AFC West Updates

[Guest]

If a tie didn’t guarantee us a playoff spot then yeah we should have gone for it. But as it is, I suspect the analytics was to go for the tie rather than the win.

I agree with your take on the cold analytics for all teams. However, our defense had not been strong during the game, so a lost coin toss had an increased chance to be a loss. Also, we had the offensive momentum at the end of the game.

For all of the extremely aggressive efforts in going for it, that was the one time where I thought we puckered. I will always trust Herbert to go get us a win in that situation.

[NoMoreChillies]

defense wins championships

[ghost]

defense wins championships

Agreed. I feel like Tampa Bay and L.A. Rams proved that a truism in the last two Super Bowls.

[ghost]

defense wins championships

The 49ers in 1984,1988, & 1989 allowed their opponents a single FG, three times, in three NFC Conference Championship games.

That's so good it's hard to take it's measure.

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...o/playoffs.htm

[Boltjolt]

Ok, this is some wild shit here. The cap is a farce if you have a rich owner(Rams). This will be the advantage for Denver and their new rich owner.
As stated in this video, there needs to be a cap on the cash over cap.

Watch this shit

[Velo]

Ok, this is some wild shit here. The cap is a farce if you have a rich owner(Rams). This will be the advantage for Denver and their new rich owner.
As stated in this video, there needs to be a cap on the cash over cap.

Watch this shit

I didn't really follow how they can keep kicking the can down the road without entering cap hell, but it appears there is a loophole that needs to be closed. The Chargers won't be able to compete once they have to pay Herbert. The Spanoses are one of the cash poorest owners in the league. I was wondering how the Rams could afford to give Donald that deal, with all the cap they have invested in Stafford and Goff.

[Boltjolt]

I didn't really follow how they can keep kicking the can down the road without entering cap hell, but it appears there is a loophole that needs to be closed. The Chargers won't be able to compete once they have to pay Herbert. The Spanoses are one of the cash poorest owners in the league. I was wondering how the Rams could afford to give Donald that deal, with all the cap they have invested in Stafford and Goff.

Bottom line comes down to the owners paying out millions to bonuses lowering the cap.

Many thought Goff was going to be expensive for Detroit to cut but in that video he says it's only 1 million because he was paid some 40 million by the Rams which enabled them to trade him to another team and they wouldn't be so screwed. Everyone was saying, why would Detroit make that deal with that awful contract? Well now we know.

It's hard to follow and explain.

May have to watch it a few times but rich owners like Kroenke, Jones, and whoever else they said have the cash to pay out these bonuses for essentially cheating the cap. They called it cap over cash and the Ex NFL exec said they need a cap on that.


The Rams just gave a huge raise to Donald that will pay him cash and lower his cap hit and as I type this I see they also just signed Kuup to a 110 million extension. More cash being paid out. That TV revenue must be huge.

Some here have said eventually it catches up to them in the coming years which was also mentioned there in the video but nope,..... Just keep paying millions and it won't.

Spanos clan wouldn't be able to do this. Mark Davis and other owners can't do this.

[equivocation]

I think what makes it work is that the cap keeps going up. So cap this year is more valuable than cap next year is more valuable than the next, etc.

At some point every dollar in cash paid out does count against the salary cap.

[Xenos]

Ok, this is some wild shit here. The cap is a farce if you have a rich owner(Rams). This will be the advantage for Denver and their new rich owner.
As stated in this video, there needs to be a cap on the cash over cap.

Watch this shit

I don’t think it’s a farce. There’s definitely ways to manipulate it but the bill always comes due. Here’s a good breakdown from another poster.

The cap is very real, there are just a lot of people who don't understand how the cap works saying it isn't.

The Rams, in free agency this year, signed two players who played >40% of snaps for another team last year, those being, of course, Bobby Wagner and Allen Robinson. The Rams lost, however, 6 players who played >40% of snaps for the Rams, to another team. Next year will make 5 straight drafts the Rams have been awarded comp picks, because they've lost more players than they've gained. The Rams lost >$50M in APY in free agency this year. The spent roughly $25M in additions. That's not the cap being fake, that's really basic math. The cap is real and working as intended, people just remember the two flashy signings the Rams make, and forget the 5+ guys other teams poached hoping to get a piece of what LAR has created. In two years, the Saints have lost Trey Hendrickson, Sheldon Rankins, Terron Armstead, and Marcus Williams, all good players they would've loved to have kept on roster, but they couldn't because the cap is real. The Bucs are a bit of an anomaly, but they're just doing what the Pats did around 2017/2018/2019, in pushing the bill past the point they believe Brady will retire. They'll foot the bill when Brady moves on, and they don't expect to be competitive anyway. It's why the Pats just kind of took the L in 2020. They were paying a QB $14M to win a superbowl in Tampa. Tampa is slated to have like $50M in dead money next year because of this (which they will inevitably restructure around if Tom wants to run it back again.) And they had $20M already this year.

In one year, sure, you can do whatever you want. If a team wants to use signing bonuses and void years to build a one year dream team and spend 2 years worth of cap, to blow it up and pay for it in year 2, you can do that. But you do pay for it. Every cent actually paid to a player will hit the cap at some point. You can do a ton of shenanigans to change when, but that's it.

It's just easier for people who don't know what they're talking about to say the cap isn't real, rather than actually look at what these teams lose in exchange for what they do, and look at how the great ones make up for it (the Rams, for instance, make up for all the players they've lost these past years by drafting and developing talent at an absurd rate, and having a huge success rate on the trades and free agency moves they do make. They'll lose 5 guys in free agency and gain 2, and the 2 will wind up outproducing the 5, just from good coaching, scheme, and evaluation. And they'll replace the last 3 with 6th round picks for the same reason.) And you could throw out other teams and it will be the same story. The Chiefs, the Ravens, the Packers. They lose players constantly but they make the right choices about which ones to keep, they go aggressive at the right time, and they restock on talent incredibly well. Teams like the Bills, the Bengals, will be the next teams to face this test. If they fail, no one will remember them, and how losing talent they added originally will hurt them going forward. If they succeed, more people that don't understand why they succeed will say the cap is magic when they pay 2 guys $40M per year combined, but let 5 other guys walk to bad teams for $50M.

[JPPT1974]

Yeah as really salary caps are confusing quite but still when you break it down one by one, it can be not so complicated.

[Xenos]

Here’s another great explanation for why a team can’t just keep using the new cap fad of void years and kick the can down the road indefinitely.

So, you can....to an extent. This will be an over simplification of how this would happen, but hopefully this will get the idea across.

Let's say you want to do this. You're a GM with minimal cap space, and you want to add a couple of guys you can't really afford this year. Let's say player A wants $20M, and you don't have that. You could instead give them a 1 year deal with a $5M salary, and add two void years, with a $15M signing bonus. The player makes $20M this year, but you only pay $10M....right now. You'll pay $10M more next year, when theyre likely gone. Now player B wants $15M, and you don't even have that. He wants a slightly longer deal, so you offer him 3 for $45M. You can't pay that on the cap, so you again go $5M in base each year, a $30M signing bonus, two void years, and you only have to pay $11M each year you have them. But you pay that last $12M in year four when they leave.



Problem one here, is the only way to do this is with guaranteed money. So if you're the Chiefs, making Mahomes salary into a signing bonus to spread the hit out, that feels pretty safe. You know you won't be cutting Mahomes, so the risk of the guarantees is low. If you do this with a less safe player, whether they're inconsistent, or even just near retirement, you may be paying a ton of money for a guy not on roster. This happened recently with a number of QBs, actually. Goff, Brady, Ryan, etc. Second, you can only prorate over 5 years. So no adding on void years to a 5 year deal, it won't change anything. So it has to be short contracts, or already in progress long contracts.



Third, and the reason for the sample, is you do start paying it as you do this. So the sample is year one. If you want to do this again in year two, you can....but player A now comes due. So you either have $10M less in the first place, if you let A walk, or you have to retain him and push it further. Same with player B in year 4. You can keep pushing these hits, but only if you retain those players. Once they're gone, be it free agency, trade, retirement, you have to pay that overdue bill. So let's say player A flopped, you're now debating between eating a $10M sunk cost and retaining a guy who underperformed. Maybe B retires after year 3, and since what you owe in void years is money already paid, it will accelerate to whatever year he retires on the cap. So you only get the real befit the first year you push these hits down the road. Because while in year 2 you can push hits to year 3 and 4, you then are paying for the ones in year 1. And so on. And thats where you have the Pats taking a year off, basically. The Chiefs had a modest year this year in free agency to let things settle. The Saints lost a couple pro bowlers and had a hall of fame QB retire and are still tight as they pay old bills. It feels like Tampa can just keep this rolling, but they're paying right now, fairly heavily, for Suh and Gronk to not be on the team. And there's more of that to come for them.

[Boltjolt]

I don’t think it’s a farce. There’s definitely ways to manipulate it but the bill always comes due. Here’s a good breakdown from another poster.

Did you watch that video? If not, you should.

They are totally manipulating it. Even the Ex exec says they need to put a cap on the cash over cap part of it. The Rams just signed two players totalling 205 mil. Haven't signed OBJ yet. The Bill coming due is cash paid to those players by the owner who can afford to pay it.

People say you can't keep doing but the Rams keep doing it. KC seems to do it and so does Jerrah.