @ 25m. If you could put Lamar in KC for 3m I'd do that over Mahomes in Baltimore for $25m. I guess that just means I feel better about KC's roster and adding on more piece to it, with the 22m savings would probably be way better than subtracting 22m in Cap Space for Baltimore with Mahomes. But yeah either is amazing value.
Yeah starting a roster from scratch I take Mahomes at $25M. No questions asked.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,096
CT
Cbssports ranking the most overpaid players in football. I came to this name:

9. Leonard Fournette, RB (Jaguars)
2020 cap hit: $8.6 million

When the Jaguars selected Leonard Fournette with the fourth overall pick in the 2017 NFL Draft, they probably thought he was going to be in Jacksonville for awhile, but instead, he's now the poster child for why you should almost never take a running back in the top-five. The Jaguars have been so frustrated with Fournette that they didn't even pick up the fifth-year option on his rookie deal. Instead, he'll almost certainly be leaving the team after 2020, but not before the Jags get hit with one more giant cap hit. Fournette's $8.6 million hit in 2020 is the fifth-highest among all running backs for the upcoming season.

Why are the Jags "so frustrated" with Fournette? Last year he had 265 rushes for 1,152 yards (4.3 ypc) to go along with 76 receptions for 522 yards. I get he makes a lot of money but why would any team be "so frustrated" with a RB that gives you that kind of production?
They should be frustrated with themselves for taking a RB that high, especially in that draft.

By almost every metric, Fournette had the best year of his career last year, even though his TD output was the lowest of his career.

I have to assume it’s more to do with he looked like the second coming of Adrian Peterson coming out of college and he’s been just an above average RB so far. Was drafting him worth passing on Mahomes? Or Watson? Or McCaffrey? Or even Jamal Adams? I would say absolutely not.

Hindsight is 20/20 and they had Bortles still, but Fournette looks like a glaring miss when you consider who went behind him.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,388
Bortles looked more like a solid QB when Fournette was drafted. In 2016 Bortles threw for 3,900 yards, with 23 TDS and 16INTs. The year before he threw for 4,400 yards with 35 TDS and 18 Ints.

The problems with Fournette stem less from production and more from attitude, IIRC. He got in a dispute after being fined for sitting on the bench during a game and he has had mysterious benchings before and hasn't always been a happy camper in Jacksonville.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,661
So SOSH....who would you rather have for 2021:

Patrick Mahomes at a $24.8 million cap hit
or
Lamar Jackson at a $3.0 million cap hit
I think I'm taking Mahomes despite the cap hit. Jackson is the best running QB in all of football, but Mahomes is on another level as a passer. Finances might give Jackson the edge in '20, but the year after when his extension comes up, things are going to get dicey for Baltimore.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
13,609
So SOSH....who would you rather have for 2021:

Patrick Mahomes at a $24.8 million cap hit
or
Lamar Jackson at a $3.0 million cap hit
Why start with 2021, instead of 2020, when Mahomes' cap hit will be just over $5 million?

And after 2021, Jackson will either be ridiculously expensive, or leave.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
Why start with 2021, instead of 2020, when Mahomes' cap hit will be just over $5 million?

And after 2021, Jackson will either be ridiculously expensive, or leave.
Because Mahomes at $5m or Jackson at $3m isn’t interesting. I’m trying to find out how much SOSH values Mahomes over Jackson.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,388
In regards to Jackson, I'm still not sold that what he and Baltimore have done isn't really a gimmick and that over time teams will adjust to it similar to how they figured out Harbugh/Kap and the read option, and that Jackson is a huge injury risk with his style of play.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,764
In regards to Jackson, I'm still not sold that what he and Baltimore have done isn't really a gimmick and that over time teams will adjust to it similar to how they figured out Harbugh/Kap and the read option, and that Jackson is a huge injury risk with his style of play.
I'm not sold that it's a gimmick. What you have is an absolutely incredible athlete at QB and a coach that's willing to let him run like he's in college. That gives the defenses another guy to defend. When the offense runs a RB one direction and the QB can go the other, what is the defense to do? If the rules allowed the D to blast the QB anyway, even when he gives the ball off, then it might slow the Ravens (or similar offenses) down. But you really can't.

And so you load up trying to deal with the run and Jackson is accurate enough to hit wide open receivers all over the field.

You need a team that can defend the receivers one-on-one and shut down the passing game, and then commit every other defensive resource to stopping the run and containing Jackson. It's hard to do. Obviously.

They might change things up if Jackson gets injured and they realize their meal ticket is in jeopardy. But he does such a good job avoiding big hits that it seems like that's not likely to happen.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,753
Mansfield MA
Why are the Jags "so frustrated" with Fournette? Last year he had 265 rushes for 1,152 yards (4.3 ypc) to go along with 76 receptions for 522 yards. I get he makes a lot of money but why would any team be "so frustrated" with a RB that gives you that kind of production?
This is all volume production. That's an average YPC rate and that's low yardage for that number of receptions. It's the Sony argument redux.

I'm not sold that it's a gimmick. What you have is an absolutely incredible athlete at QB and a coach that's willing to let him run like he's in college. That gives the defenses another guy to defend. When the offense runs a RB one direction and the QB can go the other, what is the defense to do? If the rules allowed the D to blast the QB anyway, even when he gives the ball off, then it might slow the Ravens (or similar offenses) down. But you really can't.

And so you load up trying to deal with the run and Jackson is accurate enough to hit wide open receivers all over the field.

You need a team that can defend the receivers one-on-one and shut down the passing game, and then commit every other defensive resource to stopping the run and containing Jackson. It's hard to do. Obviously.

They might change things up if Jackson gets injured and they realize their meal ticket is in jeopardy. But he does such a good job avoiding big hits that it seems like that's not likely to happen.
I think you're right but I also expect some regression from 2019. They averaged 5.5 YPC last year; every team that averaged 5.4 YPC or better since the merger (and there are only six) saw that regress pretty hard, even though they also had transcendent running talents (Vick twice, Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, and Cam). Basically the only offensive injury last year was Matt Skuta going on IR after 11 games. They're already down Yanda and Hurst from last year, though some young guys will probably improve.

We already saw the Ravens regress a little down the stretch last year (they were the greatest offense of all time through ~12 weeks). I'm kind of interested in seeing how much they regress further before I put my eggs in the Jackson basket. The Chiefs regressed from 2018 to 2019 and are still really friggin' good.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,661
I'm not sold that it's a gimmick. What you have is an absolutely incredible athlete at QB and a coach that's willing to let him run like he's in college. That gives the defenses another guy to defend. When the offense runs a RB one direction and the QB can go the other, what is the defense to do? If the rules allowed the D to blast the QB anyway, even when he gives the ball off, then it might slow the Ravens (or similar offenses) down. But you really can't.

And so you load up trying to deal with the run and Jackson is accurate enough to hit wide open receivers all over the field.

You need a team that can defend the receivers one-on-one and shut down the passing game, and then commit every other defensive resource to stopping the run and containing Jackson. It's hard to do. Obviously.

They might change things up if Jackson gets injured and they realize their meal ticket is in jeopardy. But he does such a good job avoiding big hits that it seems like that's not likely to happen.
It also helps to have receivers it's tough to cover in single coverage, something that's a lot easier to do when the QB's making 3% of the salary cap. Once he begins getting Pat Mahomes money that gets a lot tougher without making real sacrifices elsewhere.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,463
ct
To be pedantic - the image says it's quoting Hitler, but the quote is actually from Farrakhan.
I mean, that doesn't make it better of course.
Only a couple of posts on the DeSean Jackson's Twitter posts? To follow up, as punishment and education, the Eagles fined Jackson and he met a 96 year old Holocaust survivor. When the timing is right, he will also visit a Holocaust camp along with other educational efforts. How come Desean's tweets along with Stephen Jackson's tweets barely raised a ripple while Drew Brees's tweets raised a national uproar. I think Brees' s tweets were offensive too, but one set goes national while the other is barely mentioned. If Jackson's tweets are mentioned it is in the context of the BLM movement. Malcolm Jenkins basically said that the reason DeSean Jackson's tweets are bad is because they detract from the BLM Movement. Jenkins barely acknowledged the Anti Semitic nature of the remarks. Oh well I guess that's the way it is in today's society.
I would love to hear Lebron's remarks on the Jackson tweets but he has been silent about it.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
10,814
South Boston
Only a couple of posts on the DeSean Jackson's Twitter posts? To follow up, as punishment and education, the Eagles fined Jackson and he met a 96 year old Holocaust survivor. When the timing is right, he will also visit a Holocaust camp along with other educational efforts. How come Desean's tweets along with Stephen Jackson's tweets barely raised a ripple while Drew Brees's tweets raised a national uproar. I think Brees' s tweets were offensive too, but one set goes national while the other is barely mentioned. If Jackson's tweets are mentioned it is in the context of the BLM movement. Malcolm Jenkins basically said that the reason DeSean Jackson's tweets are bad is because they detract from the BLM Movement. Jenkins barely acknowledged the Anti Semitic nature of the remarks. Oh well I guess that's the way it is in today's society.
I would love to hear Lebron's remarks on the Jackson tweets but he has been silent about it.
It was the top story on ESPN for two days. There's not much discussion to be held. No one here thinks the tweets we OK.

Why would LeBron talk about a player that has been retired for 6 years? Do we expect Bryce Harper to speak up about Schillings tweet?

I get where you are coming from, but do you see how your post sort of smells like a little bit of playing the white victim?
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
5,602
I don’t get where he’s coming from. One person made stupid comments in the face of a national movement about a damn flag and came back with an edited for language rap playlist to show how he is working on it. The other made anti Semitic comments, got fined and denounced and met a Holocaust survivor and is going to meet with others moving forward. One is also a premier player in the league and one is not. It’s “What about black on black crime?”
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,144
Pasadena, CA
Sorry for my continued writing on this topic. I promise this will be my last post. Anyway to comment on a couple of replies to my post. @Caspir and @PC Drunken Friar both minimized the status of Stephen Jackson and DeSean Jackson calling Stephen simply "a retired player" and saying Desean was not a premier player. I think this is incorrect. For one thing, Stephen Jackson got a lot of national publicity for his friendship with George Floyd. S.J. is also the host of a popular TV show called Up in Smoke. He was also recently an analyst on ESPN if I'm not mistaken. So Stephen Jackson "s opinions carry more weight than some random retired dude such as Caldwell Jones.
I also disagree with the opinion that DeSean Jackson is not a premier player. Have you seen his career stats? Granted he was injured last year but overall he has had a great career. Wouldn't you have liked him on the Pats rather than some of the drek that was their receiving core the past couple of years?
Anyway, why should we give a damm what these guys said. Malize Young a former Globe writer expressed my thoughts perfectly in an article in Bleacher Report. She mentioned how the Jews are the among the biggest allies in the BLM movement.. She also mentioned how Anti Semitic crimes have increased dramatically over the past few years just as racism has increased. Young states that African Americans should not ignore or minimize the struggles of one of their closest allies. Many blacks and Americans in general minimize the fact that Anti Semitic behavior has dramatically increased in this country. According to Young the struggle should not be as Malcolm Jenkins stated in his tweet "be glossed over."
Finally the reason I brought up LeBron was he is good friends with Stephen Jackson and reached out to him in the George Floyd case. Why shouldn't he comment on the opinion of his friend who has a national platform. Again thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm not sure if this should probably go in V and N.
There is a thread in V&N.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
1,771
UK
I don't think I value him 8x as much. Would anyone?
We need to unpack what we mean when we say "Eight times as much." Would I rather have one year of 2018 Mahomes vs eight years of 2019 Jackson? Probably not. Would I rather have one player with the level of impact Mahomes has on winning, vs eight players (at any position) with the impact Jackson does? Definitely not. Would I rather have one literal Mahomes clone than eight literal Jackson clones? Yes, because only one of the Jacksons can start (well, he's so good you'd probably start a Jackson at running back and maybe slot receiver too, but you know what I mean). I probably would rather have two Jackson-level contributors than one Mahomes, and the number of Jackson-level contributors to equal Mahomes is definitely not more than three. It's totally normal to pay premium dollars for relatively small extra win equity, though, in light of the eleven guys things. PFF rates one WAR from a player playing on an extension as costing $32m on average over the last decade; since I think Mahomes is a good bet to average 3 WAR over the lifetime of the contract, then I like the deal.

A fair way of looking at it might be: Would you rather have Jackson, and Aaron Donald in the middle of your D-Line, or Mahomes and a third-round rookie? I think I'm going Mahomes there. And even that comparison might not be fair, because guys as good as Donald tend not to reach free agency; so that option is only available to you if you happened to draft both a guy as good as Donald and an elite QB, or the Donald-level player becomes disgruntled and you pony up, say, two firsts.

He's not as good *now* as Mahomes is, but was he as good in 2016 as Mahomes is now? Pretty damn close. You seem determined to make this an apples-to-oranges comparison, even when there's an apples-to-apples comparison sitting right there in front of you. (And a 28-3 joke waiting to be made at my expense as well!)
C'mon man, I guess this being a Pats forum we can allow a little persecution complex sometimes, but Baseballjones started by asking specifically what people thought Mahomes was worth. Someone said, it's not dollars, it's percentage of the cap. OK, what percentage of the cap then? Tims then says, well, the highest we've had in five years is Ryan in 2016. Then Jones is like, OK, so how much more than 2016 Ryan is he worth? Dude's just trying to get someone to answer the question, but folks keep shifting the goalposts. He didn't bring up Ryan, and it's clearly not an attempt to bait you. I also don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Mahomes now is a lot better than '16 Ryan (I don't think the converse is unreasonable; it's a decent argument worth having).

The Ryan example is instructive, because Ryan signed his deal after 2012, when the team was really good. Then they have two bad and one mediocre season, netting them decent draft picks, enough to put a load of cheap young talent on the roster, particularly defense, permitting them to come within a gnat's pubic hair of a title. Is the Mahomes contract worth it if it, combined with a few injuries, gives them a couple losing seasons before returning to serious contention? What about if he's more like Rodgers, and the team's always in the contending pack, but never the favorite, but also rarely has a season bad enough to land elite talent to put them over the top? Would KC fans think it's worth it if the next decade has two MVP season and 3-4 AFCCG appearances, but no SB appearances?

My two cents: It's difficult to put an upper limit on it, because we're dealing with something unprecedented. I feel like a quarter of the cap would clearly be too much, but 2016 Ryan is something I'd do in a heartbeat. If he were a free agent, and I were in a competitive auction? I'd probably go to something like 20%. You could like afford one other premium talent, and then have to fill the roster out with first contract guys, players on one year prove-its, and ring chasers, but I'm cool with that, especially if I'm actually the Chiefs and have Andy Reid. Reid isn't quite Belichick, and Mahomes is unlikely to be as underpaid as Brady, so I don't think they'll quite manage anything resembling either of the Pats' separate SB runs, but they're a good bet to get as close as anyone is. If i set the over/under for Mahomes playing on this contract at 1.5 titles, which way would people bet?
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the science is behind the new Oakley Mouth Shield:
J.J. Watt isn't a fan, certainly:
"My second year in the league I thought it'd be cool, I put a visor on my helmet," Watt told ProFootballTalk. "I was like, 'It looks so cool, I wanna put a visor on.' I had it on for about three periods of practice and I said, 'Take this sucker off -- I'm gonna die out here.' ... So now you're gonna put something around my mouth? You can keep that. If that comes into play, I don't think you're gonna see me on the field."
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,107
Portsmouth, NH