Forum Replies Created
-
Quinn’s contract is an extension. There was no room to add a large amount to the year the extension was made. The new money started in 2015. Foles will be the same way.
Saffold has the second year hit in it, but that is the only one I found.
Agamemnon
Here are Demoff’s last 2 contracts. I don’t see a significantly bigger cap hit in the second year.
Agamemnon.
I think the Rams, Demoff are going to do less and less of that.
Well that’s the only thing I really disagree on in a good discussion.
If by “that” you mean frontloading with year 2, to me that not a bandaid. IMO, it’s smart policy. It’s 2 things:
1. frontloading, pay as you go, put more in the early years. It’s obvious what kind of flexibility it gives them later.
2. but they do it by putting the big frontload in year 2, not year one. That means they always have another year ahead to do that with. Every year, there’s more space next year, and when you get to next year, there’s more space the NEXT year. You use some 2016 space to make 2015 signings, but then when you get to 2016, you have 2017 space.
It looks to me like a smart way to frontload.
The other advantage of frontloading, other than the obvious one that it means they don’t suffer the bad of effects of BACKloading, is that you can always tweak it. So they can tweak a bit here or there by turning frontloaded salary into pro-rate bonus money. You obviously can’t do this TOO much cause then it erases the entire point of frontloading. But you can tweak here and there, a bit, as need arises.
We define this differently, cause you are still moving money to a later time, although not much later. but that is ok. I think Demoff will do less front loading. 😉
It isn’t a big deal, cause it won’t be a massive money move and it will be easy to see how much he uses it.
What also effect this is the size of the guaranteed money. Like you aren’t going to cut a guy after the first year. In Cook’s case the second year.
Agamemnon
This is all that is listed for the Rams on incentives, this year or next. I guess Demoff isn’t using them as much as I thought?
AgamemnonYou know, Philly used to use incentives to inflate cap space. I never really checked on that and I don’t know if it is even possible under the new CBA.
NLTBE incentives, if achieved, count against the cap in the following year.
For example: You give a player a 3 year deal at 3mil/per base with 1mil in LTBE incentives for scoring 3 TD’s and a NLTBE incentive of 1million is he scores 10 TD’s.
That 1 million LTBE incentive, automatically counts against the cap for that year. However, if it’s not reached, that money not paid out carries over to the following year’s cap. So you’d have an extra 1 million the following season. Eagles used to do this with their bottom depth chart players all the time, give the 4th string RB a LTBE incentive of 3 TD’s after the offseason to fill the cap for that year, even though he probably wont get it. It would artificially inflate their cap the following year when all of these guys didn’t get those incentives.
The NLTBE incentives work opposite, they don’t count this year but if they are reached, it counts against the cap the following season. Cruz in 2011 would be a good example. If they put a NLTBE incentive on his contract that year of 8 TD’s for 3million in 2011, that 3million then gets counted into the 2012 cap .
They may have tweeked the rules on the LTBE incentives to prevent teams from taking advantage of it like the Eagles used to but I’m not sure on that,
http://boards.giants.com/showthread.php?58186-Question-on-Incentives
http://www.askthecommish.com/SalaryCap/faq.aspx
Question 1.11a
How does the NFL Salary Cap treat cash incentives?Answer: All incentives are included in team salary if they are “likely to be earned” (LTBE). LTBE incentives are performance levels that the player or team has reached in the previous year.
For example, if a quarterback threw twenty touchdowns last year and his incentive clause for this year is set at fifteen touchdowns, then this incentive is “likely to be earned.” Also, incentives that are in the sole control of the player, like non-guaranteed reporting bonuses and off-season workout and weight bonuses, are considered LTBE.
An impartial arbitrator will hear disputes between the owners and the players concerning what should be considered LTBE (especially for rookies or veterans who did not play in the prior year). Conversely, if a player did not reach the performance incentive in the previous year, the incentive is deemed “not likely to be earned” (NLTBE) and is not included in team salary.
To determine whether a clause is LTBE or NLTBE for Salary Cap purposes (i.e., not whether the player actually earned the incentive), it is necessary to look at the performance of the team in the prior season, not the current season.
For example, assume Player X receives an incentive bonus if he participates in 50% of the team’s offensive plays this season. Assume further that last season the team had 1,000 offensive plays. Therefore, as soon as Player X plays in 500 plays in the current season (or 50% of last year’s 1,000 plays), the incentive will be considered earned for Salary Cap purposes.
The same incentive is considered “not earned” if the same player in the current year only participated in one of the team’s first 502 offensive plays. In this situation, it would be impossible for the player to achieve the 50% incentive based on last year’s performance of 1,000 plays. It is important to remember that looking to last year’s performance level is only for Salary Cap purposes and will not affect the player’s right to receive a bonus for his performance in the current year.
I think that means you can’t do that anymore?
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
AgamemnonRemember my figure of ~45+ million.
+ there’s also this.
As you know the Rams often park the big front-loading cap hit in year 2 of the contract, not year 1.
That means that any deals they sign in 2016 can take advantage of 2017 cap space.
Right now, figuring 2017 with 2 more rookie classes (2016 & 2017) and with a cap or around 153 M (though it will most likely be more), then, they have about 85 M in cap space.
Though of course that will go down. Plus UFAs in 2017 include:
Chris Long
Kenny Britt
Tavon Austin
Akeem Ayers
Michael Brockers
Alec Ogletree
Garrett Reynolds
TJ McDonald
Stedman Bailey
Barrett JonesA lot will be different by 2017. It will include a lot more info on all of those players, plus 2 whole drafts, including (so far) an extra 2nd in 2016. So I can’t see them keeping more than half of those.
BUT no matter who they keep they can use 2018 cap space to do it.
.
I think the Rams, Demoff are going to do less and less of that. Cause it is really sort of a temporary band aid. Ideally you would have each year equal and no pro rated money, so that if you cut a player you would have zero dead money to account for. I think we are over a hump, talent wise. The next step is to start being more like Baltimore and teams that let high priced veterans go a year early. If we draft well, we won’t be able to keep all our talent anyway. We can be selective and keep the players that return the most value. A bonus to this is that we will get more comp draft picks.
If I am right we will probably see some of that reflected between now and 2016. I think Foles might be an exception, but after that I think we will trend away from that. Although it might be a subtle change at first.
You will still have the last year/s of a contract containing fluff. I think incentives are mostly a form of fluff, too, although not always.(being a starter and playing time would be examples.) Demoff’s new thing seems to be incentives, but I can’t always tell if they are real or fluff.
We end up at about the same place, but coming from different directions.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by .
AgamemnonAcronyms, or lww (language without words). Maybe they hate adjectives?
http://strongfootballcoach.com/offensive-football/nfl-offensive-play-calling-terminology-simplify-minimize/
NFL Offensive Play Calling Terminology: Simplify and MinimizeNFL Play Calling Terminology
I was once a proponent of systematic play calling terminology like the NFL. This included formation adjustments, the play and tags. I even had an equation for it. It can be very flexible.
For this, Steve Jobs would beat me with his “simple stick”. Over and over again. Why? It’s flexible but it’s complex. It’s not simple.
The Future of NFL Play Calling and Terminology
The NFL will eventually meet an offensive coach who is a much better coach when it comes to communicating. With the way college coaches are calling plays, be them hand signals, 3-5 word max calls or boards with pictures, it’s truly only a matter of time. The big difference is that college football needs these systems, where NFL has the coordinator talking through a headset. So for this moment, let’s start with the actual play call in words and why they’re inefficient and how they can be simplified.
Flexibility Versus Complexity
Flexibility only matters if it’s truly understood quickly. Let’s face it, the game of football is faster than ever before. To understand something quickly, it must be succinct and simple. 8-12 word play calls take time to process. That doesn’t include snap count or anything like that either. If we could cut that in half, we not only save a split second or two on the clock, we save our players processing power for more important things, like the defensive adjustments or remembering the snap count.
What’s the Solution for NFL Play Calling Terminology
I’m not an NFL coach. I didn’t play college football. But if Apple can change the wording for MP3 players from what it technically was, specifically a “four inch, sixty gigabyte hard drive with a USB port” to “1000 songs in your pocket”… then the NFL can change “Brown Right Over 73 Chicago F arrow X curl” to “Rex Chicago Calf”.
How can this be done? Make your most used tags, motions or other adjustments and tie them together as much as possible. “F arrow x curl” is a curl/flat concept tag that is tied to the original play call (“73 Chicago” in this case), so why not make it one word, aka “calf”.
You may be thinking, okay smart guy, but what about pass protections? In the NFL, the center sets them in a lot of offenses. Heck, the Bears took over 20 into some games last year. The center can call them with the appropriate play. The center knows Chicago is a 5 step drop, he can call a five step protection. While your HS center may not know this, hopefully a full time NFL player will.
What about the formation? “Brown right over” became “Rex”. I dropped 2 words. Because of the extra time NFL players have, learning formations could become part of the meetings and be rep’d without the contact for 5 minutes before or after practice. If someone signs in the middle of the season and needs to get caught up to speed quick, his teammates could help him out. Regardless, I could argue learning an extra 20-40 formations would be easier than trying to figure out how each slight adjustment to a formation could affect a receiver. This is probably where my philosophy has changed the most since a few years ago, where I used to believe that receivers/fullbacks should adjust the formation. Quite frankly, this is something we should just make easy because while formations are important, they aren’t as important as the play. I’d rather have them thinking about the play then making sure they adjust the formation correctly.
I know Trent Dilfer would say that a formation is one thing, but personnel is another. That is the added benefit of the NFL system, so they can get personnel matchups. Or wait… can’t I just use a word like a brand of car? Maybe say it before the play? Or use a signal? Or maybe a board? This way I can have slot and flanker switch positions. That seems easier than “Brown Right Over Flip” doesn’t it? I could say “Rex Mustang” instead of all that. On Mustang, slots and flankers flip. Doesn’t matter what the call is. They flip.
You may ask about shifts and motions. That’s easy. Some NFL teams already use this method so it should be even easier. “Rex zac” means the z moves across the formation to Rex. Or vice versa (moves from his spot in Rex to somewhere across the formation).
So, if we take a sample full NFL play call, with my slot and flanker flipped now, like “Brown Right Over Flip Zac 73 Chicago F arrow X curl” (11 words), I could easily make it “Rex Mustang Zac Chicago Calf” (5 words). This has cut 6 words out of the play call, and can easily mean the same thing. Heck, if we just yelled “Mustang” to the players or used a signal (because NFL stadiums are so loud) for that after the huddle, I can cut that word out. So now we’re at 4 words, “Rex Zac Chicago Calf”. Wait… I could probably use a signal for the motion too… since we’re motioning into the called formation anyway so it ultimately doesn’t matter to anyone besides that receiver or the QB. So… “Rex Chicago Calf”…3 words. Mustang and Zac can come separate if the need arises.
So what have we learned? By simply packaging tags and simplifying formations, you can suddenly and drastically impact the simplicity of a play call. But… OUCH… Steve Jobs hit me with the “simple stick” again…
Why Signals and Boards are Still Useful in the NFLWhy did Steve Jobs hit me again? He would look at my process. The offensive coordinator/QB relationship through their headset specifically. Despite the occasional glitch, it’s inefficient for play calling reasons. Why is it inefficient? I’ve added an unnecessary user interaction. My other 10 players on the field have eyes and ears, don’t they? They can see signals from the sideline. They can see a board, or whatever the next cool looking thing will be.
If my play call can be 5 words, then I can easily use 5 quick hand signals. Defensive coordinators, for the longest time at the NFL level, would use more than that and maybe even boards to signal information. So I know us offensive guys, because we are supposedly smarter after all, could do the same thing. And all 11 guys could see it, get lined up, and run the play. Some NFL teams may already be using this in no huddle situations. So why not use it all the time and just line up at the line of scrimmage, skipping the huddle all the time? I’d save my offensive linemen from running 5-10 yards after each play (maybe more even). I’d give myself more time, as the play caller, to give my QB tips through the headset as we watch the defense setup because we’re already aligned. We could easily analyze the play and do it before my “timer” runs out on the headset, if I wanted to do that kind of thing. And if we want to control the clock, we could always huddle again, as useless as that may now seem.
I know, the logical argument would be why did the defensive coordinators want a headset if the signals were so great? I think the logical reason is it’s easier… for the coordinator. Which it most definitely is. I get to make some elaborate call. Let my players decipher it. They’re being paid to do just that, aren’t they? Or, maybe the less cynical person thinks it’s so they defensive coordinator could point out tendencies and such during his allotted time, just like the offensive coordinator could do. Either way, it doesn’t really matter.
Calling plays through the headset is terribly inefficient because it slows down the process and adds an extra step. In this process, you rely on (1) a coordinator to call the play and (2) the quarterback to call the play again and (3) the other players to hear the play. In the signal system, I can (1) call the play and (2) all the players can see the play call. I mean, if you don’t believe me that eliminating user interactions is important, did you ever play that telephone game in elementary school? In it, one person would sit and say “Mr. Teacher is Awesome” and by the last person in class, 20 people later, it would be “Mr. Teacher was caught making out with Ms. Other Teacher at the Movies”. While that exaggerates the problem, it’s the truth. The more interactions you have, the more chances for error. Let’s streamline the terminology and the process NFL.
Concluding thoughts on NFL Offensive Play Calling Terminology
Some coach, probably pretty soon, will revolutionize play calling in the NFL. You may not think it’s a big deal. However, the NFL is entrenched in this position, so it may seem doubtful that it will change. They were entrenched with playbooks. Now teams like the Packers and Broncos are using iPad apps for their playbooks. It adds video in real time pretty much. Just more efficient process.
Everything can be minimized and reinvented, no matter how entrentched they are. Ask Microsoft about complexity versus simplicity… and how Apple showed how awesome simplicity could be (and how flexible it could be too). You can ask Hudl‘s competitors too the same question. Simplicity, especially flexible simplicity, always wins. It will win the NFL soon as well.
Nic names. 😉
AgamemnonTHOMAS:
Demoff has planned for this moment. The Rams are scheduled to have about $60 million of salary cap room for their 2016 payroll, among the most cap space of anyone in the league.
They currently have $9.24 million of 2015 cap space, a figure that doesn’t include the Rams’ 2015 draft class. When those draft class numbers come in, the Rams should still have over $6 million in room this year, which should give them a little flexibility over the coming months when it comes to all those players they want to re-sign.
Hard to tell if he’s right about that 60 M.
Yeah, I saw 60 million too. The rookies cost about 8 million in 2016. Brockers is 6 million. So, 60 minus 14 equals 46 million. Sounds about right. Remember my figure of ~45+ million.
AgamemnonLet’s say we keep Foles and Quick for 20M. We have 15 million for 6 defensive players. We keep one of our DEs and one of our CBs. Barron is replaced by Alexander and if we can’t sign Fairly, we get a 3rd round comp pick. Or we can start cutting high salaries and restructuring.
IMO? Barron and Fairley are rentals. I agree that the key ones are Foles (if he lives up to expectations) and Quick, but then there’s room for one defender.
If Westbrooks comes through, then, that eases the pain on Sims and Hayes. It is also possible that Hayes doesn’t attract much attention.
And then next year is a D-heavy draft.
But I don’t know because overthecap.com hasn’t updated for 2016 since the rookies signed. Before that they had about 51+ M in cap space.
I am doing 2 defenders plus maybe Fairley. So we aren’t too far off.
Agamemnonhttp://www.spotrac.com/nfl/st.-louis-rams/cap/2016/
This is better, but their stuff is still off. They have Brockers and the rookies there. But, they have too many active contracts listed in the total and they haven’t given anything for the salary cap increasing next year. Do that and you might get, like I did, that we have ~45+ million in space for next year.
AgamemnonLet’s say we keep Foles and Quick for 20M. We have 15 million for 6 defensive players. We keep one of our DEs and one of our CBs. Barron is replaced by Alexander and if we can’t sign Fairley, we get a 3rd round comp pick. Or we can start cutting high salaries and restructuring.
Agamemnon
These are the main ones. We take care of everything else and we will have about ?35 million to try to sign these players. We will do the ones that give us the most value. imo
I still haven’t done any real cutting or any restructuring and we can keep 5 or 6 of these guys. imo
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by .
AgamemnonAs long as it is in form of a prorated bonus, they can give him a healthy check this year.
We don’t want the cap hit to be too big next year. We have a bunch of FAs we might want to sign. I think we could handle 20 million, maybe a bit more. 15 million would be better. imo
AgamemnonOk, a deal with incentives then. That seems to be the new twist in Demoff’s contracts.
Could be. If so, then, there’s also a good chance that the normal market avg.s don’t apply.
I am thinking it will be about guarantees and getting something extra for this year. A bonus takes care of this year. Getting money up front is a carrot for Foles to make a deal. Say ?10 or 12 million on a 4 or 5 year extension, 2016-2020. His base salary will be around 15 million per year with bonuses to make more, ?up to 22 million per year. The Rams protect themselves by a somewhat low guarantee, about 30 million. So, they can get out of it after 2 years for a cost of approx. 30 million. In 2017 they will have to eat the rest of the guarantee, if they want to cut him, which could be about 5 million in dead money. The dead money depends on sturcture, etc. Roughing something that would be equivalent to 30 – 10 -15 = ~5. That is my guess. 😉
My best short cut for market is, 15% of the total salary cap, for QBs. That changes every year, so getting a deal done sooner is better. imo
If it was me, I would just gamble and use the Franchise Tag next year. Cause Mannion is my guy. 😉
If Foles does good then he is my guy, too. And Cook, he is my guy, too.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 9 months ago by .
AgamemnonThe tweet might just mean that they want to check the thinking of Foles and his agent.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking too.
And….maybe not.
===============
<strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”>Rams want to sign Nick Foles to long-term extension
By Dan Hanzus
Nick Foles has yet to take a snap for the Rams, but the team is ready to do business with their new quarterback.
NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported on Monday’s edition of NFL Total Access that the Rams have made it an offseason priority to lock up Foles to a long-term deal before the start of the season. The team has reached out to Foles’ camp and the two sides have had some initial discussions, according to Rapoport.
Foles, who was acquired from the Eagles in the Sam Bradford trade this offseason, is entering the final year of his rookie contract. He is due to make $1.5 million in 2015.
According to Rapoport, the Rams would like to avoid Foles playing out the final year of his deal, which they believe would put them in a financially difficult position if Foles’ performance increases his market value. The Rams would also like to avoid having to use the franchise tag.
This can be seen as wishful thinking for a team clearly looking for some stability at quarterback after two years of Sam Bradford knee injuries. Foles enjoyed a breakout season under Chip Kelly in 2013, but his 2014 performance was uneven at best before he sustained a season-ending clavicle injury.
Foles strikes us as one of the league’s starting quarterbacks with the most to prove in 2015. The Rams, surprisingly, appear willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Ok, a deal with incentives then. That seems to be the new twist in Demoff’s contracts.
AgamemnonThey must think that Foles will give them at least some kind of minimum level qb play. For, they could wait to see how he does, franchise him if they need to, and go from there. The tweet might just mean that they want to check the thinking of Foles and his agent.
AgamemnonI missed this over the weekend but former Rams draft pick, QB Garrett Gilbert, was claimed off waivers by Lions from Patriots.
— Jim Thomas (@jthom1) June 15, 2015
AgamemnonI think Fisher protects his players so much in preseason and plays so basic that in effect, the first game of the regular season is another preseason game. I think this puts him behind, cause winning game one is just as important as any other game. They all count one game.
Fwiw, I am actually one of those who doesn’t endorse the holds back/starts slow argument. I think if you look at the last 2 seasons, the reasons for not being at least 2-2 before game 5 has to do with other stuff.
We disagree then. No big thing.
AgamemnonI think Fisher protects his players so much in preseason and plays so basic that in effect, the first game of the regular season is another preseason game. I think this puts him behind, cause winning game one is just as important as any other game. They all count one game.
AgamemnonBarnes was a RFA. The Rams did not tender him. They signed him to a minimum wage one year deal with a few incentives. This indicates to me that they are just as happy with Jones and Rhaney. It might not make much difference how the center position plays out if they are all about the same. But, Jones was always a favorite of mine. 😉
AgamemnonLooking at the draft in 2016, it could be a good year for DEs, CBs, DTs, and OTs, and maybe QBs.
AgamemnonA couple percent of body fat probably equals five pounds per week. Maybe his body fat is low. 😉
Agamemnonhttp://www.spotrac.com/nfl/st.-louis-rams/cap/
Est. Top 51 Cap Space: $7,091,825This seems to be current with the latest signings. Extra cap money will probably be used to sign future free agents to extensions this year. imo
Agamemnonhttp://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/19227/st-louis-rams-sign-remaining-eight-draft-picks
Friday, June 12, 2015
St. Louis Rams sign remaining eight draft picks
By Nick WagonerEARTH CITY, Mo. — For the third consecutive year, the St. Louis Rams have signed their rookie draft class in one fell swoop.
The Rams confirmed Friday that they’ve inked their eight remaining drafted rookies to contracts after completing their second week of organized team activities Thursday. The group signing includes running back Todd Gurley, tackle Robert Havenstein, guard Jamon Brown, quarterback Sean Mannion, tackle Andrew Donnal, guard Cody Wichmann, linebacker Bryce Hager and defensive end Martin Ifedi.
Absent from the group is sixth-round receiver Bud Sasser, who the team signed last week and subsequently released after he was unable to pass a physical to play because of a heart condition.
Since Jeff Fisher arrived as coach in 2012, the Rams have made a habit of waiting to sign their draft class until later in the offseason program.
Because of the slotting system for rookie contracts in the collective bargaining agreement, there’s not much concern about signing rookies anymore. With that in mind, Fisher prefers to give the rookies an education beyond the field before handing over big-dollar contracts.
That includes seminars and guest speakers on things such as financial planning, real estate and more. Fisher also believes it allows the drafted rookies to bond with the undrafted rookies before getting a taste of an NFL contract.
The timing of the deals falls in line with what the Rams have done in the past couple of years. St. Louis signed its rookie class on this date last year and on June 13 in 2013.
Agamemnon -
This reply was modified 10 years, 8 months ago by
