Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Holy Schneikes

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Holy Schneikes

  1. Kalso didn't "voluntarily" retire in his prime to serve his country. He was fulfilling his ROTC obligation. That doesn't make Kalso's sacrifice any less, but it is a meaningfully different scenario. Tillman was a fairly unique guy who made a fairly unique decision. I also disagree that he was not a good football player - he was. He wasn't a HOF worthy NFL player though and he shouldn't be in the Hall as a player.
  2. They can pull the tag any time before the deal that goes along with it is signed. After it is signed, like Hankmoody said, Cousins is going to get that money from the Skins or another team they trade him to. The only other possibility is that Cousins signs a different deal with either team (obviously not going to happen with the Skins). I can't imagine the Skins will be dumb enough to do this AGAIN.
  3. To the folks concerned about Howard's situation this year... How much worse is it going to be than last year? From week 3 on (when he began to start), he was the #7 RB. On a 3-13 team with 3 different starting QB, all of whom sucked pretty badly, with very few good receiving options to open things up for him, he still managed to put up 5.2 YPC - good for 2nd in the league behind McCoy. When Jeffery, the only really good skill position player they had, went out at the end of the season the team sucked harder than ever, but Howard's numbers went UP. There is no guarantee he will repeat his success this year, but from a team and supporting cast perspective, there is a whole lot more room for them to get better than to get worse.
  4. The risk is real, but it is low. If he has a mediocre/slightly bad season, he won't get top dollar, but almost certainly someone will give him at least as much as his extension would have netted him in new guaranteed money. Cap will go up, and even a bottom half guy will command $30M in guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Similarly, if he has a bad injury, his price will go down, but how much? It's not like a back who shreds his knee and is forever "damaged goods". Unless he tears up his throwing shoulder or something crazy, it will drop him but not down to nothing. Too many teams need serviceable QBs. If he has a truly AWFUL season that indicates he's not really a viable starter going forward, yeah, he might end up regretting passing on the longer term deal. But that doesn't seem to be his mindset and it would really have to be a very bad season before it would drop him out of the range the Skins essentially offered him.
  5. They never countered, and I don't see why they would. The Skins (still) seem to be in denial and Kirk's team recognized that fact. Why bother when you have a perfectly good guarantee sitting right in front of you? All of the motivation to make a deal was on the Skins' side and if they never presented anything close to reasonable (especially until VERY late in the game), why bother to counter? I'm sure they talked about what it would take, but no formal offer was made because it was always fairly clear the Skins weren't going to seriously over-pay - which is would have taken to get the deal done. In their minds, the offer the Skins threw out there was AMAZING. But given the actual situation, it was mediocre at best. It was a bridge too far.
  6. I find this whole thing fairly fascinating. On one hand, I tend to agree that Cousins is NOT a top 3 or 4 type QB. He may not be top 10. So I understand not backing up the armored car to secure his services forever. On the other hand, even given that, it seems like the Redskins have badly bungled this. Even if EVERYONE agreed Cousins was not an upper echelon guy, the Skins still totally lowballed him in 2015. In theory, offers in the past shouldn't impact value going forward, but that's gotta stick in the back of Kirk's mind. Then they tag him, which by definition indicates that he's an upper echelon guy. I think they kind of assumed "everybody hates the tag, so we'll use it as a tool and nothing else". But the tag was PERFECT for Cousins and his team was smart enough to recognize it. I've always said that the tag isn't nearly as bad for players as it is made out to be, at least in certain cases. He got paid for one year (fully guaranteed) in 2016 about as much as they were looking to guarantee him for his whole extension originally. And now he can do it all over again in 2017 (only better). The Skins are now offering reasonable franchise money, but they handed over so much leverage early on that it only makes sense for him to sign if they significantly OVER-pay him which they don't want to do. They were trying to have their cake and eat it too, but got burned. They could have let him go or slightly overpaid him in 2015 (or 2016). They didn't believe he was a franchise guy in 2015 based on their offers, but used the franchise tag anyway and set themselves up for a lot of pain. I doubt Kirk WANTS to play on a year by year basis, the Skins just made that his best financial option and now don't want to deal with that reality. So he's already guaranteed 24M in 2017. So the Skins offer really boils down to 29M new guaranteed money (with unknown total money) for 5 additional years which is very reasonable, but something he could equal or eclipse fairly easily next year. Carr just got 40M in real guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Luck got 44M. Osweiler was guaranteed 37M at signing on a 4 year deal. So despite their claims of this massive of this massive record breaking deal (which from one perspective it truly would be), it doesn't take into consideration the reality of the existing guarantee. Oh and BTW, unless the Skins team gets even worse than they have been to date, no tag makes sense in 2018. Allen talks about a 3rd tag as if it is some kind of real bargaining chip they have, but Kirk would be thrilled to play for 35M guaranteed for one year in 2018 under the franchise tag again (79M in three years for a guy they don't want to give a lot of money to?). Not sure who they are trying to fool with that. Even the transition tag would be about 29M - about the same as the net guaranteed money of his 5 year extension offer. May as well get all of that money in one year too and then start again...
  7. The exact concussion concern scale: 1 not a big deal. 2 not that big a deal 3 not a huge deal, but a little concerning 4 Houston, we have a problem 5 This probably means football isn't for you anymore 6 Too late, the 5th one scrambled your brain so much that you don't recognize the 6th one is one too many Seriously, of course there is nothing magic between 5 and 6, but it most definitely DOES matter how many you get, and every additional one is worse - especially during a relatively short period of time. People WERE freaking out about the 5th one, and rightfully so. And now people are freaking out about this one. That doesn't mean he can't or won't come back. But every one makes it more likely he won't, and eventually the league or team doctors etc will step in and make the decision for him.
  8. I was initially outraged. I thought it was just another self-aggrandizing moment by a prima-donna athlete. I didn't think it was the appropriate protest. I felt it was disrespectful. But the thing is, there are very rarely protests that are 100% appropriate and effective at the same time. The whole thing still makes me queasy, and I don't really "support" the action. It's hard to say "I love America" ans then basically indicate the opposite by disrespecting the American anthem. Either you love it, or you don't. That doesn't mean you can't hate things ABOUT the country and still love the country - but is sitting through the anthem making that statement? Not to me. But I don't hate the whole thing as much as I did at first. I think the guy is mostly sincere about what he is doing, which is more than a lot of folks can say.
  9. I came in for this reason. That fro is MAGNIFICENT. Seriously. This white dude is not being sarcastic in the least, so jealous.
  10. Yeah, in the grand scheme it seems to me that while the offset language COULD be real money, the payout schedule is pretty much peanuts compared to the overall compensation. I think that's why most teams cave on that pretty easily on that and stick harder to the offset language. I was going with 15% of 17M which is about 2.5M but I could be missing something. But some more of that would have been paid before the end of the following year, so we wouldn't really even be talking about 2% in "interest" more than likely. Honestly I think it boils down mostly to principle. People don't like getting less than they think they deserve or less than others in the same position have gotten. I know it would rub me the wrong way. Another thing I would like to note is that most of these guys haven't gotten where they are by being pushovers. These are ultra-competitive people, and I don't think that personality trait is always isolated to the football field.
  11. OK, but the top five from this year isn't a fair comparison either. Two of those guys had no offset language, so you can throw them out. So you are looking at #2 and #4. Better than one and worse than the other. But "historically" if you want to look at top 5 here is a blurb from CBS sports: 18 of 24 top-five picks since 2012 either have no offsets or an offset without signing bonus deferred into following calendar year. The six with both offsets and a deferred portion of the signing bonus include Carson Wentz, who reportedly voluntarily deferred the last $1 million of his signing bonus until January 2017 for tax purposes. Based on that, the Charger's best offer was in the bottom 5 of those 24 deals. Could be lower if some of those deals were Like Wentz' with a lower deferral percentage. For all we know, the 85% could be the 2nd worst ever behind Zeke's deal, but the BEST would be bottom 5. So by either standard, his actual draft position or top 5s, his BEST offer was near bottom of the barrel and the team publicly called him an ### for not taking it.
  12. I wouldn't say they have ALL of the power. Teams hold enjoy a huge advantage with these rookie deals, but they do have some risk as well. It is possible (however unlikely) that they get NOTHING out of their 3rd overall pick. Don't think they'd like that. There is pressure on both sides. At this point, this deal is being held up by WHEN about 2.5M is paid (not IF, or how much, but when). It would be ridiculous for Bosa to not sign over that, and it would be ridiculous for the Chargers to risk losing their #3 pick over that. But here we are.
  13. Splitting hairs I guess, and I can't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that NFL players can be cut for any reason simply because teams don't even have to GIVE a reason. In this case, his performance will make any questioning of the reasoning for the cut difficult at best. But even if he was the best player in the league, they could still cut him if they wanted to and not say a word about why, even if it were obvious.
  14. Since the beginning of the current CBA, no third overall pick has had both offset and language AND bonus deferral into the next year. This year, 19 of the first 24 picks have had their ENTIRE bonus paid before the end of the calendar year. It's not like it's unheard of. The Chargers' "best" offer may or may not have been "reasonable". But it would be the worst deal signed by a number three so far. Hardly the amazing offer the Chargers represented it to be in their social media smear campaign. It probably WAS an amazing offer by Charger rookie standards, but that doesn't mean it was amazing by "rest of NFL" standards. That offer was certainly NOT better than anyone drafted after him if you consider draft position. Yeah, he'll get more money by default, but a high percentage of those following him got better terms on the only negotiable items.
  15. There is a vast difference of opinion on that first statement. Some believe it is fair, many others don't. There are really only two significant things the rookies can negotiate on these days. Bosa's team has said they will give in on one of them. The Chargers have said, nope, we'll have both our way thank you, because that's the way we do things here. Here are the Charger's statements: An initial signing bonus payment that is larger than any player in the league has received in the last two drafts. More money in this calendar year than every player in this year's draft except one (QB Carson Wentz) The largest payment and the highest percentage of signing bonus received in the first calendar year of any Chargers' first-round selection since the inception of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. From the owner: " I’m highly, highly disappointed in the path we’ve had to take. It’s so overly clear we had no choice. It would have been more difficult if I felt they were being reasonable. But when you’re dealing with someone who isn’t reasonable, it makes it easy. I’m blown away. At all costs, I wanted to avoid going down this road. They made it overly clear we had no other option. … It’s absolutely asinine. " I'm not sure what the first statement means. What is the INITIAL bonus payment? When are the rest of the payments? How much are they? In a vacuum it's hard to say whether this is relevant or not. The 2nd one is absolute drivel. He's the 3rd pick, so duh, his first year money is going to be higher than most. Wentz is higher - OK he's the 2nd pick so no shock there. He agrred to the offset language before the draft but got almost ALL of his bonus money in the first year. That leaves Goff. Goff doesn't have offset language in his contract - which is probably a bigger deal than any of the rest of this stuff. So he took a little less of his bonus money in the first calendar year. So this statement is truly meaningless. The 3rd one has even less value. Bosa is the highest pick BY FAR the Chargers have had since the CBA. So no #### he's going to get more money than their other 1st round picks. Then the owner of you new company calls you unreasonable and asinine, saying he had NO choice. He had choices. He could have done a Goff type deal with no offset, or a Wentz type deal with essentially no bonus deferral- either one would have answered the mail. He chose to do neither.
  16. Fair enough. We agree on most of that. I just very often see people talking about free speech as if that means you can't be let go because of what you say... There are written rules and there are unwritten rules. And the post you responded to may well be referring to a very similar situation. The "rules" would likely not be very specific in either case. And in Kap's case, they are likely to be tougher in general because of the very public nature of his job.
  17. It would be crazy for Bosa to see this to the end. Just too much to lose. The team knows it and is using it against him - as is their right. It would also be crazy for him to fake an injury at some point during the season. But people getting bullied sometimes do crazy things... And he IS getting bullied. Releasing VERY misleading statements through social media in an attempt to sway public opinion? That's the move? San Diego has already lost this. Whether or not they lose his services for this year or for all years, they certainly have lost what his season COULD have been this year, may have lost an opportunity to resign him down the road, and they haven't done much to shake their reputation for being cheap and petty with their players.
  18. Folks always seem to confuse these issues. There are considerable differences between... What is legal Yep, he's legal alright What is right Not for me to say... What is against the rules Probably not against any specific rule What you can get fired for In many states, nearly anything What you can get released from an NFL team for Pretty much anything You can apply the same questions and get the same answers for releasing a public statement saying that you support the legalization of raping children. It's legal and isn't breaking any specific rule, but it could easily get you fired and/or released from an NFL team. I'm NOT trying to equate the two positions, just saying that just because something is legal and within the rules, doesn't mean it can't have repercussions.
  19. This is an awful indication for his long term success. But given that, the trade itself is probably neutral or slightly positive. Sure didn't look like he was going to succeed in Ten. Philly took a cheap flyer and will give it a shot. MAYBE it turns on the light for DGB. Hpefully he sees this for what it really is - a firing due to lack of doing his job and makes steps to correct the issues. He won't get another legit chance. He may end up on another team, but this will probably be the last time he will be given a good opportunity for legitimate playing time. Guys like this often don't really get the reality of the situation, but they do every once in a while. As for Ten - on the surface it sure seems like they could have handled this situation better. But in the end they just wanted to move on, and possibly set an example for the rest of the team. Work hard, or you are gone - even if we have to take a hit.
  20. I really like that post and I agree with you on many fronts. The league DOES care or at least wants to appear that it cares, or the rule wouldn't be in place at all. Some of the fans care as well, and I'm sure some of the players care too. So a lot of people have strong feelings on this. I also agree that folks who believe in the RR are likely to believe in affirmative action in general (although I do think there is a significant difference in that collegiate affirmative action tends to be in place because there is significant under-representation of certain segments compared to the general population - that is NOT the case here). My main issues are that many proponents aren't being honest with themselves about the goals and the reasons behind the rule. And many of the ones that are honest about them still have trouble defining what the actual goals should be. You can't solve a problem unless you clearly define what the problem is. The reason I mention other minorities is simply to try to force proponents to clarify those reasons and goals for themselves and others. Given the fact that AAs are actually over-represented in the head coaching ranks right now compared to the general population, that clearly isn't a milestone proponents are satisfied with. The only other alternative is what I have been harping on - that in terms of skin color, percentage-wise coaches should look like the players. If THAT isn't the goal, what is? Is there some magic percentage that is acceptable? If so, what is the basis for it? So without reasonable answers to the questions above I am forced to assume roughly equal percentages are the real goal. I have already stated the reasons why I don't think that goal makes sense. Vastly different required skill sets primarily. And I haven't heard any real reasons why that SHOULD be the goal. I just hear that it's a bad look otherwise. And it brings me back to the other minorities which become problematic. If the goal is to make the coaches and executives look like the players, why include Latinos and now women? There certainly isn't a problem there by the assumed guideline. There are no women players and there are no women head coaches. There a few Latino players and one Latino head coach. Asian Americans need not apply. So which is it? Do we want coaches to look like players or not? If so, why? If not, what is the goal? When have we solved the problem? I realize you said you were done with the topic and I respect that, but those are questions I would have for anyone who sees the current situation as a serious problem.
  21. But that is the unwritten goal. If the league achieved 50% Asian coaches and no African American coaches, do you think everyone would be satisfied? The whole "issue" is based on percentage of African American players vs percentage of African American coaches. So the rule may say any ethnic minority qualifies, but that isn't the real point or the real goal, whether folks acknowledge that or not. Can't have it both ways. If it doesn't relate to racial breakdown among players, mission accomplished - there are a higher than expected number of minority head coaches compared to the general population. If it does, the only discrepancy is African American coaches. All the other ethnicities probably round down to zero head coaches.
  22. We are just coming from very different angles on this. I don't care if a coach is a former player, because the two occupations have almost NOTHING to do with each other in terms of actual requirements for the job. Because of that I don't think the ratio of AA players and AA coaches need to be correlated AT ALL. There is no under-representation. None of the math you present is relevant to me because I strongly disagree with the underlying premise - that because a certain percentage of players happens to be of one race, the people COACHING those players have to be of the same race (or have the same racial breakdown). Should the trainers have the same racial breakdown? Equipment managers? Sideline reporters? As for the players, to be blunt about it, I don't much care what they think. Their anger is not going to get to the point where they decide they don't want their 5M/year paychecks. And I'm not actually convinced they even care about it. If a coach is good, a player will play hard for him no matter what color he is. I know some of the general public cares about this "issue", but again - are they going to stop watching the NFL because the percentage of black coaches dips below 70%? To me, the current situation really only looks bad if you aren't looking at it very logically. Let's flip the script for a minute. Just take pro players and their race out of the equation for the sake or argument. Now you just assume that the general population is more less equally capable of being an NFL coach. So you would expect that African Americans would be be represented in the NFL coaching ranks by right around the same percentage as they occur in the overall population - roughly 13%. But by your logic, that naturally occurring percentage would be increased to 68%. By what natural ability do you think African American people in general are 5 times better than Caucasians at coaching football? I can't for the life of me think why that would be. And again, something you haven't really responded to is how to handle other minorities. There are very few people of Asian descent in the NFL. Should they be barred from the coaching ranks? If we are matching ratios, they wouldn't represent one coach out of 32. Women? there are no female players, but I'd bet a woman could be a fine coach. These are the ridiculous natural consequences of assuming the the coaching ranks should have the same percentages as the coaching ranks. And if equal percentages AREN'T the goal, what is and why? What is the arbitrary percentage match we should be striving for?
  23. 1. Players at what level? Pro? College? High School? I think the required skill set to actually perform your job is HIGHLY relevant. Just because coaches are often former players at some level doesn't really mean they HAVE to be. Running fast isn't a requirement for being a good coach, but it IS a requirement for being a good NFL player at most positions. I think the overall percentage of former NFL players in the coaching ranks is dropping (for good reasons). In 2014, the most recent I saw, it was 19%. Not really far off from 16%. 2. You left out the other minorities. Women are considerably more underrepresented than AAs. How many Jewish head coaches are there? Does it matter? Does mixed race count? At what percentage? Do we need to see a family tree? Do all of the percentages in the playing ranks have to be duplicated in the coaching ranks? 3. The Lions weren't right about their actual selection. They were right about the process being broken. But it's a good point - using the Lions as an example of a team that was right about anything is challenging.... 4. Proof is in the puddin. The token interviews are why this thread got started. I guess that doesn't prove they are inevitable, but the SPIRIT of the rule is not enforceable. Only the technical details. So if a team doesn't happen to see a viable minority candidate - Hell even if they are are downright evil racists - they are going to bring someone in just to meet their obligation and move on. You can't prove whether a team is seriously considering a guy or not. 5. Doing nothing would be better than doing something that isn't working and doesn't make sense. The only thing that would "work" would be to require teams to actually hire minorities at some pre-defined ratios - which makes even less sense to me.
  24. There are 5 African American coaches out of 32 in the NFL - about 16% of the league. African Americans represent about 13% of the American population. By that standard, African Americans are over-represented, racially. The only way for this to be seen as a problem is to assume that the best players are the best coaches. If you make that assumption, given the fact that the majority of the best players are African American, most of the head coaches should be be African American. I don't really think that assumption is valid however. It's a different skill set. In fact, it's a VASTLY different skill set. It's a skill set that is probably pretty much equally balanced between the races. I am a Pittsburgh fan, and fairly liberal. I think culturally, it would be a great idea to give new folks a chance whenever possible. But the Rooney rule was destined to "fail". It was never very logical. Why just African Americans? Should teams also be required to interview an ethnic minority? A woman? A religious minority? Can you combine a few categories and interview a black, jewish, hispanic female and knock everything out all at once? The token interviews we have seen is what a rule like this will inevitably lead to. The Lions were right back in 2003. They knew who they wanted and everyone else knew who they wanted as well - including all of the minority potential candidates. So they reached out to minorities for token interviews and unsurprisingly got rejected (and fined). The league doesn't need a rule. If it needs anything on the diversity front, it needs a culture shift.
  25. No. For a commercial, paid service, 99.9% uptime is fairly typical (and amounts to about 9 hours down per year). Anything less results in a fair amount of unhappy customers. You have redundancy built into the system, and if a server breaks or needs to be updated, you roll the traffic/work over to another one. For a major DB overhaul/rewrite, it would be different, but generally you would build the new system on new infrastructure and just point the network to the new system when it was ready/caught up. Quite honestly, I don't think they know what they are doing, or they are just way behind the times tech-wise. That is reflected in the application itself, the responsiveness of the app, and situations like this. It is still likely as good as anything else out there sadly. But I try not to store anything of value on this site, as I would not be surprised at all if they have been compromised at some point.