roguebeaver

What are the chances Falcons end up in Cap ****-0 in the near future?

58 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Not all that likely. I don't know that we'll see many years where we're huge players in FA but I think we'll keep it together for the majority of the rest of Ryan's career with the team. 

In 2018, we are currently projected to have ~$16m in cap space. That number will go up considerably with the release of players like Schaub (+$4.25), Reed (+$3.6m), Levitre (+7m), a Matthews rework, and a potential cut of Bosher/Toilolo (+$5m together). 

Our contracts are structured in a way that will allow for us to consistently shed non-vital players to remain in good shape. I'm sure at some point, we'll have to make some tough decisions. But the FO/CS keep drafting quality players who contribute, we'll be able to keep our cornerstone pieces. 

Why would we cut a top 5 punter, and the funniest member of the Matt club? And why would we cut an absolute integral part of the offense in blocking TE Levine Toilolo. Toilolo has been developed , and has reached elite status in the specialized role of blocking TE, at just the age of 26. His height, huge frame(265-270), and inconspicuous nature as a receiv, will continue to show in sporadic unfair mismatches in the passing game, which result in either completions, or often times with p.i. calls. Levine has also shown that he can be better than disastrous as an emergency tackle. As a reference ,Person playing center is what I consider a disaster. The true true as I see it is that there is no chance we cut a player after one season of a very manageable 3-yr contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosher is a weapon, not sure any team would pay $5 mil for a punter, so let him test free agency to get his market value ... then you can decide to pay him or move on... i remember when they let Koenan walk, i was really concerned... he had a booming leg.. in Boshers first few games i had a case of " i told you so" but then his nerves settled down and i was like " koenan who" , but i agree to a point... if all goes as expected with this Offense and Deffense... a great punter may be a luxury not a need...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Falconsfan567 said:

None. I don't understand why people here are so obsessed about the stupid salary cap.

The salary cap has not.been relevant to the Falcons EVER.  

On the flipside, the Falcons have NEVER had such a stacked roster like this before.   Tough choices of who to keep and who to let go are on the horizon in the next five years.

At some point very soon, the salary cap will be very relevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams get into salary cap heII because of bad decisions, not because of having too much talent. Usually the teams that get after the free agency sweepstakes are the ones who have cap issues. Since TD has been GM, I don't worry about the salary cap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

The salary cap has not.been relevant to the Falcons EVER.  

On the flipside, the Falcons have NEVER had such a stacked roster like this before.   Tough choices of who to keep and who to let go are on the horizon in the next five years.

At some point very soon, the salary cap will be very relevant.

 

Friggin Bingo, g-dawg! Clearly you have no issue with ferreting out an implied intent! Lots of folks here that are bright, some not so...e.g., yours truly! :tiphat:

g-dawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Teams get into salary cap heII because of bad decisions, not because of having too much talent. Usually the teams that get after the free agency sweepstakes are the ones who have cap issues. Since TD has been GM, I don't worry about the salary cap

again, not always true.  Look at the Baltimore Ravens.   For many years, their roster was so chock full of talent that they had to make tough decisions on who to keep and let go - not because of bad decisions - because of all the talent.

Teams like the Packers and Patriots have had an easy go of it because their QBs are so talented that they can make do w/ just average to above average players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g-dawg said:

again, not always true.  Look at the Baltimore Ravens.   For many years, their roster was so chock full of talent that they had to make tough decisions on who to keep and let go - not because of bad decisions - because of all the talent.

Teams like the Packers and Patriots have had an easy go of it because their QBs are so talented that they can make do w/ just average to above average players.

I think the Ravens fell off because they got old, and they didn't draft well. The only "tough" decision I think they had to make was trading Ngata. Otherwise, it was just poor drafting and after they lost guys like Reed, Lewis, and Suggs (although he still may be there but he's old), that's the case for them I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a year or two (maybe sooner) this board is gonna be on full meltdown mode when we have to start letting people walk.  The cap is there for a reason and if we continue to draft well, develop players, make runs in the post season we will have to let some walk due to them wanting a contract they deserve.  It is a good problem to have... having guys play on their rookie contract is huge for an organization...but it also means letting some of our fan favorite players walk when the market demands paying them top dollar.    

Mid-Nite-Toker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

I think the Ravens fell off because they got old, and they didn't draft well. The only "tough" decision I think they had to make was trading Ngata. Otherwise, it was just poor drafting and after they lost guys like Reed, Lewis, and Suggs (although he still may be there but he's old), that's the case for them I think.

then why did the Ravens have a 3rd round comp pick (the highest you can get) for several years running (or at least it seemed like)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

I think the Ravens fell off because they got old, and they didn't draft well. The only "tough" decision I think they had to make was trading Ngata. Otherwise, it was just poor drafting and after they lost guys like Reed, Lewis, and Suggs (although he still may be there but he's old), that's the case for them I think.

besides, instead of making this silly argument - look at where we are w/ the cap - look at who is coming off the books and look at all the players due for HUGE raises in the next 1-3 years.   We won't be able to keep everyone - it is as simple as that - unless w/ pull a Saints and start borrowing from the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero, unless we give somebody a Brees/Kobe Bryant lifetime achievement contract at the tail end of their career.

We know what we want and what we don't want.  Flowery Branch seems to have a sound plan and vision and so far are sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

besides, instead of making this silly argument - look at where we are w/ the cap - look at who is coming off the books and look at all the players due for HUGE raises in the next 1-3 years.   We won't be able to keep everyone - it is as simple as that - unless w/ pull a Saints and start borrowing from the future.

You're right, we won't be able to keep everyone. But, everyone isn't irreplaceable either. And, by the time someone like Beasley or Neal is due a fat pay day, it balances out as someone like Trufant and Alford will be in their 30's at that point and likely expendable. Drafting is everything. Forget free agency, just draft guys that fit the system.

And FTR, we were discussing, not arguing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, roguebeaver said:

How possible or probable is this considering the deals recently and currently planned? Is this an eventuality? I know TD is smart with money and all, but man, don't want to travel the road Taints are on! 

I want a title and all, but are we headed to the cliff of cap hadies?

Huh? 

notthatcool likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you absolutely have to cut Bosher. He's a ~Top 10 cap hit at punter and he's been pretty reliable. He's also signed through 2019 with relatively static cap hits. 

But if you get to a situation where you're looking for dollars, that would be a place to look. We were 11th in adjusted punting performance last year. That's good but not so good that it preclude bringing in cheaper competition in an effort to clear up ~$2m of cap space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, g-dawg said:

then why did the Ravens have a 3rd round comp pick (the highest you can get) for several years running (or at least it seemed like)?

Because the free agency market doesnt at a highly efficient level. 

They also prioritize late-stage FAs and cut players so as to not harm their comp pick formula. So when a team like Indy overpays a guy like Arthur Jones, Baltimore benefits. 

The fact is, they havent really drafted all that well. They havent drafted really terribly or anything, they pick too many players for that to be the case. But they've consistently struggled to put a secondary together, they've missed on a number of offensive skill position players, and their QB simply isnt good enough. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, roguebeaver said:

How possible or probable is this considering the deals recently and currently planned? Is this an eventuality? I know TD is smart with money and all, but man, don't want to travel the road Taints are on! 

I want a title and all, but are we headed to the cliff of cap hadies?

We will win back to back Super bowls.  The who cares.

roguebeaver likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, g-dawg said:

The salary cap has not.been relevant to the Falcons EVER.  

On the flipside, the Falcons have NEVER had such a stacked roster like this before.   Tough choices of who to keep and who to let go are on the horizon in the next five years.

At some point very soon, the salary cap will be very relevant.

 

You're right. But the Falcons are nowhere near that point right now. The cap is currently going up at a rate of around $8-10M per season. The Falcons payroll is not going up that much per season right now. So why the major concern over locking up our core guys long-term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

You're right. But the Falcons are nowhere near that point right now. The cap is currently going up at a rate of around $8-10M per season. The Falcons payroll is not going up that much per season right now. So why the major concern over locking up our core guys long-term?

I reject this statement because past performance is not indicative of future results.  NFL is starting to get squeezed - numbers were down last year and it looks like the rate of growth of the sport is starting to slow.  You also have the concussion issue as well.    To me, no offense to you personally, the argument you are putting forth - as others - is lazy argument because I don't believe you will continue to see this growth in salary cap - AND - because there is still so much available cap space on other teams as so many are not near the 90% of cap and have to spend to try and get there - there is salary inflation.    

Falcons are already up against the cap with lots of players in the next 1-4 years due for bigger deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The names escape me right now, but Seattle let a bunch of good players walk during Quinn's tenure, but just kept right on rolling with younger guys in the waiting...

Good roster management isn't just about making tough decisions of who to keep and let walk, it's about reloading talent in the draft so they can manuever when guys contracts run up, become too expensive, retire, etc. They've done a great job of that so far, just like the Seahawks and Quinn did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

I reject this statement because past performance is not indicative of future results.  NFL is starting to get squeezed - numbers were down last year and it looks like the rate of growth of the sport is starting to slow.  You also have the concussion issue as well.    To me, no offense to you personally, the argument you are putting forth - as others - is lazy argument because I don't believe you will continue to see this growth in salary cap - AND - because there is still so much available cap space on other teams as so many are not near the 90% of cap and have to spend to try and get there - there is salary inflation.    

Falcons are already up against the cap with lots of players in the next 1-4 years due for bigger deals.

As long as the NFL continues to be the most profitable sport in America the salary cap will continue to rise at a substantial rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

As long as the NFL continues to be the most profitable sport in America the salary cap will continue to rise at a substantial rate.

ESPN just laid off a ton of people.  Sports numbers seem to be down in every sport except the NBA.

here is the NFL cap space figures for all 32 NFL teams as of today - we have $3.6mm - the league average is $19mm.  Eight teams with over $28mm.  They MUST eventually get to 90% of cap in real dollars over a certain window of time.

  http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

Falcons can keep the most important players - and they will - but they won't keep all the players they want.  For instance, I doubt we keep Dontari Poe, I doubt we keep Teco, etc.   As long as their is so much cap space in the NFL, the salaries will escalate at a more rapid pace than the salary cap - eventually as teams get to the higher cap numbers against the cap it will level off but still many years before this happens.

The league is setup to prevent long-term dynasties - the reason the Patriots have been so successful for so long is a combination of the greatest QB of all time with the greatest coach of all time - not easily replicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, g-dawg said:

ESPN just laid off a ton of people.  Sports numbers seem to be down in every sport except the NBA.

here is the NFL cap space figures for all 32 NFL teams as of today - we have $3.6mm - the league average is $19mm.  Eight teams with over $28mm.   

Falcons can keep the most important players - and they will - but they won't keep all the players they want.  For instance, I doubt we keep Dontari Poe, I doubt we keep Teco, etc.   As long as their is so much cap space in the NFL, the salaries will escalate at a more rapid pace than the salary cap - eventually as teams get to the higher cap numbers against the cap it will level off but still many years before this happens.

The league is setup to prevent long-term dynasties - the reason the Patriots have been so successful for so long is a combination of the greatest QB of all time with the greatest coach of all time - not easily replicated.

What does ESPN's layoffs have to do with the NFL? ESPN didn't layoff hundreds of people because the NFL's ratings went down. ESPN laid off a ton of people because they're paying too much money to carry NBA games because they were so desperate years ago to get a slice of the NBA pie that they dramatically overpaid to get the games. The NFL profits are still outrageously high. It's still the most popular sport in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

What does ESPN's layoffs have to do with the NFL? ESPN didn't layoff hundreds of people because the NFL's ratings went down. ESPN laid off a ton of people because they're paying too much money to carry NBA games because they were so desperate years ago to get a slice of the NBA pie that they dramatically overpaid to get the games. The NFL profits are still outrageously high. It's still the most popular sport in America.

https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632/nfl-tv-ratings-down-moffettnathanson

NFL ratings were down all season, and there’s no reason to think they’ll get better next year

Football was down 9 percent during the regular season and 6 percent during the playoffs.

BY PETER KAFKA  FEB 4, 2017, 2:00PM EST
 

632425396.0.jpgPatrick Smith / Getty Images

It doesn’t matter who wins the Super Bowl tomorrow. The NFL and its TV partners have already lost.

Pro football ratings were down throughout the last season. That’s a troubling data point for the TV Industrial Complex, which has viewed live events — and live NFL games in particular — as the last wall of defense against the internet and other competition for eyeballs.

When ratings first dropped last fall, the NFL’s defenders cited a number of different possibilities for the decline: Competition from Trump-infused debates and other election coverage; particularly crappy games; and the absence of big stars, including Tom Brady.

And sure enough, once the election was over and the games got better and Tom Brady came back, ratings did improve. The Packers-Cowboys playoff game last month, for instance, drew 48.5 million viewers — a record number for a divisional playoff game.

But even with all of that improvement, NFL games still lagged. Pre-election, ratings were down 12 percent over the previous year. And after the election — and including the playoffs — they were down 5 percent, MoffettNathanson analyst Michael Nathanson notes:

Screen_Shot_2017_02_04_at_11.28.30_AM.pn

Add it all up and overall ratings were down 9 percent through the regular season and down 6 percent for the playoffs, Nathanson calculates.

But maybe comparing the 2016 season to the 2015 season isn’t completely fair. Recall that the 2015 season was also the year of the daily sports fantasy bubble, when Draft Kings and FanDuel spent a gazillion dollars promoting the NFL (turns out that strategy wasn’t a great idea, and now Draft Kings and FanDuel are a single company).

But even if you compare 2016 ratings to 2014 ratings, the NFL is down. Nathanson “stacked” 2014 and 2015 ratings and ended up with a 7 percent decline for the regular season and a 10 percent decline for the playoffs.

Screen_Shot_2017_02_04_at_11.28.57_AM.pn

Sure, this could be a temporary blip and NFL ratings could come back next year. But there’s really no reason to think that.

It’s much more logical to assume that NFL ratings, like all other TV ratings, are under pressure because audiences have many more choices -- Snapchat, Facebook, Clash of Clans, etc. — and they are using those choices.

The argument that live events or live sports or the NFL are immune to that pressure seems like wishful thinking from industries that have bet many billions on that theory being true.

But! That doesn’t mean NFL games aren’t incredibly valuable to TV networks — in part because of the pressure on overall ratings. Even a weakened NFL dominates TV ratings, so if you want to reach a truly mass audience, NFL games are still the go-to choice for advertisers.

And when the next big NFL TV contracts start rolling over in 2021 and 2022, you will certainly see bidding from big digital players like Amazon and Google/Alphabet, who will want a piece of that audience themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said the ratings didn't decline. But your ESPN comment was completely baseless. Also, NFL is still the most popular sport in America. Nothing you have said or posted has rebuked that. Even the article you just posted said the NFL still dominates TV ratings.

Quote

But! That doesn’t mean NFL games aren’t incredibly valuable to TV networks — in part because of the pressure on overall ratings. Even a weakened NFL dominates TV ratings, so if you want to reach a truly mass audience, NFL games are still the go-to choice for advertisers.

Also, TV ratings isn't the only avenue stream the NFL has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

I never said the ratings didn't decline. But your ESPN comment was completely baseless. Also, NFL is still the most popular sport in America. Nothing you have said or posted has rebuked that. Even the article you just posted said the NFL still dominates TV ratings.

 

NFL ratings go down - means less overall revenue - means lower salary cap.

However, you say nfl salary cap will keep going up $8-10mm/yr.   Your numbers don't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now