Aaron Donald not concerned about contract, focused on 2016

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle Aaron Donald not concerned about contract, focused on 2016

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46900
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Aaron Donald not concerned about contract, focused on 2016

    Aaron Donald not concerned about contract, focused on 2016

    The Los Angeles Rams have a big contract they’ll need to hand out, and there’s a chance that it’ll be coming after the 2016 NFL season. As you may know, that contract will be going to superstar defensive tackle Aaron Donald.

    Ever since being selected in the first round of the 2014 NFL draft, Donald has been a dominant piece of the Rams defense. Over his first two years, he’s totaled 116 combined tackles and 20 sacks. He’s considered to be the No. 2 best defensive lineman in the NFL, behind only Houston Texans defensive end J.J. Watt, and even that’s up for debate.

    So, with Donald able to sign a contract extension after the 2016 season, one has to wonder if any thoughts of specific numbers have crossed his mind. Apparently, he’s not all that concerned about the business side of things, and instead is just focused on what he can control.

    It’s obviously great to hear that Donald has this mindset, especially due to the fact that the team may choose to pick up the fifth-year option on his deal. This would result in him having to hold off on that deal until after the 2018 season. With that said, you’d have to assume that Los Angeles wants to lock up their man with a long-term deal sooner than later.

    Agamemnon

    #46901
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    http://overthecap.com/thoughts-fletcher-cox-contract-extension/#more-12093

    Thoughts on Fletcher Cox’ Contract Extension
    Posted on June 14, 2016 by Jason Fitzgerald

    After a year of contentious contract discussions, the Eagles and their new front office has ended any problems between the Eagles and Fletcher Cox by signing Cox to a massive $102.6 million contract extension that contains over $60 million in injury guarantees. Based on a report by Pro Football Talk we can look at the contract in a bit more critical manner to see just how it ranks in a few different metrics compared to those of the other big defensive players.

    He $17.1 million APY will make Cox the 2nd highest paid defensive player in the NFL, just surpassing Olivier Vernon’s contract with the Giants. From a cap perspective the contract will carry a value of $15.771 million which is a bit more affordable than those free agent contracts.

    The initial guarantee on the Cox contract trails all but Houston in the big defensive contract category both in terms of the total amount and percentage of contract that is guaranteed. While he did get the largest injury guarantee of any player once you factor in the fact that he already had $7.8 million guaranteed that number does drop to $55.5 million. That’s still second in the NFL, but in terms of being some major bright spot for Von Miller as some suggested I don’t see that at all as the numbers are more in line with the market.

    Where Cox makes out tremendously well is the guarantee and bonus structure. Guarantees get a significant amount of press, but there are ways to virtually guarantee contracts through smart structuring and that is what Cox did here. Cox received a $26 million signing bonus and a $6 million option bonus which creates a huge dead money charge if the Eagles were to think of releasing him.

    The $32 million ties Dareus for the most friendly contract structure and is more or less $7 million more than anyone else in the group at the time they signed their contract. These kind of signing bonuses for a non-QB are tremendous and in both cases the players did great for themselves.

    Cox makes out even better with early vesting dates that make it more difficult for the Eagles to consider releasing him. His 2018 and part of his 2019 salary will become fully guaranteed in 2017 which is a major win for the player. So even though the on paper full guarantee is not anything record setting everything else in the deal is more or less terrific for Cox.

    In terms of year by year cash, again I don’t see this moving the market for a Miller. While it is another data point to consider its not something that completely turns the market on its head.

    Cox was not able to get the same up front payment terms as Dareus and will be right in line with Vernon over the first two new years of the contract. Cox will take over the second spot in year 3 and he will slightly maintain an edge over Vernon in year 5. The bigger difference between Cox and Vernon is that Vernon will be a free agent after 5 years while Cox will be under contract an additional season. That is probably not a big concern for Cox though.

    I think at this point it is safe to say that the Vernon deal signing by the Giants this year is clearly the market defining deal. Suh is still an outlier but the numbers here are designed to slowly build on Vernon’s deal. Vernon’s contract was a major leap from the Justin Houston contract. There is a bit of Dareus in here but that contract also remains an outlier of sorts with the up front cash.

    Cox’ contract should become the next jumping point for the next wave of extensions or free agents not named Miller. This contract should further bolster Muhammad Wilkerson’s demands on a new contract with the Jets and I cant see that contract happening. Wilkersons in the most immediate contract on the horizon.

    The Cox contract will further the Eagles move into superstar pay strategy that is currently used by the Packers and Seahawks. When looking at the Eagles moves this offseason I think it further justifies why they did what they did to draft a quarterback. While you can defer cap charges, as they did here, for a year or two eventually there comes a time where you can not do that. If you are forced into paying a veteran $18-$20M a year it makes it very difficult to handle a roster like Philadelphia’s.

    With a rookie QB a team can possibly get $20 million in play for a $7 million salary. That $13 million benefit can be spread around the roster so you can maintain a high priced roster for a few seasons. By the time the rookie is signed to a market value extension most of the big priced players from today will be gone. Chase Daniel remains the failsafe in the event Carson Wentz fails so you don’t waste a high priced roster because of the QB. So while a good portion of the benefit goes to the backup I can understand the logic in the construction.

    The Eagles may be a better case study than the other teams with expensive rosters since they are the one with the big questions at quarterback. If Wentz is great then they wont be any different than Seattle, but if he struggles it will give a better idea of how a non-great QB team can do with a roster that is in theory very good.

    In light of the money the Eagles are paying Cox it is hard to justify not doing this contract last year. All I can think is that Chip Kelly, who looked to move Cox as part of a package to Tennessee, did not see Cox as a future piece for the team. Not only would the Eagles have saved a few dollars by signing prior to free agency this year but they would have been able to reduce the cap charges even further. My assumption is that the guys in the Eagles front office probably wanted to do this deal last season but were told not to do so. We’ll have to wait and see if that was a mistake.

    Agamemnon

    #46902
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    http://overthecap.com/fletcher-cox-contract-analytics/#more-12095

    Fletcher Cox Contract Analytics
    Posted on June 14, 2016 by Bryce Johnston

    Contract Analytics: Cordy Glenn | Terron Armstead | Josh Norman | Shawn Williams | Jordan Reed |Allen Hurns | Harrison Smith

    Members of the NFL media will analyze this contract from a number of perspectives, each stressing that the face value of the contract is not determinative of the amount of money Cox will receive or the strength of the contract relative to other contracts, while at the same time highlighting certain pertinent contract characteristics. Many will note the amount of “total guarantees”, while others will focus on the “full guarantees at signing”. Others may highlight the amount of money that will be fully guaranteed as of a certain point in time (such as March 2017), while others will stress the annual cash flows. The analysis may include phrases such as “virtually guaranteed” or “practically guaranteed”, and the observations may note that “the contract is really $X over Y years, followed by Z team options.”

    I do not disagree with any of this analysis. All of these contract characteristics are important to varying degrees and should be weighted in the analysis as appropriate. However, the degree of nuance in the contract makes it exceedingly difficult for any one person to synthesize all of the relevant information and articulate analysis that does not over-emphasize any particular characteristic. The best approach is to establish a framework for analysis that incorporates all of the considerations that one deems to be important to contract analysis, and to then apply that framework to all new contracts such that each is analyzed in a holistic, objective and consistent manner. This is the goal of Expected Contract Value:

    As the chart below shows, Fletcher Cox possesses the largest Expected Contract Value of any non-QB contract in the entire NFL. This contract contains all of the characteristics that drive a high Expected Contract Value. First, there is a large signing bonus, which provides significant dead money protection into the fifth contract season. Second, there is a fully guaranteed option bonus in the second contract season that provides additional dead money protection through the sixth contract season. Third, the contract includes impressive Accelerated Future Team Option Deadlines whereby the 2018 salary and half of the 2019 salary vest as fully guaranteed during the 2017 offseason, and the other half of the 2019 salary vests as fully guaranteed during the 2018 offseason. Because Cox is extremely likely to remain under contract into 2017, the Accelerated Future Team Option Deadlines produce a waterfall effect that greatly enhances the probability Cox will remain under contract through 2019.

    Fourth, because the contract is an extension, the yearly cap numbers are less than the “new money APY” would suggest they might be, which provides Cox somewhat more of a buffer zone to suffer a performance decline before the team would determine that releasing him is a more efficient use of salary cap space. Fifth, the contract is not structured in a back-loaded fashion, which means there is a legitimate opportunity that the team will find Cox’s cap numbers in 2021-2022 to be reasonable, particularly once salary cap inflation is taken into account. Finally, Cox will only be 25 years old at the beginning of the 2016 season, and due to typical aging curves, younger players have a higher probability of remaining under contract longer, and in turn receiving a higher percentage of the face value of a contract.

    By this measure, the team incurred $36.3 million worth of risk in order to manufacture $27.9 million worth of upside, which would be a much better ratio than in the examples I calculated for Allen Hurns and Harrison Smith, although it is fair to argue that risk should include the guarantees affected by the Accelerated Future Team Option Deadlines (as there is a greater than 99% probability that the team will incur this risk). However, it is also very possible the team places a higher Intrinsic Value on Cox, or the team projects that salary cap to rise faster than 5%. In any event, it is probably fair to characterize the contract as “high-risk, high-reward”.

    Further, the team secures some amount of optionality value. While Cox’s cap numbers represent some amount of surplus value relative to Intrinsic Value, they may also represent a further discount relative to market value in each offseason. It is entirely possible that Muhammad Wilkerson or some other player signs an even larger contract as a free agent next offseason. If that happens, the team will reap value in each offseason to the extent it is able to choose to retain Cox without the necessity to pay such market value. And because the contract is not structured in a back-loaded fashion, the team options in 2020-2022 are more valuable than in other large contracts. Phrased inversely, how likely is it that Cox will demand a new contract in 2021, at the age of 30, potentially coming off a number of Pro Bowl seasons? The degree to which this is likely is the degree to which the Eagles derive optionality value in that contract season.

    While we are not in a position to draw firm conclusions on the issues of expected surplus value and quantity of optionality value, this analysis shows that the contract was within a range of reasonableness for the team, as one can point to several benefits to the team despite the player-friendly contract structure.

    The Eagles ranked #1 in Commitment Index prior to executing this contract, and the team now possesses a score of 265, which signifies a true net cap commitment 265% greater than the theoretical team possessing a true net cap commitment equal to the mean of all 32 teams. Baltimore is the next closest team, with a Commitment Index score of 203. The Eagles also possess the least amount of True Cap Space for 2017, as more than $113 million worth of 2017 salary cap space is accounted for by prorated signing bonus amounts, fully guaranteed salary and minimum salary obligations. It should be noted, however, that a substantial portion of this commitment comes in the form of guaranteed salary that can be traded. As the Eagles demonstrated this offseason, the market for trading away unwanted guaranteed salary appears to be seller-friendly.

    Commitment Index and True Cap Space speak solely to flexibility relative to the other teams in the league, so the conclusion should not be that the team is in a “bad” salary cap situation. Substantially all of the key players are signed for multiple seasons beyond 2016, so if the team plays well in 2016, flexibility may be a moot point. But if the team does not play to expectations, the Eagles have less ability than any other team to pivot in a different direction in 2017.

    Agamemnon

    #46903
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant


    Let’s try to make this clearer. First, Cox’s contract value did not change for 2016. Some/most of his 2016 salary is now part of a bonus. Second, this is an extension, we should look at what it means in new money and new years. This is simple here, cause nothing really changed for the cap charge in 2016.

    I would expect Donald’s contract to follow this model. The first four new years of new money[2017 – 2020] are almost fully guaranteed.

    Cox’s salary = 9.5% of cap in the first 4 years. 8.5% in the last 2 years.

    That is in line with 8.9% of the cap for a franchise DT. The biggest thing imo is that the contract is virtually guaranteed or 4 years. That is a long time for a player to play at that level.

    By the time Donald gets a new contract it could be for ~19M/year = or -, but it will probably be for ~9.0% of the cap.

    Watt’s got 10.1%, but he is considered a DE. imo Suh got 10.5%. I consider this a bit of an outlier. I use my own models for this. Somebody else might get slightly different numbers.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46912
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    t the team may choose to pick up the fifth-year option on his deal. This would result in him having to hold off on that deal until after the 2018 season.

    If 2016 is out, according to Donald, one possibility is that he would be ultimately aiming at free agency. Because in fact “not thinking about it now” could just be code for “I will be a free agent after 2018 and that’s my goal.”

    But then the option year is picked up for 2018 that still leaves options. I assume he could sign an extension any time between now and when he finishes the 2018 season.

    If on the other hand he comes up as a free agent after 2018, he will just plain cost significantly more.

    #46916
    bnw
    Blocked

    Donald is already better than Watts. AD will be paid that is certain.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #46917
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    If 2016 is out, according to Donald, one possibility is that he would be ultimately aiming at free agency. Because in fact “not thinking about it now” could just be code for “I will be a free agent after 2018 and that’s my goal.”

    But then the option year is picked up for 2018 that still leaves options. I assume he could sign an extension any time between now and when he finishes the 2018 season.

    If on the other hand he comes up as a free agent after 2018, he will just plain cost significantly more.

    I don’t know if 2016 is out or that it makes much difference between 2016 and2017. The Rams can use the 5th year option for 2018 and then I think they can use the franchise tag in 2019. Also i don’t know that it would be significantly more. Suh’s “monster contract” was for 10.5% of cap. imo But then 1% of the cap could be 2M. If that is what you mean by significant? As much as we would like to keep Donald, is he really going to be able to play that high for that long? That would be like going to the probowl 6 or 7 years in a row. imo I think the reality is that the Rams can pay his contract and it won’t be significantly out of line with his status. I is more do they really want to do that? Would they get more value putting the money somewhere else? I bet he is a Ram in 2019. I will check if the Rams can use the Franchise tag to make that happen.

    Agamemnon

    #46918
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    NFL Franchise Tag: Everything You Need to Know

    Teams can continuously franchise players, but it’ll cost them to do that. As had been the case previously, a player tagged a second straight year would have his number set at 120 percent of the previous figure. A third straight year? That’s where things change, and the percentage goes up to 144.

    It’s clear that signing a player to a long-term deal is mutually beneficial for teams and player after the first year, if the team still views the player as one worth a long-term deal.

    Agamemnon

    #46919
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    mo I think the reality is that the Rams can pay his contract and it won’t be significantly out of line with his status.

    Well I agree with that, but, that depends on what is meant by “his status.” I figure at a minimum that will be “best DT in the game.”

    And I don’t see contracts as equivalent to just a performance measure. That is, what determines a contract more is not “how precisely well are you playing” as much as it is “what does it cost to keep you”…and the latter is driven by the market.

    In terms of how long could he be productive?

    Let’s look at a roughly similar player–John Randle.

    Randle was getting high grades and double-digit sacks up through his 12th year.

    Another similar player? Randy White. White was getting high grades and double-digit sacks in his 11th year.

    Alan Page (though we don’t know his sacks) was getting high grades in his 13th year.

    The thing that subtracts from longevity with these kinds of interior rush tackles is usually a serious knee injury. If he doesn’t get that, history shows that type can play at a high level for a decade.

    #46920
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    10 things to know about the franchise tag

    10 things to know about the franchise tag
    Posted by Mike Florio on February 28, 2013, 2:31 PM EDT
    Super Bowl XLVII – Baltimore Ravens v San Francisco 49ers Getty Images

    The franchise tag is old enough to vote, and nearly old enough to drink. The tag made its annual return more than a week ago. Unlike the Great Pumpkin, the tool for restricting a player’s ability to move from team to team will indeed make an appearance, in multiple NFL cities.

    Eventually. We think. Perhaps starting as soon as today.

    So here are 10 things to know about the tag. You may have already known them. You may have known and forgotten. Or you may not have known at all.

    Or perhaps that you didn’t want to know.

    1. The formula has changed.
    .
    Under prior labor deals, the non-exclusive franchise tag was determined by calculating the average of the five highest-paid players at each position from the prior year. Under the 2011 CBA, the franchise tenders come from a more complex procedure.
    .
    Under Article 10, Section 2 of the CBA, the number is based on the five-year average cap percentage for the tag at each position.
    .
    So it’s no longer driven by what players at the same position made in the prior season, but by the average cap percentage consumed by the franchise tender over five years. Then, that percentage will be applied to the 2013 salary cap to determine the franchise tender at each position.
    .
    Already confused? We’ve got nine more.

    2. In some cases, the formula doesn’t matter.

    A player getting the non-exclusive franchise tag is entitled to the greater of the formula clumsily explained above (and that was the fourth draft of it) or 120 percent of the player’s cap number from the prior year.

    That’s why, for example, the franchise tender for Dolphins tackle Jake Long would be much higher than the franchise tender for an offensive lineman. Long made enough in 2012 to result in a 20-percent raise, trumping the franchise tender.

    This dynamic often applies to players who were taken high in the draft before the implementation of the rookie wage scale. As rookie contracts expire under the new labor deal, franchise tenders for many of them will be lower.

    3. The transition tag has become meaningless.

    Teams can use, in any given year, one franchise tag or one transition tag. The transition tag gives a team the right to match an offer sheet, but no compensation if the team chooses not to match.

    At one point, the transition player’s contract was not fully guaranteed once it was accepted by the player. It now is.

    The fact that the guaranteed pay on the one-year transition tender isn’t much less than the guaranteed pay for the one-year franchise tender, coupled with the lack of draft-pick compensation, has made the transition tag largely meaningless.

    4. Franchise tags can be withdrawn.

    The amount of the franchise tender becomes fully guaranteed once the player signs it. Since signing the franchise tender puts the player under contract, requiring him to show up to all mandatory offseason activities and training camp, some players choose to wait deep into the preseason before inking the offer.

    The risk is that the franchise tag can be withdrawn, at any time, before it has been signed.

    It doesn’t happen often, but it’s not unprecedented. Especially in Philly. In 2002, the Eagles pulled the franchise tag from linebacker Jeremiah Trotter in early April. Three years later, the Eagles removed the franchise tag from defensive tackle Corey Simon in late August.

    The move immediately converts the player to an unrestricted free agent. But if it comes after the big money has been spent, the player will have a hard time getting the pay day he would have realized on the first day of free agency.

    5. Franchise tender is guaranteed, with one exception.

    Once a player signs the franchise tag, the one-year salary becomes fully guaranteed. But there’s a little-known exception.

    Under Article 10, Section 2(c) of the CBA, the contract can be terminated if the player fails “to establish or maintain his excellent physical condition.”

    Any effort to do so would result in a review of the situation by a neutral physician and, eventually and inevitably, arbitration. Still, the franchise tender technically isn’t fully and completely guaranteed.

    6. No non-quarterback will be tagged more than twice.

    Former Seahawks tackle Walter Jones once spent three straight years under the franchise tag, pocketing a total of $20 million and then signing a long-term deal that paid him $20 million more guaranteed, back when $20 million was a very big deal for NFL purposes.

    Jones rolled the dice on bearing the injury risk for the three franchise years, and he won. Most players prefer the certainty of a long-term deal.

    That’s why the 2006 CBA changed the formula to pay a non-quarterback the quarterback franchise tender if he’s tagged a third time.

    Quarterbacks are protected, too. In the third year of the franchise tag, they get at least a 44-percent raise over their cap number in the prior year.

    7. Arguably, no player can be tagged more than three times.

    Last year’s grievance filed by Saints quarterback Drew Brees established that, if a player is tagged once by two different teams, it counts as being tagged twice. Which would have entitled him to a 44-percent raise in 2013, if he had played under the franchise tag last year for the Saints. (He was tagged in 2005 by the Chargers.)

    Based on the language of the CBA, there’s an argument to be made that no player may ever be tagged more than three times during the course of his career.

    Of course, tagging a player a fourth time would entail paying out a second 44-percent raise one year after paying out an initial 44-percent raise. Which would make it highly unlikely that any team would ever want to use the tag more than three times.

    8. It’s cheap to tag kickers and punters.

    There’s a belief among some fans that the use of the franchise tag meant that the player was a “franchise player.” And so, when a team uses the tag on a punter or a kicker, fans are confused and/or amused.

    But the formula for calculating franchise tenders has made it cheaper to use the tag than to sign the player to a market-value deal.

    At $2.9 million for 2013, more kickers and punters could find themselves being regarded as “franchise players.”

    9. Long-term deals can be negotiated, through July 15.

    Previously, the window for a team signing its franchise player to a long-term deal closed not long after the free-agency period started and then opened again on July 15. Now, the window remains open until July 15.

    After July 15, the franchise player can sign only a one-year deal with his current team. It can be for more than the franchise tender, and it can include other terms, like playing-time or performance triggers that would prevent the tag from being used again.

    But the duration can be no more than one year.

    10. One offer sheet may be signed, through July 15.

    For a player carrying the non-exclusive tag, he can negotiate with any other team. Ultimately, one offer sheet can be signed.

    Once it’s signed, the situation simplifies considerably. The player’s current team will match the offer and keep him, or the player’s team will not match the offer and collect a pair of first-round picks from the new team.

    The two first-round picks given as compensation must be the team’s original picks — not any picks obtained via trade or otherwise.

    And there’s a loophole which, eventually, a desperate coach or G.M. may use. The period for signing franchise players to offer sheets lingers beyond the current year’s draft. Thus, for example, a team that wants to sign quarterback Joe Flacco (if the Ravens use the non-exclusive tag) could, in theory, wait until after the draft, sign Flacco to a front-loaded offer sheet that the Ravens can’t match, and then surrender not the 2013 and 2014 first-round picks, but the first-round picks for 2014 and 2015.

    There’s nothing in the labor deal that prevents this from happening until July 15, after which date the player can sign only a one-year deal with his current team.

    Agamemnon

    #46921
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    <
    Well I agree with that, but, that depends on what is meant by “his status.” I figure at a minimum that will be “best DT in the game.”

    And I don’t see contracts as equivalent to just a performance measure. That is, what determines a contract more is not “how precisely well are you playing” as much as it is “what does it cost to keep you”…and the latter is driven by the market.

    In terms of how long could he be productive?

    Let’s look at a roughly similar player–John Randle.

    Randle was getting high grades and double-digit sacks up through his 12th year.

    Another similar player? Randy White. White was getting high grades and double-digit sacks in his 11th year.

    Alan Page (though we don’t know his sacks) was getting high grades in his 13th year.

    The thing that subtracts from longevity with these kinds of interior rush tackles is usually a serious knee injury. If he doesn’t get that, history shows that type can play at a high level for a decade.

    The fact that you have a salary cap at all, limits just how far away from a norm contracts can get. I would say 53 – 60 percent of the cap for your best players. After that it becomes problematic if you can even pay the rest of your roster. imo Teams are much smarter now and excessive contracts just don’t get done. Like I said, even Suh’s “monster contract was for 10.5% of the can when the norm was 9.0% of the cap.

    As far as what Donald actually is worth, that has to contain a lot of subjective evaluation. But it won’t be done in a vaccumn. There is always the rest of the team to consider. But, yeah the Rams can keep him if they want. The question is, would it be smart to do that?

    Whatever contract he gets will be like a 4 year fully guaranteed contract, before he can be cut.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46923
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    The fact that you have a salary cap at all, limits just how far away from a norm contracts can get. I would say 53 – 60 percent of the cap for your best players. After that it becomes problematic if you can even pay the rest of your roste

    I know. 50-60% ought to be around half of your cap and usually includes anywhere from 8-10 players.

    I just bet in advance it includes both Donald and Goff.

    My reasoning is that in both cases, those are the kinds of players where if you have THEM, you can just add guys around them. Donald will make any decent to good DL better, and having a franchise qb makes your offense better. Subtract either thing, and it’s harder to have a top DL and it’s harder to run an effective offense.

    Plus they are both absolutely top-drawer “lead by example” types who are devoted to the game.

    I would rather have a few lesser players in other spots than do without either one.

    All that assumes btw that Goff will turn out as promised, which is, he will be a very good qb, a franchise qb type (whether or not he’s ever elite).

    #46924
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    I know. 50-60% ought to be around half of your cap and usually includes anywhere from 8-10 players.

    I just bet in advance it includes both Donald and Goff.

    My reasoning is that in both cases, those are the kinds of players where if you have THEM, you can just add guys around them. Donald will make any decent to good DL better, and having a franchise qb makes your offense better. Subtract either thing, and it’s harder to have a top DL and it’s harder to run an effective offense.

    Plus they are both absolutely top-drawer “lead by example” types who are devoted to the game.

    I would rather have a few lesser players in other spots than do without either one.

    All that assumes btw that Goff will turn out as promised, which is, he will be a very good qb, a franchise qb type (whether or not he’s ever elite).

    That is a legitimate model for a roster. Given that the players are who we think they are.;)

    In a future where Goff gets 25/yr and Donald gets 20/yr that is about 24/25% of your cap. imo

    Agamemnon

    #46925
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    The Rams have spent~98% of the their cap. Imagine trying to fit 2 players that count ~23% of the cap into this roster. Hard choices have to be made. imo

    You can subtract Foles and the present cost of Goff and Donald. That is ~10%. We still have to save another ~14%?

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46927
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    The Rams have spent~98% of the their cap. Imagine trying to fit 2 players that count ~23% of the cap into this roster. Hard choices have to be made. imo

    Oh I absolutely agree, hard choices.

    It’s just that I would choose for a Donald.

    If I had to fit AD in THIS year at (as a hypothetical) 21 M a year, I would sacrifice Johnson and Saffold. I would figure they could do more with a new CB plus AD than they could with Johnson and a different DT. And of course guards are easier to replace than elite DTs.

    I agree that it’s different visions and different approaches. Given that, I favor the elite DT no matter what.

    #46928
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Oh I absolutely agree, hard choices.

    It’s just that I would choose for a Donald.

    If I had to fit AD in THIS year at (as a hypothetical) 21 M a year, I would sacrifice Johnson and Saffold. I would figure they could do more with a new CB plus AD than they could with Johnson and a different DT. And of course guards are easier to replace than elite DTs.

    I agree that it’s different visions and different approaches. Given that, I favor the elite DT no matter what.

    I would do that this year, although I am not as certain about doing it as you are. 😉

    NO and Pitt have 2 players taking 23%+ of the cap. A couple others are close.

    Agamemnon

    #46946
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Just adding some information about how teams spend the cap for their highest paid players.

    There are a few teams at the top and bottom. But, overall, how the salary cap is broken down, seems to be quite consistant. imo There is not even much variance in the sub totals.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46964
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Just adding some information about how teams spend the cap for their highest paid players.

    There are a few teams at the top and bottom. But, overall, how the salary cap is broken down, seems to be quite consistant. imo There is not even much variance in the sub totals.

    Looks like a lot of work went into that.

    But to be honest I am not sure I followed that. It’s me–I don’t do well with graphs and visual representations and columns and stuff.

    Could you explain a bit?

    #46965
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Just adding some information about how teams spend the cap for their highest paid players.

    There are a few teams at the top and bottom. But, overall, how the salary cap is broken down, seems to be quite consistant. imo There is not even much variance in the sub totals.

    Looks like a lot of work went into that.

    But to be honest I am not sure I followed that. It’s me–I don’t do well with graphs and visual representations and columns and stuff.

    Could you explain a bit?

    That was more on the theme of an experiment. I was looking for a better way to look at the structure of rosters. I wanted more data to see how my ?theory held up. One thing I could add, the top and bottom teams had a relation to which teams had excess cap and which teams had virtually no cap.

    I wasn’t really looking at the bottom(the green stuff), that sort of fell out of the numbers. The average and the Rams being close to the average sort of fell out, although that might not mean anything.

    I think the fact that the data does have structure means that the cap guys on the teams look at stuff like this and have some sort of guidelines on how they handle the cap. I think stuff is way to consistent to be an accident.

    It was just something I did for myself that since I did it, I might as well post it if anyone else was interested. I quit before the hard stuff. 😉

    As far as following it. It isn’t that kind of information. I put it out there and you make of it what you will. I am making observations more than finding a perfect model. Mostly I wanted to see what kind of constraints applied. I think it is more like how regular roster is made. So many OLine, DBs, etc., there are a lot of ways to make it work.

    It is an addition to the stuff I did here. http://theramshuddle.com/topic/one-kind-of-roster-model/#post-46411

    Agamemnon

    #46966
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Ok, you want to find good players. You want to keep good players. At some point you can’t keep them all because you have a salary cap. You have to replace the players you lose with cheaper players. The best way to do that is through the draft. The more draft choices you have, the more chances you have to do that. But we knew that already. My stuff just gives me a better idea of different ways to do a cap model. Or at least that I shouldn’t/can’t spend more than 53% of the cap on premium players(players that make more 3M/yr in 2016). Cause I don’t want below average players as starters. imo

    The numbers parts just give me reasonable baselines. They aren’t written in stone.

    Agamemnon

    #46976
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    As far as following it. It isn’t that kind of information. I put it out there and you make of it what you will. I am making observations more than finding a perfect model

    It’s not a matter of whether it’s a perfect model or not. I just see numbers and I have no idea what the numbers mean. It wasn’t an advanced question on my part, it’s a basic question. So it’s like you wrote “2 + x = Y” and I asked “what do the symbols + and = mean?”

    #46981
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    As far as following it. It isn’t that kind of information. I put it out there and you make of it what you will. I am making observations more than finding a perfect model

    It’s not a matter of whether it’s a perfect model or not. I just see numbers and I have no idea what the numbers mean. It wasn’t an advanced question on my part, it’s a basic question. So it’s like you wrote “2 + x = Y” and I asked “what do the symbols + and = mean?”

    It is a list of all the teams in the nlf. It has two parts. One column is how much of the cap is dedicated to 2 players and the other is how much of the cap is dedicated to 4 players.

    I added each column and divided by 32 to find an average of how much cap space was given to the top 2 players and the top 4 players per team.

    The average was 18.5% for the top 2 players and 29.5% for the top 4 players.

    Now I know which teams are the closest and farthest from the average. Which teams put a lot of money into 2 players, 4 players and which teams put the least money in only 2 or 4 players.

    Pitt did both. They used 24% of their cap on 2 players. They used 39% of their cap on 4 players. 100 – 39 = 61. I also know that Pitt used 61% of their cap to pay the remaining 49 players of 53. *note: I ignore the other expenses IR, etc.

    The average salary of their lowest 49 players = 61/49 = 1.2% of the cap for each of the 49. 1.2% of the cap is $1.9M/player.

    This years cap of 155M divided by 53 players = $2.9M/player. or in percents = 1.9% of the cap/player.

    I like to use %s cause that doesn’t change although the money each year does, the relative value of each player doesn’t change.

    Agamemnon

    #46982
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    I know. 50-60% ought to be around half of your cap and usually includes anywhere from 8-10 players.

    I use 53% for 14 players, but your stuff is good enough, too. We are just using different models. What I did here was use the actual numbers from Spotrac to fine tune the average model used by NFL teams. In this case, I only looked at the top 2 and top 4 players. The 53% for 14 players, I got that by averaging 5 teams that were consistently in the playoffs each year and making the cut off any player making more than $3M/y or about 2% of the cap. How teams use their cap changes each year, just like how the number of OTs, CBs, DEs can change each year. The number of defensive players vs the number of offensive players.

    Do you think there is a team out there that uses 60% of the cap for 8-10 players?

    Agamemnon

    #46984
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant


    Est. Cap Space (Top 51): $2,927,740

    8 players at 59.5%. The next 45 players fit in 40.5% of the cap. Pitt will have find a bit of cap space for IR and the PQ and going to 53 players. $2.9M isn’t enough. imo

    Pitt also used 24% of their cap on 2 players. They used 39% of their cap on 4 players.

    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/cap/

    They have 27 players making minimum wage and the will still need to adjust their cap space a bit.

    This is what I did above. I just did it for all the teams, but stopped after doing 2 and 4 players. I then did an average and looked to see which teams spent the most for the fewest players. Your answer has to be here somewhere? right? 😉

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46988
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Do you think there is a team out there that uses 60% of the cap for 8-10 players?

    Well you;re being more exact than I am. I was always just working with a general idea. I just want to do quick hit observations without tons of calculation. To me major contracts are 6 M or more, and I just noticed that most teams spend anywhere from 50-60% of the cap on those players. I didn’t do anything remotely like the research you did. I just wing it. (And I respect your research, it’s very interesting and smart stuff.)

    Seattle I know has (appx.) 58.7% of the cap tied up with 10 players. (90.3+ M out of 153.9 M.)

    I’m not sure…are we still discussing whether to keep Donald? To me a defense with Donald and then maybe 1 or 2 fewer top contract players is going to be better than a defense with 1 or 2 more top players and no Donald.

    It just may be rare for a team to have both (1)a franchise qb who has (or will have) a starting qb level 2nd contract, and (2) an elite, defense-altering DT.

    So to me, it’s not as crucial to have a lot of top players dominating the cap (like Seattle does). If having both Goff and Donald edges a player or 2 out of the top tier contracts so they have 1 or 2 fewer, I think it will still be a better team than the one that doesn’t have the qb plus Donald.

    #46990
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Do you think there is a team out there that uses 60% of the cap for 8-10 players?

    Well you;re being more exact than I am. I was always just working with a general idea. I just want to do quick hit observations without tons of calculation. To me major contracts are 6 M or more, and I just noticed that most teams spend anywhere from 50-60% of the cap on those players. I didn’t do anything remotely like the research you did. I just wing it. (And I respect your research, it’s very interesting and smart stuff.)

    Seattle I know has (appx.) 58.7% of the cap tied up with 10 players. (90.3+ M out of 153.9 M.)

    I’m not sure…are we still discussing whether to keep Donald? To me a defense with Donald and then maybe 1 or 2 fewer top contract players is going to be better than a defense with 1 or 2 more top players and no Donald.

    It just may be rare for a team to have both (1)a franchise qb who has (or will have) a starting qb level 2nd contract, and (2) an elite, defense-altering DT.

    So to me, it’s not as crucial to have a lot of top players dominating the cap (like Seattle does). If having both Goff and Donald edges a player or 2 out of the top tier contracts so they have 1 or 2 fewer, I think it will still be a better team than the one that doesn’t have the qb plus Donald.

    You were discussing Donald/Goff as a specific. I was more discussing Donald/Salary Cap as a general thing. You included roster building as a specific. I never did more than a general, figuring good cap would help good roster.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #46993
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Anyway, I prefer the Lorentz theory of special relativity to Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

    Agamemnon

    #47014
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    8 players at 59.5%. The next 45 players fit in 40.5% of the cap.

    Yes that’s exactly the kind of thing that interests me.

    So, around the league, what are the rules that hold up when it comes to this?

    Is it usually 8-10 players with the top contracts? Or do you break it down differently?

    #47019
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    8 players at 59.5%. The next 45 players fit in 40.5% of the cap.

    Yes that’s exactly the kind of thing that interests me.

    So, around the league, what are the rules that hold up when it comes to this?

    Is it usually 8-10 players with the top contracts? Or do you break it down differently?

    That break down seems to be an sort of upper boundary for how many premium players you can afford to have on a roster. As far as what is usual, I think that can quite different. As far as what is ideal, I am not sure there is an ideal. Like, there is more than one way to skin a quadruped. Since football is more of a team game, than basketball of baseball there has to be more one good way to make a team. I prefer the concept of having the most strengths of whatever variety.

    The most common or average makeup among 5 top regular playoff teams was 14 players at 53% of the cap. But, I believe that can vary among each team from year to year.(do you have a good cheap QB?) The ideal make up has to take into account what talent you have and want to keep. So, I think more important than an ideal salary cap model roster, you need a good steady supply of cheap talent each year. Then make the best of what you have. The same way you would make a roster for how many players you keep at each position.

    If you what to make keeping a star QB and a star DT as the major part of your roster, then 8-10 at 60% might be the best way to go. If you wanted something else or didn’t have those players, you would probably want a different model. Just for instance, you might what to keep the offensive line together as a unit or you might want a certain number of quality CBs on your team.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #47021
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    NE is 14 players at 56.8%, using my stuff, $3M+.

    NE is 6 players at 33.5% using your stuff, $6M+.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.