2020 Miscellaneous NFL News

[nate82]

For the 2021 season the figure that I am seeing thrown around the most for a salary cap is something like $185m. Some are thinking as high as $195m but I don't think that is reasonable and that is just agents and players trying to push it to that mark but I don't believe it will get that high as I believe the owners are going to want to know how many fans they can expect in 2021. If it looks like it is going to be at an extreme reduced capacity I think $185m is the safest bet maybe lower but it won't be $175m nor will it be $195m. I think $185m is the break even point that the teams will agree on and the players will have to settle with.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of free agents this year sign 1-year deals and try to cash in on the possible increased salary cap in 2022 though that may not be as big of an increase if the owners are not able to sell tickets or can only fill the stadium at 10% of capacity. I think the 2022 salary cap with a 10% capacity in stadiums will only result in another small increase to the cap to say about $205m and that maybe on the high side.

[tmwiese55]

Yea Sterling should definitely be in, another factor in his stats was that was before the massive passing explosion of the last 15-20 years.

 

Being at home if I toss on espn lately they have to rant about the Zak/Cowboys situation. And all they do is act like it's all the teams fault, just pay him, stop being cheap, racist that they won't pay, etc. My understanding (unless something has recently changed) is the disagreement is over years and Dallas wants to give him one more year and subsequently more money. Zak wants a year less to hit FA sooner again. Yet every day it's a rant about how cheap they're being and how it's ridiculous. The whole narrative just seems off to me when they are literally trying to give him more money but that never gets brought up. I assume Dal wants/needs it this way to help with manipulating the cap somehow, which helps keep the team strong around him and helps him have a stronger chance of success. To the more informed NFL folks, am I missing something?

[nate82]

ESPN has become useless and they barely just report on sports. It is mostly just talking heads trying to say something controversial so they can get some clicks on their website or views on their channel(s). Their MLB coverage used to be good but it is now garbage same with their NBA and NHL coverage and their NFL coverage is just oversaturated garbage. I can't really tell you the last time I watched something on ESPN that wasn't an NBA game or a MLB game I think it has been about 5 or so years since I watched something on ESPN.

[CheezWizHed]

Agreed. You lost me at ESPN...

[tmwiese55]

Right, before pandemic I essentially never watched these idiot talking heads, just live games. But now I'll throw it on in the background here and there and will see stuff like this if I pay attention before turning it off/down. There was a stretch in the season where every day was Eagles/Wentz talk and that was my cue to turn it off, now it's Dak/Cowboys. But was just curious if I was missing something on the Dak situation as I'm not nearly as nerdy with NFL.

 

NBA tv is ok and MLB Network is really good though. I don't know why it's so hard for espn to just show what happened in games instead of people arguing about sports. They already onw the rights and don't have to pay some jabroni a million dollars to argue.

[patrickgpe]

I don't know why it's so hard for espn to just show what happened in games instead of people arguing about sports.

hot takes is where the ratings and money are. The highest paid guys are guys like Cowheard and Skip whom atleast half the time don't even agree with their points and just through out hot takes to stir the pot I believe.

[tmwiese55]

Is it though, do you know anyone who likes that stuff vs how many people are turned off by? Similar to what I'm describing, espn is just what gets tossed on the background, they're probably gonna get ballpark same ratings anyway. Sure seems like it turns more people off than anything else. My understanding is they think people get their 'highlights' from their phones and that's why they don't do it. I guess they're the experts on it but I'm not sure they're right on it. I suppose looking at politics cable news and how much people love talking heads screaming there and telling them what to think it makes sense but I'm not convinced for sports.

 

Pretty much the only ones I like are Jalen and Jacoby. Mostly because they're just having fun.

 

Either way, seems no one is saying my understanding on Dak/Dallas is wrong. Just every time I see that rant before turning I roll me eyes and I was curious if I was wrong

[madbad2000]

Once they shifted to more talk and propped up people like Skip and Stephen A. Smith, I was gone for good. Hot takes really don't capture my attention and I prefer actual analysis and debate.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Is it though, do you know anyone who likes that stuff vs how many people are turned off by? Similar to what I'm describing, espn is just what gets tossed on the background, they're probably gonna get ballpark same ratings anyway. Sure seems like it turns more people off than anything else. My understanding is they think people get their 'highlights' from their phones and that's why they don't do it. I guess they're the experts on it but I'm not sure they're right on it. I suppose looking at politics cable news and how much people love talking heads screaming there and telling them what to think it makes sense but I'm not convinced for sports.

 

Pretty much the only ones I like are Jalen and Jacoby. Mostly because they're just having fun.

 

Either way, seems no one is saying my understanding on Dak/Dallas is wrong. Just every time I see that rant before turning I roll me eyes and I was curious if I was wrong

 

I don't have the data for this but I think their daytime programming is mostly for 13-23 year old men. That's when I watched those shows and damn near everyone I know who watches them is that demo. I haven't watched a hot take show in probably a decade. It's all just producers telling guys what to say. There's a reason the hosts always blasts teams with huge amounts of fans. You'll never hear Cowherd going off on the Falcons 2x a week.

 

 

This tells you everything. These guys don't know 80% of what they're saying. This whole segment is from an intern's notes.

[nate82]

I can't find where I saw this rumor but apparently the Panthers are willing to trade McCaffrey and Bridgewater plus 3 1sts for Watson.

 

That is a very steep price and if true I don't see how anyone could top that.

[tmwiese55]

 

Is it though, do you know anyone who likes that stuff vs how many people are turned off by? Similar to what I'm describing, espn is just what gets tossed on the background, they're probably gonna get ballpark same ratings anyway. Sure seems like it turns more people off than anything else. My understanding is they think people get their 'highlights' from their phones and that's why they don't do it. I guess they're the experts on it but I'm not sure they're right on it. I suppose looking at politics cable news and how much people love talking heads screaming there and telling them what to think it makes sense but I'm not convinced for sports.

 

Pretty much the only ones I like are Jalen and Jacoby. Mostly because they're just having fun.

 

Either way, seems no one is saying my understanding on Dak/Dallas is wrong. Just every time I see that rant before turning I roll me eyes and I was curious if I was wrong

 

I don't have the data for this but I think their daytime programming is mostly for 13-23 year old men. That's when I watched those shows and damn near everyone I know who watches them is that demo. I haven't watched a hot take show in probably a decade. It's all just producers telling guys what to say. There's a reason the hosts always blasts teams with huge amounts of fans. You'll never hear Cowherd going off on the Falcons 2x a week.

 

 

This tells you everything. These guys don't know 80% of what they're saying. This whole segment is from an intern's notes.

 

 

Right, I know it's all bs which is why I hate it and never watched before being at home for a year straight. For the most part I'll only click on SC and toss on in the background since it has a semblance of showing recaps, but they bring the guys in too to argue eventually and that's when I flip. Lately, what those guys get brought in for is this Dak rant and that's when I flip and was just making sure my understanding wasn't totally wrong on that situation.

 

I have no info on the ratings stuff but my quick gut would be that 13-18 year olds are at school for 75% of the year so not watching live a ton? If they're factoring in click bait things on twitter/FB/Insta those age watch, are young people really clicking to watch two guys argue about sports? Maybe they are IDK but that would interest me in no way, even when I was that age.

[SeaBass]

Yea Sterling should definitely be in, another factor in his stats was that was before the massive passing explosion of the last 15-20 years.

 

Being at home if I toss on espn lately they have to rant about the Zak/Cowboys situation. And all they do is act like it's all the teams fault, just pay him, stop being cheap, racist that they won't pay, etc. My understanding (unless something has recently changed) is the disagreement is over years and Dallas wants to give him one more year and subsequently more money. Zak wants a year less to hit FA sooner again. Yet every day it's a rant about how cheap they're being and how it's ridiculous. The whole narrative just seems off to me when they are literally trying to give him more money but that never gets brought up. I assume Dal wants/needs it this way to help with manipulating the cap somehow, which helps keep the team strong around him and helps him have a stronger chance of success. To the more informed NFL folks, am I missing something?

NFL contracts are not typically guaranteed like in other sports. That makes contract length irrelevant to a player unless the team is saying they will fully guarantee the contract (which I doubt they are) or give him an opt out.

 

Like we just saw with JJ Watt, the Texans were able to release him even though he had 1 year left on his contract for around $17 million. That last year was fully in the team's control, they could have kept and paid him if they felt he was worth it or they could do what they did and release him. By this time any guaranteed money Watt was paid upon signing the contract had no impact on that last year of his deal, the Texans released him and were free and clear of that $17 million obligation with no salary cap penalties. Yet from a player perspective Watt had to ask for his release, he was locked into that year and was at the mercy of the team's decision.

 

JJ Watt is still good and likely to get a good contract now that he's a FA, maybe not $17 million per year good but still good. But if Watt's performance had dropped to a point where it made no sense to pay him $17 million he could be cut and out of a job and the Texans still would have been free and clear salary cap wise. That's a huge advantage for the team and not any advantage for the player.

 

Dak just wants more control over the end of his contract. Or he's just trying to get more guaranteed money from Dallas than they're currently offering.

[tmwiese55]

Yes I know NFL contracts aren't all guaranteed. The reported offer was 5/175 with over 110 mil gtd. I think both were records at the time, as this was before Maholmes signed. Supposedly he doesn't want the 5th year and that's the impasse. All that stuff would get paired down if you cut a year off. I just don't see how this is the team being cheap by literally offering him more money than he even wants. There seems to be no lowballing going on like these talking heads act. He's a top 5-10 QB and they were offering the record biggest contract (which would now be #2 to the clear top QB). In almost all cases I'm going to side with the player to get his money but this one seems to be on him, put the money in the bank man. I just can't see how the Cowboys are being made out the bad guy with the info out as of now. But, I'm not sure where they're at on it now which is why I was asking. If they're now trying to use the injury against him or something, I'd get the talk then.

[SeaBass]

I'll be honest, I didn't look anything up before answering. I should have. What I said about a non-guaranteed year at the end of a contract is really the only reason that occurred to me that made sense. It's likely still true (as I believe it is with Rodger's current contract, but I could be wrong there also) but I guess I was thinking it'd be a longer deal than 5 years. I don't think a 5 year deal is too long, he'd be a free agent again going into his age 33 season which is still young enough in QB years. Yeah not sure. I don't really care either way and I can't think that what the talking heads on ESPN say matters much either no matter how they're framing it. They just want to have loud arguments about stuff so they can sell commercial air time.

[wallus]

NFL Live has been surprisingly good the last few times I have watched it. I won't watch Stephen A, Skip, etc.

[GAME05]

Basketball and Football HOFs have always been predicated more on impact than statistics alone. Heck, baseball is slipping in that direction, too. At that, I don't know how Sterling Sharpe doesn't get in as that bridge into the Favre years after decades of the team being garbage. Also, class act by Shannon to spend much of his own HOF speech on how his brother should be there, too.

 

That said, CBS just ran an article on 'Best player from every team not in the HOF' and they snubbed Sharpe for LeRoy Butler.

[tmwiese55]

If Gale Sayers, Terrell Davis, and Calvin Johnson are in there's no reason Sterling shouldn't be too. And injuries weren't really a factor on two of those guys. Seems odd he was singled out for an injury caused short career while other short careers are in.

 

Edit: I hope I'm correct on all 4 being in lol, I didn't double check but I think they are.

[HiAndTight]

If Gale Sayers, Terrell Davis, and Calvin Johnson are in there's no reason Sterling shouldn't be too. And injuries weren't really a factor on two of those guys. Seems odd he was singled out for an injury caused short career while other short careers are in.

 

Edit: I hope I'm correct on all 4 being in lol, I didn't double check but I think they are.

 

Injuries ruined Sayers and TD's career.

 

 

Terrell Davis is the one I really don't get. I guess it was his 2000 yard season and the SB's, but he had 4 good years. You take Ahman Green's peak and it was pretty close. And this was at a time when Denver was in the midst of a run of just throwing anyone out there at RB and they were going for 1000...like UW backs.

The year after TD had 2000 yards, he got hurt. Olandis Gary came in and in 12 games ran for almost 1200 yards.

The following year, TD was again hurt, 27-year-old Mike Anderson...a rookie. So TD doesn't make sense to me.

 

Gale Sayers...he also had a short career, but he was so dominant at that time...and then the fact that Hornung is in with about 1300 fewer yards rushing(forget receiving, KR, PR, etc...).

 

Calvin is a whole different animal. He was arguably the most talented WR'er to ever play the game. A 6'5, 240-pound freak who ran a 4.3 40 and looked like a dominant DE.

 

He was better than Sharpe and he played a couple of years longer. But he's an absolute no doubt HOF'er, so...needless to say, Sterling should absolutely be in the HOF.

[HiAndTight]

Yea Sterling should definitely be in, another factor in his stats was that was before the massive passing explosion of the last 15-20 years.

 

Being at home if I toss on espn lately they have to rant about the Zak/Cowboys situation. And all they do is act like it's all the teams fault, just pay him, stop being cheap, racist that they won't pay, etc. My understanding (unless something has recently changed) is the disagreement is over years and Dallas wants to give him one more year and subsequently more money. Zak wants a year less to hit FA sooner again. Yet every day it's a rant about how cheap they're being and how it's ridiculous. The whole narrative just seems off to me when they are literally trying to give him more money but that never gets brought up. I assume Dal wants/needs it this way to help with manipulating the cap somehow, which helps keep the team strong around him and helps him have a stronger chance of success. To the more informed NFL folks, am I missing something?

NFL contracts are not typically guaranteed like in other sports. That makes contract length irrelevant to a player unless the team is saying they will fully guarantee the contract (which I doubt they are) or give him an opt out.

 

Like we just saw with JJ Watt, the Texans were able to release him even though he had 1 year left on his contract for around $17 million. That last year was fully in the team's control, they could have kept and paid him if they felt he was worth it or they could do what they did and release him. By this time any guaranteed money Watt was paid upon signing the contract had no impact on that last year of his deal, the Texans released him and were free and clear of that $17 million obligation with no salary cap penalties. Yet from a player perspective Watt had to ask for his release, he was locked into that year and was at the mercy of the team's decision.

 

JJ Watt is still good and likely to get a good contract now that he's a FA, maybe not $17 million per year good but still good. But if Watt's performance had dropped to a point where it made no sense to pay him $17 million he could be cut and out of a job and the Texans still would have been free and clear salary cap wise. That's a huge advantage for the team and not any advantage for the player.

 

Dak just wants more control over the end of his contract. Or he's just trying to get more guaranteed money from Dallas than they're currently offering.

 

Watt's contract is kinda an apples to oranges comp though.

 

The non-guaranteed contract doesnt' really matter when you're talking about giving a guy 110 million guaranteed over 5 years. It means it's virtually guaranteed...at least until the final year.

 

Had JJ wanted, he could have held out and tried to get the biggest deal possible. That would have meant playing 3 more years in his case to get to where Dak will be after this season.

 

I get why Dak's doing it. A Franchise QB in his mid 20's on the open market...especially as the Cap gets back to normal would likely get 45 million per year on the open market. He's looking at how contracts have gone up...going from 10 million per being a record when Favre signed it, to 20, 30, now over 40. So from his perspective, it makes all the sense in the world to try and get 3 or 4 years.

 

The Cowboys on the other hand want those long contracts. I've pointed this out in the past, but how do the Cowboys stay under the cap with all the massive contracts they give out? They sign guys for 6-7 years. Again, with the way the cap has gone up and how contracts steadily rise, if it's not a good deal in 4 years, they can get out of it relatively cheap and if it is, they're getting massive discounts.

 

Tyron Smith is the example I use. He's 30 years old. About the same age as Bahktiari.

He signed an 8 year 97 million dollar deal in 2014 that most people thought was crazy.

 

A year later, Bahk signed his 4 year 48 million dollar deal.

 

Now at 30, Smith has a cap hit of ~14 million with 8.8 million in dead cap this year and just 5 next year.

Bahk just signed another 4 year deal with 92 million and his dead cap # would be ~70 million.

 

 

So I get both sides of it. Dallas has the cash to pay guys the bigger signing bonuses and when you give them the longer contracts, you can move on from guys more easily or if they continue to play like Smith HAD been playing prior to his recent struggles with injury, you're getting a huge discount.

 

If I was Dallas, I'd absolutely be trying to get a longer deal for Dak and if you'r the player, it comes down to betting on yourself.

 

Think about what Dak would be looking at if you took Covid out of the equation. A cap that was expected to go as high as 240-250 next year in what would likely be his final year under the tag and then the following year, as a 28 year old Free Agent...he probably was expecting 50 million per year. In fact, I'd be willing to bet QB's are signing for 50 per in 3-4 years from now without having gone through two franchise tags. Hell, Dak is in line for 50 if they franchise him again next year.

 

And that would mean he made 3/120 the past 3 years despite a gruesome injury to his ankle.

 

Kirk Cousins, a guy who wasn't a top 10(maybe a top 15) QB got a 3/94 fully guaranteed offer before 2018 and he passed on that to sign the largest contract ever in guaranteed money to play in Minnesota.

 

Betting on yourself can really pay off as Cousins wasn't worth half that deal.

 

 

I've beaten this drum before, but Jenkins and Jaire should both get 6-7 year contracts. Gary and Savage after them if they develop. Clark should have, Adams could have his last time up...

If they had the room, Jones would be a guy who they could give a 5-6 year deal IF they wanted to sign him.

 

Of course, the Cowboys probably make another 100+ million per year from those luxury suites that the Packers don't...but the Packers also don't have an owner that buys a 250 million dollar yaht.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Bummed about Wentz to Colts. Leaves the door open for the Bears to find someone else.

[tmwiese55]

Good summary. So the proper framework of the discussion should be on the control aspects as Dak wants to hit FA again sooner, how it manipulates the cap number, how it helps try to keep a good team around him, etc. Not, "Dallas is cheap/lowballing and don't want to pay him".

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Bummed about Wentz to Colts. Leaves the door open for the Bears to find someone else.

 

Bet they end up with Darnold now.

[pacopete4]

I think Darnold could be a good QB. Wentz, I think stinks. I am bummed as well. I hope they at least give up a king's ransom for whatever they end up doing.

[tmwiese55]

NFL Live has been surprisingly good the last few times I have watched it. I won't watch Stephen A, Skip, etc.

 

Yes that and the daily NBA show is ok too other than Paul Pierce. but in general it's good and sticks to the game. I'm generally one who's not a huge NFL guy and get annoyed by how much it's jammed down our faces, especially as the draft approaches. But along with the talks we've had in this thread and baseball starting I'm glad to have MLB network as the background now. They really do a great job on there. Due to some chord cutting I didn't have it last year, which I guess was no big deal in the weird year, but glad to have it back now. Pre rona, with MLB network I basically didn't watch ESPN other than live games from March- October.

[nate82]

The cap floor will be $180m but no news on the actual cap yet but I am thinking it will be at $190-195m.

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-increases-minimum-salary-cap-to-180-million-in-2021