|
Thank you, Tom Brady fan, for letting us know who is and is not allowed to have an opinion, and when and how it is acceptable for them to express it
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Easy. It goes well beyond this. Back in 2000, the MLB created Baseball Advanced Media (BAM), which is basically an internal tech startup that was originally intended to build all the team websites and manage online ticket sales after they got screwed by a consulting firm that was supposed to build the MLB websites and did a poo poo job. This same group built the MLB video player, which actually turned out to be the best streaming video platform in the industry. It's so good that it's been licensed by HBO for things like season premieres of Game of Thrones and spun off into its own separate company (BAMTech), which got a $1Bn buy-in from Disney. Basically the MLB built their own in-house tech group back in 2000 and inadvertently ended up building the industry's best platform for streaming live video, so they had/have a massive financial incentive to push and improve their digital offerings.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:https://twitter.com/Edwerderespn/status/832265066103894016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Grittybeard posted:Also Tony gets a say in where he goes if he's cut, and it would have to be an absolutely insane overpay to even get him to think about Cleveland. It's like a combination of two things: The first is that they can't make him a post-June 1 cut if they trade him, the second is yeah, to your point, the trade value probably isn't there. Though this isn't just because he's an injury risk--most of the teams that are desperate for QB help are also sitting high enough in the draft (Cleveland, Chicago, Jets, Jacksonville, 49ers, Bills) that they feel like they can just draft one of the top 3 QB prospects this year if they don't get Romo, which makes them less likely to overpay. In order to avoid a massive cap hit for Romo, Dallas would have to sit on him until June, and it's *very* unlikely teams would wait for that. If they cut him, they can put the post June-1 designation on him to shave down the impact, then extend Witten and convert salary to bonuses for Smith, Frederick, and Crawford, and clear up about $29M in cap space to offset the $10m in dead money from cutting Romo (plus the $9M they save from cutting him as well), which would give them space to sign their rookies, re-sign Church, and go after some non-superstar defensive help in free agency.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yeah, we need to see that video. I'm sure someone is negotiating over the price of it with TMZ and Deadspin as we speak
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JeromeSolomon/status/832266856123731971
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
corn on the cop posted:It's such a perfect match that there's no way it will work out p much. Though he might take a pay cut to stay in Texas. No requirement to move and no state income tax to deal with. I don't know that he'd take a back-loaded deal though--he's not likely to play more than a year or two as-is. More likely there'd be a signing bonus that can be spread over a few years. The key to the Texans making a cap-friendly deal will be guaranteed money, not back-loaded money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:The Texans are not divisional rivals but they are still rivals to the Cowboys in a different kind of way. Jerry Jones would go nuts if Romo led the Texans to post season success. Not any moreso than if he'd gone to any other non-NFC East team and had success. While the Texans very much view the Cowboys as a rival, the feeling isn't really mutual.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Kalli posted:It's hard to fully backload a deal, but yeah, they could do like a 2-3 year version of the Revis contract with the Patriots to push money out. I doubt he's going to take playtime incentives; he has more than enough leverage to get a guaranteed deal from a team. If we're gonna go down that route, we need to start looking at similar deals. The most obvious is Manning's deal with the Broncos, since Peyton was just coming off a missed season due to surgery and there were real questions about whether he'd be able to play again and he was 36 at the time. Manning got a 5-year $96M deal out of the Broncos in 2012 with $58M guaranteed. He made $18M in 2012 that was fully-guaranteed, with the final $40M becoming guaranteed if he passed a physical on his surgically-repaired neck. He restructured that deal in 2015 to take a $4M pay cut which became NLBTE incentives ($2M for AFCC win, $2M for Super Bowl win), and $19M in 2016. This is a pretty good comparison--Romo is a year older, so we'll shave a year off the deal, but risk-wise he's about at the same level. Manning was far from a sure thing, and beyond just questions about whether he'd stay healthy (remember that he ended up missing significant time and suffering from injuries after his stellar 2013 season), there were questions about whether he'd still be able to put the same velocity on his throws (he couldn't), something that Romo *isn't* facing. Sot that said, we're probably looking at a 3-year deal worth around $62M, which could be slightly backloaded, but will still probably include a fully-guaranteed 2017. $24M in signing bonus does seem about right, but it would put $8M in prorated bonus on each year of the deal, and make it difficult to cut him before 2019. In order to realistically fit him on the roster in 2017, the Texas would need to come in around/under $7M in salary (for a $15M cap hit), then plan on upping his base salary to something more like $14M next year with incentives for strong play, then a $17M base salary in 2019 that he's not likely to ever see. So numbers-wise, I largely agree with you, but I don't think he's going to take an incentive-laden contract. It just wouldn't be smart for him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I think the main thing is Romo appears to have less realistic suitors then Peyton did which will suppress his number a bit. Really only the Broncos and Texans really seem to be in a position to go for him. The other good rosters that could upgrade at QB are locked into their guys, and the other QB needy teams tend to be messes up and down the roster. Tough to say. Those teams still have to compete against those other teams a little bit, and they both still have to compete with each other. There are enough teams for Romo to end up on (even if he doesn't want to go to those teams as much) that their ability to suppress will only be so high, particularly with a QB draft class that isn't stellar--Manning was a free agent in 2012, which had the strongest QB draft class since 2004, which would have suppressed his value a little bit, given that two of the heaviest suitors--WAS and MIA--both ended up drafting QBs in the top 10. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I think it's less that only Denver and Houston are in position to go for him and more that those are the only teams out there he really wants to end up on, now that Palmer is returning to the Cardinals. Although if Roethlisberger shocks everyone and retires, watch out
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I don't know that Romo especially cares about getting a megabux paycheck. Everybody likes money and all, but the Cowboys have already payed him immense sums of money, and as far as I know he boringly saved 99% of it instead of blowing it on cocaine/gambling/whatever. Sure, I don't think he cares about the quantity that much. But guaranteed money and signing bonus do more than just line his mansion; they help ensure that he'll get to chance to play at least one more season, which he probably does care about. In terms of concessions, those only go so far--his agent is the one doing the negotiation and Tom Condon isn't a "massive paycut for my client" kind of guy (he reps both Manning bros, Brees, Stafford, and Ryan). MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Ben isn't retiring. He's a passive-aggressive drama queen who was mad at the coaching staff for the embarrassment in Foxborough. I didn't think my statement implied that I really believed that would happen, but if you need to offer a fervent defense, sure
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:"Fervent defense" unlike the Cowboys *shrug* at least the good half of our team showed up in the playoffs Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:The Cowboys would have to win multiple playoff games for that scenario to work and that's just a silly idea. I think you'll find that the lack of playoff success was caused by "noted Choker Tony Romo," friend
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:"Reasons" being throwing 15 picks in 13 games No man Washington was totally in the wrong for benching a QB that had led them to a 5-8 record with a sub-80 passer rating As difficult as it is to believe, Grossman was actually a step up from McNabb that season Now keeping him as the starter the following year, that was maybe not so smart
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:That's cool, at least the Steelers won 2 playoff games this year yeah, you sure did
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Time posted:I mean if you're going to be glib you are asking to have it pointed out I guess? I'm really finding it hard to be invested in this weird little pissing match over which team won more playoff games because I made a joke about Roethlisberger retiring. Like, cool--they beat Miami and Kansas City in the playoffs. Neat!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Hey guys Crazy685 here to do a daily passive aggressive check *whew* I was worried we weren't going to make quota
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:I think the issue here is that you keep either assuming my quip-like responses to you are somehow a pissing match instead of just, you know, banter. oh, my bad. Well, I'm full up on banter, thanks congrats on your playoff wins Intruder posted:The Steelers win over the Dolphins was about as legit as the Texans over the Raiders unlike the Texans' MNF loss to the Raiders, which was just total bullshit
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Brock Osweiler's best game, where he had green laser pointers blocking his view all game. is that what caused the refs to make baffingly bad calls
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Intruder posted:The calls were bad but the Texans completely blew two coverages that lead to long touchdowns on back to back drives, that wasn't the refs' fault. Of course, you could argue the Texans should have been able to chew up the clock if not for those terrible spots on 3rd and 4th and short. Ah well Those spots were loving shameful, though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
89 posted:Eagles websites are starting to fire up the possibility of LeSean McCoy getting cut by the Bills. As they would save $6 million cutting him and apparently the new offense in Buffalo relies more on one cut runners as opposed to someone like Shady. that would be insane. Even if McCoy is turning 29, he was still ridiculously good last year. Would somehow be even dumber than how they've handled the whole Tyrod situation
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The Texans would still have to take a 9m cap hit while trading for Osweiler is a very bad PR move for Chicago, basically giving up on the season before it has started. Yeah, trading a player is the same as cutting him for cap purposes. N: The Cowboys restructured the contracts of Tyron Smith and Travis Fredrick, creating $17.3M in cap room. V: This was basically built into their contracts and both have relatively team-friendly deals such that this is unlikely to cause problems. With the $4M in space they had previously, this gives the Cowboys more than enough room to work with, if not enough to make a splash (though I'm not such a big fan of those when the Joneses make them anyways). Jason Witten could get an extension next, reducing his cap hit this year and taking him through to retirement. R: There are reports that Romo is working with the Cowboys on a contract restructure to facilitate a trade. V: We'll see, I guess. Would be interesting if true. Still looks like the Texans are the most likely landing spot right now
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not quite. If they trade him, they're off the hook for this year's salary (16m) which the new team would pick up because this year is guaranteed. The signing bonuses would accelerate: that means they take a $9m cap hit (the remaining parts of his signing bonus) but not a $25m cap hit (which includes this year's salary). So basically, the Texans can ship Brock off to someone with $16m of cap space to burn and pay the other team some draft picks in exchange for torching their cap this year, though I'm sure there's some limitations on those sorts of trades. Maybe the Browns would like some extra picks. Yeah, I forgot his 2017 salary was fully guaranteed
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:That's not how the salary floor works. It doesn't apply to a single season, it looks back over a four year window. And if the team doesn't spend the money, it just goes to the NFLPA. It's possible to underspend so far that you can't make it up, but it's really, really hard to do that and so far only the Raiders have even come close.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:Not really. People don't understand how dead money works and that's why they think the Raider's weren't going to "make it." The cap floor is a cash spending floor. Dead money doesn't factor in, only the actual cash paid out during that four-year window. The Raiders really weren't in danger of "not making it," they were just the only team to even come close enough that it came up
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Man it is a slow week for NFL news
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:I look forward to the first QB conversation involving "leadership" that doesn't make me want to bang my head against a wall. I see guys described as leaders/not leaders often but rarely see anything substantial in terms of "here's what they do to that proves this is the case" and so I wonder if it even matters. Like I'm sure some of these guys are really charismatic and some are really into studying film, but the difference between Brady and Weeden isn't leadership
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Detroit_Dogg posted:Kirk Cousins would have dove on the fumble. this but unironically In actual News (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), Football Outsiders released its analysis on failed completions for 2016, looking at who's the best at throwing worthless completions. Read it here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/failed-completions-2016 The short version is that Joe Flacco is this year's King of Bad Completions, with a whopping 33% of his passes failing to gain 60% of the needed yards on 1st down, 45% on 2nd down, and 100% on 3rd/4th down. He's had two seasons in his career with 100+ failed completions (2016, 2013), and this year set the NFL record for seasons since 1989 with 144 failed passes, apparently. Right around Flacco were Keenum (63 failures, 32.1%) and Goff (44 failures, 39.3%). Bradford's 2016 also came close, with 29.4% of his completions being failures (116 total). Dennis Pitta was the receiver of the most failed receptions (31), and was #5 in the failure rate (36% of his receptions were failures). Comparatively, the league's best receivers in terms of failed reception rate in 2016 were Nelson (2.9%), Jeffery (3.8%), Dez Bryant (4.0%), Josh Brown (5.1%), and Mike Evans (5.2%). Being on the list isn't necessarily bad per se, since Brees has led the league in failed completions a few times, but Flacco ain't Brees. In semi-relevant news, Newton was among the top of the list, with only 18.1% of his passes being failures. Ryan ranked 7th with 20.6%, while Cousins ranked 14th with 22.9%. There's also some good stuff in there on defenses. It's worth a read. e: God dammit Kalli
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:I gave the article a quick perusal, but I didn't see any explanation as to why 45/60/100% were chosen as the breakdowns for this analysis (the 100% is self explanatory of course). Any idea what the reasoning is there? It seems arbitrary on its face, but I am curious if there is any deeper logic. If I recall correctly, it's based on some older analysis done for The Hidden Game of Football that looked at the value of yards and yards toward a first down. I haven't read it, but intuitively it makes sense that not every completion is a success--anything that doesn't get you a first down on third down or fourth down is easy, but also any 0-yard completion, and I expect the numbers probably come from the chances of getting a first down based on the yardage gained on the play--e.g. your chances of getting a first down if you get 45% or more of the required yards on first down, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Cash Monet posted:2 pages of Kirk v. Cam talk. The gently caress is wrong with you guys. this is what we're left with when the biggest football news is contract restructures
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Man, that guy is the biggest NFL coaching failure since Petrino. So we're just going to ignore that Chip Kelly happened, huh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Chip Kelly won the division title his first year in the league, and had a winning record his first two years. He also took over a team stacked with talent (seriously look at how Eagles fans are still excited about the prospect of guys jettisoned 3 years ago coming back to play for the team now) from the prior admin, drove it into the ground as he got more power, was fired, and then went 2-14 in his only season as head coach of the 49ers. And expectations were higher for him than they were for Trestman. I'd say it's about even, given the expectations for Chip and what he inherited versus the mess Phil Emery built for Trestman to work with and the injuries that sprung up during his tenure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
fair enough; I can agree that Chip the GM was much, much worse than Chip the coach, though you're also overestimating Chip the coach by a substantial amount. It's not a secret that his offenses had become predictable by defenses and his strategy did little to help his teams' defenses succeed when his teams would go 3-and-out on offense in 30 seconds. The Eagles might have had bad seasons the year prior to Chip (otherwise he'd have never been hired), but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the Eagles were in a worse shape talent-wise than the Bears, and over the last 17 years the Eagles have done a solid job at talent evaluation. But yeah, I admit, Chip is better than Trestman. Grittybeard posted:^^--damnit Also probably, but then again, Chip also chose to start Blaine Gabbert for five games, to the tune of a 68.4 passer rating swickles posted:In like 7 years some team will hire Chip and end up in a Carroll/Seahawks situation with flat earth instead of 9/11 truthism. I'd bet that Chip's career arc falls closer to Spurrier's, given the nature of their problems. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Kaepernick wasn't too hurt to play for all five of those games
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:He also had a better winning percentage in the first five games than in the remaining eleven, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the right indictment of his abilities. Sure, in that both wins were over the Rams so if you compare 5 games to 11 games, it's gonna look bad I guess? Coldforge posted:He wasn't cleared by his own doctor to even practice until the very end of July, and I can't remember the date the team's doctors cleared him. The word from the coaches (and all the beat reporters backed it up) was that he was having trouble because of lost muscle mass while recovering from surgery; you may recall the reports of arm fatigue/"dead" arm. They started him just about as soon as they physically could. I know he wasn't cleared to practice until July, but I think you're forgetting a fairly large part of the whole ordeal was the contract renegotiation. Per Rotoworld, in October: Rotoworld posted:Bleacher Report's Jason Cole reports the 49ers are expected to guarantee Colin Kaepernick's remaining per-week roster bonuses as part of Kaepernick's restructured deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Coldforge posted:Kap started his first game of the season on Oct 11. Yeah, that was written on October 7th, right before his first start. The point is that his first start happened to come right after the 49ers renegotiated his contract to be protected in 2017 if Kaep got hurt. e: I guess you could argue that Kelly couldn't *really* start Kaep given the situation with his contract, but it's not like kowtowing bought him another season TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:As a primarily NBA fan it blows my mind that 5/$41M is considered a huge payday. That would maybe buy you a mid to low tier back up that plays 10min a game. The NFL has an incredibly weak players' union
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:F1 drivers get paid well over 10 million, so it sounds like both the NBA and the NFL are hoarding all their moneys. No man don't you understand those poor owners are barely staying solvent as it is
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/836342064291827712 https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/836343306326065152
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He wants to play for a coach he likes, or collect $24m this year and be a free agent next year, and Washington has botched it so badly he has all the leverage to do that. He will easily command a monster contract if he hits free agency because he'll be the first pretty good free agent QB with actual history that hits the market (without injury risk). and he's young--his history isn't amazing, but he's young and that matters a ton right now. Talent-wise, he's basically a Joe Flacco*, but that's good enough to win you a Super Bowl with the right team. e: Seriously amazing to me that Washington botched this so badly TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Eli Wiggum posted:Why is there an asterisk next to Flacco? I was going to edit that to say *around the same level, not similar in terms of their specific talents, then just forgot to add the extra part I Cousins is better than Flacco, but not "way better" vvvv I should have said that TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Grittybeard posted:As happy as I am about locking Berry up I'm equally sad about this. It probably needed to be done but goddamn he was amazing. and yet somehow still underrated, thanks to some just terrible injury luck. His 2012 was one of the best seasons ever put up by a RB but it too will be forgotten because of the low TD count (5), despite the insane feat of averaging 6.4 YPC on 230 carries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 20:32
|
|