2015 NFL Thread: Burn It All Down

[SKO]

To me, the true measure of whether you've fucked up your cap or given out a bad contract is if you are prevented from signing a player you really wanted or you have to cut ties with a player you don't want to cut ties with because you can no longer afford them. Neither of those things has happened to the Bears in recent memory, and I really doubt the Eddie Royal deal is gonna break the floodgates.

[Eli]

Pen's weird bitching about Eddie Royal's contract only makes sense to me if he reveals that he's one of those members of the McCaskey family who owns part of the team but won't get shit until they sell it.

I figured he was just putting a quarter in SKO, but it's gone on way too long to be that.

[flannj]

Pen's weird bitching about Eddie Royal's contract only makes sense to me if he reveals that he's one of those members of the McCaskey family who owns part of the team but won't get shit until they sell it.

I figured he was just putting a quarter in SKO, but it's gone on way too long to be that.

I figured the same thing, "It has to be a schtick... right?"
Then I realized where I was.

[PenFoe]

To me, the true measure of whether you've fucked up your cap or given out a bad contract is if you are prevented from signing a player you really wanted or you have to cut ties with a player you don't want to cut ties with because you can no longer afford them. Neither of those things has happened to the Bears in recent memory, and I really doubt the Eddie Royal deal is gonna break the floodgates.

Here's where this falls apart though.  Sure, you can easily point to Cutler's contract and say, "Yeah, but there's no one better" or point to Eddie Royal's contract and say "They have plenty of cap space, what's the big deal?" but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great?  Okay, so there's no one better than Cutler, but they don't want him and they can't get rid of him. That means it's a bad, bad contract.

You brought up the Lester contract earlier in parallel as a point of contention, but he's great. We all agree that it's a shitton of money and it'll be ugly at the end, but that doesn't mean he's still not a guy that changes the dynamic. 

These are just bad contracts. They're too much money for guys that don't make the team significantly better.  You can get plenty of cheap guys to do what they're doing and then overspend on great guys.  Brian Hartline and Harry Douglas and those guys can do everything Royal can do for half or a tenth of the cost.  Just because 3rd WR is a position of need for the Bears doesn't mean they should overpay. Those guys are so easy to find on the cheap.  Just because the Bears haven't been able to do it (Santonio Holmes last year??) doesn't mean that it's a challenge to do.

You don't get better giving too much money for mediocre players, no matter how much money you still have.  That's just bad management. 

[SKO]

To me, the true measure of whether you've fucked up your cap or given out a bad contract is if you are prevented from signing a player you really wanted or you have to cut ties with a player you don't want to cut ties with because you can no longer afford them. Neither of those things has happened to the Bears in recent memory, and I really doubt the Eddie Royal deal is gonna break the floodgates.

Here's where this falls apart though.  Sure, you can easily point to Cutler's contract and say, "Yeah, but there's no one better" or point to Eddie Royal's contract and say "They have plenty of cap space, what's the big deal?" but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great?  Okay, so there's no one better than Cutler, but they don't want him and they can't get rid of him. That means it's a bad, bad contract.

You brought up the Lester contract earlier in parallel as a point of contention, but he's great. We all agree that it's a shitton of money and it'll be ugly at the end, but that doesn't mean he's still not a guy that changes the dynamic. 

These are just bad contracts. They're too much money for guys that don't make the team significantly better.  You can get plenty of cheap guys to do what they're doing and then overspend on great guys.  Brian Hartline and Harry Douglas and those guys can do everything Royal can do for half or a tenth of the cost.  Just because 3rd WR is a position of need for the Bears doesn't mean they should overpay. Those guys are so easy to find on the cheap.  Just because the Bears haven't been able to do it (Santonio Holmes last year??) doesn't mean that it's a challenge to do.

You don't get better giving too much money for mediocre players, no matter how much money you still have.  That's just bad management. 

I'm sticking with "this is a really weird line to draw in the sand over a 2 year, $10 millon dollar deal." Which, in reality, is all it is. And if you can't see the difference in "overpaying" Suh by giving him more guaranteed money than goddamn Aaron Rodgers vs. giving Eddie Royal a fairly small contract but just guaranteeing almost all of it, you're insane.

[SKO]

I mean I am not disagreeing that's probably too much money for Eddie Royal. It just seems like something that doesn't even register on the grand list of bad NFL free agent contracts because the likelihood of it ever coming back to haunt the Bears if he goes bust is minimal.

Just to clarify: Eddie Royal's average salary of $5 mil a year over the life of this contract makes him the 30th highest paid WR in the NFL, just ahead of three guys on rookie contracts (Watkins, AJ Green, Blackmon), and Riley Cooper. So I....kinda think he's being paid about exactly what he should be getting paid.

Christ this is the worst Penis wrong in a long time.

[Yeti]

Pen's weird bitching about Eddie Royal's contract only makes sense to me if he reveals that he's one of those members of the McCaskey family who owns part of the team but won't get shit until they sell it.

I figured he was just putting a quarter in SKO, but it's gone on way too long to be that.

Pen has a lot of quarters

[PenFoe]

Pen's weird bitching about Eddie Royal's contract only makes sense to me if he reveals that he's one of those members of the McCaskey family who owns part of the team but won't get shit until they sell it.

I figured he was just putting a quarter in SKO, but it's gone on way too long to be that.

Pen has a lot of quarters

It's all the Jew Gold.

[Eli]

but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great? 

Not really.

[InternetApex]

but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great? 

Not really.

Isn't comparing Suh to Haynesworth kind of like comparing Kris Bryant to Gary Scott though?

[SKO]

but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great? 

Not really.

Isn't comparing Suh to Haynesworth kind of like comparing Kris Bryant to Gary Scott though?

Kinda but I think Eli was pointing out that huge NFL free agent deals are almost never worth the money. So when Pen asks "isn't it better to overpay for Suh than Royal" the answer is no, because you can move on from a $10 million dollar mistake a lot easier than a $60 million dollar mistake. For all of Pen's bitching there's practically no risk involved here in the Royal deal. It's off of the books after next year if he goes bust and I doubt his $5 mil hit even if they cut him before next year keep them from making moves they need to make. But if Suh doesn't work out the Dolphins are fucked for 5 years or more.

[Eli]

but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great? 

Not really.

Isn't comparing Suh to Haynesworth kind of like comparing Kris Bryant to Gary Scott though?

Dominant defensive tackles who had reputations for poor conduct and then signed enormous contracts while still in their prime? My point was more about contracts than the players, but I don't think it's a terrible comparison.

[SKO]

but wouldn't you rather overpay for Suh or Revis or someone who's actually great? 

Not really.

Isn't comparing Suh to Haynesworth kind of like comparing Kris Bryant to Gary Scott though?

Dominant defensive tackles who had reputations for poor conduct and then signed enormous contracts while still in their prime? My point was more about contracts than the players, but I don't think it's a terrible comparison.

Haynesworth had a PFF Grade of +23.7 overall in his age 27 season before signing that deal with the Skins, Suh had a +31 overall at age 27 before signing with the Dolphins. Suh is the better player, but Haynesworth was a legitimately great player in Tennessee.

I think Suh works far harder than Haynesworth ever did but Eli's right to use him as a precautionary tale for why the huge contracts rarely pan out

[Quality Start Machine]

Besides, how do you reach a point in the decision-making process where you're deciding between spending a fuckload on a DT or a fairly reasonable amount on a WR? I'm pretty sure the go/no-go on a guy like Suh or Revis would happen way before Royal is on the agenda.

[Quality Start Machine]

Fuck the Iggles.