Bio not provided
1 year, 3 months ago on Panthers DE Greg Hardy is from Hogwarts
We've gotten into [pretty stupid semantics] arguments and you don't like me. And neither of us cares how the other is doing...
But I'm coming out of exile to say well done, sir.
1 year, 5 months ago on Hitchhiker's Guide to What Peyton Manning Means to Me
I do not like Arians very much at all. I think the multiple formations are unnecessary and make me think he's just outsmarting himself and creating unnecessary extra work for the players. This may be part of what is keeping Fleener back (though mostly it's that he's not working hard enough).
But credit where credit is due: That TY Hilton TD catch, not to take anything away from the throw, was 100% on the play design. It wasn't even a well-run route. It was just a great play design for the defense the Jags were showing.
2 years, 6 months ago on Regular Season Week 2, Quick Recap: Jaguars 22 v Colts 17 | September
I'm not that worried about it. Ijalana wasn't in Grigson's plans anyway and while I like the kid, Edds is just roster filler. I hate that it took all of one day to start piling up freak injuries again, though... that's what really concerns me. I was really optimistic about the Torine to Marandinho transition. Not that you can judge that by this or even one full year, but still... was hoping maybe just once they'd get lucky. With a bit of injury luck for the Colts and bad luck for Houston (again) it's not totally unreasonable to think they could sneak into the hunt for a title in a weak division.
2 years, 7 months ago on Ijalana and Edds Out for the Season; What it Means for the 2011 Colts | July
@Westhoff Agree with both this post and the silly putty line.
This is one of those "well now we don't HAVE to use draft picks on an interior lineman in 2012" moves. If he works out, great. If not, he's better than Pollak and can serve for a year. They've only got seven picks this year and there are 40 slots to fill before this team contends again. There's not a ton of money to go around in FA in 2012, nor is this the year to make big moves anyway. Signings like this one are just a way of bringing in someone better than a UDFA that can be counted on to help keep the new QB alive. Now they can stick to BPA in the draft and not worry if there isn't a primo interior lineman at any of their spots.
3 years ago on Dunlevy looks at McGlynn | Articles
@Atti46 Yep, just saw that. Don't entirely agree with it (since they were technically within the rules), but free space is free space.
3 years ago on Colts cap situation | Articles
There's no guarantee that any of PFT's numbers are right, but it's worth noting that between 2/28 and now they got Mathis signed.
@LovinBlue The "official" figure will change depending on how you classify Manning ($16m dead against a cap with a 5.6m credit, or 10.4). Functionally it's the same, but people should make a habit of defining that when they list their figures. By my count, using 10.4, your number is just a tad high; I believe that's all from the Clark contract, which has too high a DM figure here.
It's good policy to eat as much dead cap as they can this year, and they will, but what's annoying is that there's still a big fat $5.4m charge sitting there from cutting Kelvin Hayden last year after June 1. That sucks. That alone is more than some teams (like the Eagles) carried total in dead money last year.
Clark and Brackett's contracts are good candidates to be designated as June 1 cuts if necessary; Doing so with Brackett would free up $4.8m this year by pushing it into the 2013.
If value can be signed by adding players at positions of need *that can be counted on to be peaking in 2013-15* they should absolutely spend money now. Otherwise it makes sense to just suck it up and eat the dead money now.
Just take a look at last year's contracts; they'll be about the same. (Spotrac is often wrong, but there's no real reason to doubt what they have for the slotted deals.) So Cam Newton, Ras-I Dowling, then after that it's really insignificant. Depending on how the bonuses and guarantees work out, Luck could fall anywhere from 4-6m, probably mid 5s, against the cap.
Anyone who hammers the agenda is either uninformed, ignorant, or stupid.
Florio is the only popular writer who has hinted at understanding this, but people are starting to come around... there is a reason the Polians were fired. It's because their long-standing strategy blew up in their face this year.
Not to dip to a play on words, but we're really really friggin lucky that the timing worked out this well.
3 years ago on The Purge | March
Even incomplete, they should've beaten the Jets.
The last we saw of him in a Colts uniform was him leaving the field with a lead and a minute to play, then throwing his arms up in disgust at his coach for calling one of the most idiotic timeouts in football history.
3 years ago on Peyton is Gone. | March
I interpreted it as a moment of silence.
Well, if Mathis stands up they can reduce the number of hits he takes, which makes him a better investment over the long haul if they give him a third contract. And at his size and with his athleticism he really is a good tweener pass rusher. Just because he was good in the 4-3 doesn't mean that's the best situation for him.
Freeney is another story. I don't see him as a great fit, and he's aging and starting to slow down. If his contract was friendlier, yes, I'd keep him, but I see very little reason to soak up an extra 14 million in cap space for a one year pass rusher on a bad team. It's not as if he's going to be the piece that puts them over the top.
3 years ago on Teams Must Think Differently About Football | February
"The West Coast Offense, Air Coryell, The Blur, The Zone Blitz, and the Tampa 2 were all championed by guys who didn't answer in cliche's."
Other than the extra apostrophe (heh), this might be my favorite sentence ever on any Colts site.
This fear is very justified. It's more expensive to find and keep ideal 3-4 talent, especially if your defense also wants to have corners that can reliably play man. And as more teams switch over, there is more demand on the few freaks of nature that fit.
That said, so far we've seen plenty of evidence that the transition won't be to a straight 3-4, that there will still be some place for one-gappers like Nevis, and that they're maybe one special player away (Baltimore had Ngata, who I believe is more important than Suggs and probably even Reed at this point).
The advantage that hybrids and 3-4s have is that coaching can create a real edge. I think a decade ago when the Pats were winning and Manning was "struggling" against the best teams (that happened to run 3-4), a lot of coaches switched over to it just because it gave them a chance to be more creative, creativity is fun, and they wanted to prove just how smart they were... but coaches like that are mostly out of the game at this point. The good ones have survived, and it's a defense I can get behind.
But yes, it's more expensive.
That said, this team needs to get better at stopping the run if only because it will get them more possessions. There's nothing untrue about what Pagano said; it's just that that should be third and fourth on the list, not first and second. We'll see how it develops. It surely won't hurt to have a better run game by DVOA, especially during Luck's first couple of years. Even though I think he could do it, I'd rather not ask him to throw 45 times a game. Yet.
3 years, 1 month ago on Teams Must Think Differently About Football | February
Believe it or not, I disagree with you.
I think Luck represents a big QB upgrade, so the O will improve. The D won't be good, but they might do something cool here and there in the new scheme. Call that a wash. Special Teams can't get any worse, so that'll be a plus, and we upgraded at coach. Hell, he might even try a few things like not punting as often, knowing that he has a pass for the year.
The schedule is tough enough that 8-8 is out of reach, but I see no reason they can't win 6 games next year.
3 years, 1 month ago on Drama and Change is Boring | February
Yeah. I don't care what DVOA says. The Packer D didn't show up for that Arizona playoff game. The Jets D was ferocious in 09. Peyton still destroyed them. It was better than Denver in 04, Warner's Packer game, Brees's Lions game, or anything else. Simply dominant.
3 years, 1 month ago on Five Plays & Cap Casualties - Peyton Manning. | February
@Ben Savage@Kyle Rodriguez
Brandt's numbers about the cap hit are correct; The 28m option bonus is prorated over all 5 years at 5.6 per, though, Kyle. So it's a 16-17-18-19-20 structure overall if the full $90 is paid, and if he's cut they get a 5.6 credit back so it's effectively $10.4 next year, not 16.
"Ultimately, I could've chosen hundreds of plays to display the brilliance of Peyton Manning."
Yep. The fact that he has at least five brilliant plays PER GAME is making me very sad to go through this and see some of the memorable games of the past...
(Oh, btw - in #3, 33 is Eric Smith. Leonhard wears 36 and started that play high over Wayne. Smith on Collie is even more of a mismatch. Smith sucks.)
That previous throw to Collie is one of the best I've ever seen.
Kravitz is a columnist, not a journalist. The same rules don't apply because he's allowed/encouraged to interject with opinions.
That said, he has gotten quite a few primo scoops on all this lately, which makes him sort of a reporter as well.
Dare I say I've even enjoyed reading him since Polian was fired? His mood and voice are noticeably different.
3 years, 1 month ago on Kravitz: I'll say I'm wrong | Articles
Same coordinator, even (for a year).
But the Chargers defense also sucked last year.
3 years, 1 month ago on What to Expect: The 2011 Class in Review | February
@AJ_ He's not long enough to play that spot. The protoype for that position is a taller, longer-armed guy that can clog up some space. Nevis is more about shooting gaps and being aggressive. Different role entirely. Which sucks, because he did seem really promising.
Correct. But it's still kind of a big deal that he had another unreported surgery. To me it's more of a big deal that it took until now for it to come out; as Carroll pointed out, it was before the fusion and therefore irrelevant at this point, but it's still interesting.
This is also, best I can tell, the first time any kind of speculation about genetic spine stuff (related to Cooper's stenosis) has been made public by any educated sources. Not that Banks is that smart, but still...
Technically I wouldn't say "could become chronic." If anything, the fact that this has been an issue since a game in 2006 means it's already chronic.
3 years, 1 month ago on Banks Reports Manning had Secret Surgery Last Summer | February
@squirrel Someone I know who knows you told me that too.
3 years, 1 month ago on I know a guy who says... | Articles
Two issues with this:
1- There's a 25% rule that applies in the rookie contracts. The rookie's cap number can only increase 25% year over year. This includes any proration in that calculation.
2- As with all contracts, deferred money means it's not as player-friendly, meaning the player is a bit less likely to sign it. The agent is almost certain to demand as much money up front as possible.
3 years, 1 month ago on Discussing Peyton Manning's Contract Situation with Andrew Brandt | February
Damn. That's a hell of a graphic.
I don't know that their offense is ideal, but it's definitely the easiest overall fit. The Cards can afford to cut Kolb and take a risk on giving Manning a low-risk (roster bonus/incentive-laden) contract without causing a problem or being too much worse off if he can't go. The Ravens would be his best bet to win a title, if possible, but they can't risk ditching Flacco for Manning only to learn that Manning can't go, which means they'll never even emerge as a contender unless Manning makes huge strides and demonstrates he's 100% before any signing (which won't happen).
I wouldn't mind seeing him out in the desert at all.
3 years, 1 month ago on Reich doesn't mean Manning in AZ | Articles
It's worth noting that if Manning was a big Frank Reich fan, he likely wouldn't have been demoted from QB coach to WR coach before last season.
@ Jake Sanders@GregC
I think Brandt is tooting his own horn a bit more than it needs to be. I can't find exact details, but from what I gather, Favre's contract was signed in 2001. So the reason there was so little dead money is simply because all his prorations had already occurred by 2006.
I would love to see the actual contract(s) though. If he was doing clever things that extend beyond that, I want to learn what they were.
3 years, 1 month ago on Brandt: Manning, the cap and cash | Articles
Next time. The Acura Seinfeld commercial is going to inspire that exact thing for next Super Bowl. (I hope.)
Actually there were four, but they were just side by side.
3 years, 1 month ago on A Super Bowl Diary, Part One | February
@GregC Oh, crap. I have that backwards.
$10.4 against 121, $16 against $126.6.
(Boy, now would really be a great time for the cap FAQ I wrote to be totally HTML-ized and live on the internet instead of written but not formatted and taking up space on my hard drive...)
Right. Either way you phrase it, his release results in $10.4m of money that they cannot spend on other players.
(Which, when added to the wads of cash they still have to eat for Hayden and others, is what creates the cap difficulty everyone mentions, even though the actual salaries listed on your spreadsheet here don't add up to that much.)
That's what I was saying: it's the same either way. I wasn't trying to argue, only to say both ways of looking at it arrive at the same answer.
Maybe not. He's an agent now so he could be missing information. But in general he's still right: it only costs $1m more from the available 2012 cap space if he plays.
Said a simpler way, in Halsell's $16m scenario, he counts $16m against a ~$121m Salary Cap. In Brandt's, he counts $10.4m against a ~$126.6m salary cap. The amount of available money to be spent on other players is the same in either situation.
#1 is a good one. I'm guessing that the answer is "yes and no." You'd better believe that an owner like Irsay has emotions and feels an obligation to Manning. But the obligation to the franchise as a business has to (eventually) trump that.
I'm sure that some decisions have been (and will be in the future) made in which emotions lead the way. They're probably almost universally regarded as bad decisions, though.
(One of the reasons I generally root for the Packers is because I applauded Thompson and Murphy's ability to make the right decision, emotions be damned, and furthermore I wanted badly for Rodgers to outperform Favre and embarrass that drama queen. Also I selfishly wanted it to make me look smarter because I had tons of internet arguments about those two QBs. And I do love me a good internet argument!)
The answer to #2 isn't so well known and probably wouldn't make good radio. Articles 15 and 16 of the CBA cover some basics of the arbitration process, I know... but I don't know any details.
Anyway, I don't know... always liked your writing, wanted to hear the voice? Curious to see what else he might say? Bored? Can't get enough of cap and contract talk? Probably a little of each. I can't speak to why I included only that in the comment, though. I just know that I didn't mean anything by it.
Not following this sentence: "What comment did I make and what comment did you respond to, and, when you tell me that, tell me what his corresponding cap hit to that situation would be, thanks in advance!"
But the ADD question is kind of what I was referencing in the semantics statement above. Halsell isn't wrong; regardless of how you describe the application of that $5.6m from 2011, Manning would only cost the Colts $1m in additional cap space if they kept him around for next year.
But if they pay the $28m and he can't play, there's really no way around it: They're fucked. This is why Florio and others have said that the contract is effectively guaranteed. To cut him at any point after paying the bonus cripples the team.
As of right now, his cap hit is $4m of proration from his $20m signing bonus.
If the Option Bonus that triggers contract years 2012-2015 is exercised, there will also be $7.4m in Paragraph 5 salary added, as well as the $5.6m proration from the $28m bonus in question.
If he is cut, they will receive a credit of $5.6m to account for that amount having been counted in the 2011 cap, but $12m more will be accelerated for the $4m Signing Bonus prorations scheduled to occur in 2013-15.
His cap hit in 2012 will not be determined until action is taken with regards to the March 8 Option exercise clause in his contract.
Ugh. Fine. I apologize for not stroking your ego. Didn't realize that was required. I typed that while I was still listening and that was what was fresh in my mind. I didn't mean anything by it. Here:
Greg, as a first-time listener to your podcast (as I do not usually listen to these due to it requiring speakers to be on), I was impressed by the content you have added to this already-excellent site, which by the way is my favorite on the internet. As a participant in the discussions on Brandt's site and in his articles, I was impressed that you tracked down a noted authority to get 25 minutes of his time, and I liked that you guided him through a series of well-written questions. I enjoyed your demonstration of wit when teasing Laura about being in a conference room, and thank you for providing us all with a chance to hear Brandt describe the same things he already wrote about in his articles.
There. Douchey enough for you? If you're going to give me the label, I might as well live up to it.
1) addressed above.
2) If you don't see yourself as being overly defensive and provoking this, that's more of an issue with you than me. Go ahead and put it to a vote. I'm being a dick now, but I'd love to see who else out there thinks I started this.
3) Not relevant. Especially not relevant since the ability of Manning's contract to even be renegotiated is questioned in this case. (For the record, my interpretation of the CBA is that it is; a veteran contract may be re-negotiated at any time for the first time, and may then not be renegotiated for a year following the first reneg if it involves additional money being added. But I share Brandt's opinion that this doesn't really matter, and that's true whether or not changing a date technically counts as a renegotiation (which it likely would, given that it does change the terms of the original deal, even if the money doesn't change).
Other instances of players agreeing to or refusing to renegotiate have nothing to do with the fact that this bonus has already been pro-rated, and was at the time of signing, which thus means it is not, and never was at any point, a roster bonus.
Enough. I've even already apologized, which still wasn't good enough for you. I don't care. Call it whatever you want.
Here I go with semantics again, but the confusion is mostly over the wording. (I had the same initial thoughts.) Brandt described it as him counting $10.4 against 2012's cap if cut, but in this case it IS functionally the exact same thing as him counting $16m dead against 2012 and the cap being given a $5.6m credit. You can call it either/or, the amount of available cap space is unchanged.
Oh give me a break. I'm droning on about it because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today and accused me of something I didn't do and then attempted to argue with me about it. I initially posted one harmless clarification and now you're resorting to childish retorts and making yourself look immature. Did BBS hack your account or something?
But, since you've gone this far, I will continue. No, functionally they are not the same. If it was a Roster Bonus, the cap hit would NOT be prorated unless the contract was renegotiated and the bonus converted to signing bonus. Feel free to call Brandt back and ask him.
I don't see anything at all that's impolite about that statement. The only thing I find impolite about any of the comments in this post is you calling me douchey.
Look, I get that to most fans the distinction is meaningless and it's just semantics. But this site prides itself on being right about stuff, and that's what I like about it. Option bonuses prorate, this bonus prorates (at 5.6m per, including into 2011, which he pointed out). Roster bonuses don't, but you're correct, they are often converted (via a contract renegotiation) into signing bonuses, which do. None of it really matters because they're not going to pay it anyway, but some folks here are geeks like me and it can't hurt to make the distinction.
Since when is politely stating a fact douchey? Hell, I even included it in a reply to another post rather than as a top level reply because I didn't want it to seem like a big deal.
I don't know why you're getting defensive. It's not a big deal.
But it's also not a roster bonus.
An option bonus, on the other hand, always pro-rates. It is functionally the same thing as a signing bonus for a new contract (as it turns on the future years in the contract, or in the alternative voids them and makes the player a free agent) so it is treated as such.
There are also reporting bonuses, which you just get for showing up. They're similar to roster bonuses but with different timing.
Not always. Look at Asomugha's payout when he signed last summer.
That's a means of freeing up space and getting flexibility, but sometimes it's better to eat it in one dose and free up the next 4 (or however many) years.
The cash situation IS manageable, or else they wouldn't have signed the deal. It's just stupid. It locks them into 4 more years and devotes a ton of money to one position, which weakens the team. But the deferrals make it manageable, cash-wise, if one really felt like doing it.
FWIW, Greg, he didn't correct you when you used the term "roster bonus" repeatedly; but there's a difference between Roster and Option bonuses. This is not a roster bonus. Roster bonuses only hit against one year of the cap.
Ha. That's beautiful.
3 years, 1 month ago on Super Bowl Recap: The Giants Won. The Patriots Lost | February