NFL VI

[Lord O' Bones]

Yes it was the right call. Nonetheless .

[Jaime L]

Man.

Can they just run it the rest of the way? I'm losing faith here.

[BLU-RAY]

God damn Stanford kids!

Hey. HEY!

Trent is a good QB, came up in a non-gimmicky offense (granted, a fucking terrible offense, but a standard one nonetheless), and took his licks in college; he learned how to deal with adversity and how to deal with pressure, which is something I don't think you get a lot of in the Urban Meyer spread option thing (they did run the option out of that, right? I can't even remember). I'm sorry to hear that Smith has regressed, though; he seemed to be coming along nicely last year. Is there any chance he can resurrect it with a decent O-Coordinator?

[Bazzlebane]

Can we take Steve Young from the booth and find him some pads and a helmet that will fit? He still looks in shape.

[BLU-RAY]

Can we take Steve Young from the booth and find him some pads and a helmet that will fit? He still looks in shape.

Oy. That bad, huh? I guess there's no saving it, then.

[childe roland]

Can we take Steve Young from the booth and find him some pads and a helmet that will fit? He still looks in shape.

could you get the helmet on his head w/o concussing him?

[Bazzlebane]

It would be worth the risk.

[Caliban]

could you get the helmet on his head w/o concussing him?

I always like when concussion is used in non noun lexical class form. Concussed might be my favorite. I wonder if Steve Young uses them a lot. "Well son, mild impacts to my head concuss me." "Yes son, that is the sort of thing that concusses me." "You see son, I probably did the bitch-spike because I was concussed at the time".

[Rockroi]

Okay, so I am fascinated with the salary cap numbers. Just enthralled.

Looking at the Colts, their top 10 players in terms of salary make $66,970,808 (according to the link CB provided); the Pats top 10 make $43,800,147 or a difference of 23 million dollars (give or take a million). The next ten players go the other way; the Pats outspend the Colts $23,332,540 to $17,509,440 for a difference of $5.8 Million. Added up, the total salary cap hit the Pats take for their 20 most expensive players is $67,132,687; the Colts $84,480,248 for a difference of over 17 million for the top 20 players.

However, after I did all that I noticed that the Colts page has not been updated since April, and at least two of the top 10 players are not even on the Colts any longer. However, even if you swap those guys out and figure in what their replacement players are making, it’s a gigantic salary swing in favor of the Colts- upwards of 18-23 Million in the Top Ten; 12-17 Million overall.

Again, this just illustrates how inflexible the Colts can be with signing free agents. Peter King wrote a good article on this. Bill Polian basically says he doesn't care about losing players to free agency, but I think that's just talk. The top salaries of any team will be high, but the disarity between the Colts and Pats (arguably the best 2 teams in the NFL) at those key valuations in striking (again, taking into consideration that the Colts info is out of date). This makes it difficult to impossible for the Colts to attract any worthwhile free agents and rely on their drafting, which has been exemplary.

The Pats, meanwhile, do a very good job at drafting, and work the market over like crazy on signing free agents, and the way they sign and resign their vets (and watch them walk a la Veniterri, Law and McGiunnest) has resulted in overall increased flexibility.

The point, I think, stands that the Colts seem to be top-heavy and when those players at the top go down, the system is not as adept in filling that need. Again, though, its two lousy games.

However, its intriguing. Last season, Pats fans decried the lack of talent and bemoaned our plague of constant injuries. At the same time, we wtached Reghgie Wayne and Marvin Harrison eat up the competition. In those times, the statements were made through exasperated lips: What would happen if Tom Brady had recievers like those of the Colts? And what would Manning do if he the Colts had the injuries the Pats always seem to have?

Its possible- maybe even probable -that we are seeing the answer to these (somewhat unfair) questions.

[Kalbear]

I don't think that link is accurate any more, not by a long shot.

And CB, I don't know what your problem is. I didn't see any vitriol in my post, and I don't know where yours came from.

Alex Smith was slated as 'smart', and he was young. There was hope that he would develop. Last night isn't a great indicator of how good he is (the wind was a raider last night) but he's clearly not doing well without Turner around, and 3 years is about as long as you can give someone before you say that they suck. Holding out for Leinart or Cutler would've been a good choice. Instead, they'll have to skip this year's top-heavy QB class (because they gave the Pats their 1st round pick) and get someone on the lower end or wait a year.

Also, why does Vernon Davis suck so much? I swear, they pay way too much attention to the performance in the combine and not nearly enough in the performance in college.

Also, looking at that page I think you're totally high. They actually have a 2007 salary cap for the Colts that is current. Here are the top 10:

Harrison, Marvin 8,400,000

Manning, Peyton 8,200,000

Freeney, Dwight 6,718,574

Wayne, Reggie 5,880,000

Diem, Ryan 5,800,000

Saturday, Jeff 4,584,666

Brock, Raheem 4,135,000

Mathis, Robert 3,990,000

Brackett, Gary 2,338,750

Vinatieri, Adam 2,070,000

That totals to 52 million. Similarly, from the Pats page:

Asante Samuel 7790000

Tom Brady 7351600

Richard Seymour 6706720

Colvin 6434720

Light 4758887

Vrabel 4099220

Thomas 3406720

Faulk 3253720

Moss 3000000

Warren 2823386

Total 49624973

Rock, I don't know how you did the numbers but I don't think you're right. The original post I made seems to be a bit more accurate.

[Bronn Stone]

Once upon a time, Andrik on this board convinced me to be patient with Alex Smith, that he still had the tools. Last year gave me some hope. Early this season, the bad o-line play was an excuse, and the weak receiving group. Those are still issues, but fact is, Alex Smith just doesn't have it. He can run, and he has decent arm strength, but he can't make decisions, he doesn't look comfortable, and I don't think he ever will.

I feel really bad for Mike Nolan.

I remain unconvinced that his problem is not a total dearth of coaching and an injured shoulder. I don't think he'll succeed with the Niners any time in the foreseeable future, but I could see him becoming a serviceable QB with a stint as a backup on a team with a clue.

[CelticBrennus]

And...so? Take the top 10 Patriots and see what their value is. I'm willing to bet that it's within $3 mil.

The point if that if you look at the actual numbers, the money is more widely spread out in the Pats organization, with more guys making a million or two. The Colts have 18 active players (19 total, with one on IR who has the 6th highest cap hit) making more then 1 million dollars, with a very steep drop off after the top 5.

The Pats have 27 guys making a million or more, and 28 counting IR, and a far more gradual general dropoff in cap charges.

Heck, of that list Tarik Glenn isn't even on the team any more. Neither is Corey Simon.

So? They still represent a cap hit, and thus are listed in calculating the Colts cap charges. As are the people on IR, whose contracts count, but you dont mention. And I believe that helps to further the argument I had previously made - they have some really talented and high payed players, who dont have much depth behind them.

Look at what just happened with Freeney - he goes down, and they have nobody who can step up, forcing them to sign Simeon Rice, a guy who nobody else wanted even at the vet minimum.

And that list also has Brandon Stokely on it, with his 4 million cap hit.

I don't understand your argument, CB. The list above already said that 61% of the Colts money was in their top 10. That's 61 million, roughly. The Patriots spend 59 mil. This proves...what?

Is it really that hard to understand? I was not making an argument in those posts, just listing the numbers, rather then going off of what some random poster on another board says. If I was making an argument, I would have you know, written one down.

[Kalbear]

I guess I can see an argument at one point: the Colts have 18 active players that they pay more than 1 mil to. The Pats have 27. (if you factor in the various signing bonus/reserves, the Colts have 24). But if you look at how much they pay their midrange, they appear to be about the same.

I don't know. I think it's more of a myth that so much money is tied up in their offense that it makes them not deep. True, they don't have a ton of defensive players that were getting paid a ton (unlike the Pats, who do spend a ton of money on their D), but the problem with the Colts injury situation isn't anything to do with defense, so that argument seems weird. I mean, it's not like the Colts lost on Sunday because their defense didn't perform. And it's not like they just lost Freeney either; they lost Freeney, Simon and McFarland this season. IIRC, when you lose three people at one position it's standard practice to sign people to cover that loss, or does that only apply when it's the Patriots and the secondary?

I mean, you're arguing that because they spent so much on Freeney, Simon and McFarland that they don't have any depth. But...they spent about the same on those three that the Pats did on Seymour, Thomas and Warren. The fact is, if you lose three players at the same position you're going to be hurt, and no team has good depth at all positions. The Colts lost 3 players at WR (Clark is a slot receiver, even if he looks like a TE), 3 players on their OLine, and 3 players at their DLine. Their D appears to be fairly okay, their OLine is not doing as well and their receivers are the ones that suffer. Heck, they had Wayne, Harrison, Clark, Gonzalez, Utecht and Moorehead. Do you really think that the Pats #5 receiver would be able to step in and perform as well as Moss did?

Some positions are more fungible than others. No team has good depth at all positions.

[CelticBrennus]

I guess I can see an argument at one point: the Colts have 18 active players that they pay more than 1 mil to. The Pats have 27. (if you factor in the various signing bonus/reserves, the Colts have 24). But if you look at how much they pay their midrange, they appear to be about the same.

I am solely looking at the cap figures, not salary and bonus LTBE or NLTBE bonuses. If you want to change the terms of the debate, you can go through and calculate it for both sides.

I don't know. I think it's more of a myth that so much money is tied up in their offense that it makes them not deep.

They have 23 million tied up with the triplets, with around 14 million to the two WR's. After them....who is there? Thats my point.

True, they don't have a ton of defensive players that were getting paid a ton (unlike the Pats, who do spend a ton of money on their D), but the problem with the Colts injury situation isn't anything to do with defense, so that argument seems weird.

If Freeney misses much time I think you may be revising that statement about injuries harming the Colts D.

Either way, the Pats and Colts D's are build fundamentally differently, and the Colts D doesnt need the same quality players.

I mean, it's not like the Colts lost on Sunday because their defense didn't perform. And it's not like they just lost Freeney either; they lost Freeney, Simon and McFarland this season.

Simon didnt play most or any of last year, and there is not a single person around who expected him to play this year. McFarland was lost before the season, so those were not exactly suprises like Freeney was. Stop playing with the numbers and argue with some intellectual honesty.

IIRC, when you lose three people at one position it's standard practice to sign people to cover that loss, or does that only apply when it's the Patriots and the secondary?

What are you talking about? I used the Pats injuries to illustrate that you dont get to use injuries as an excuse for sucking. Thats it.

Do you really think that the Pats #5 receiver would be able to step in and perform as well as Moss did?

Of course not, but if Brady can make Caldwell look good, and Jabar Gaffney outperform Marvin Harrison in the playoffs, then why cant Manning make his newer WR's look like anything but crap?

[Kalbear]

I am solely looking at the cap figures, not salary and bonus LTBE or NLTBE bonuses. If you want to change the terms of the debate, you can go through and calculate it for both sides.

So was I. And just counting the money, the Colts have 24 people who are taking a hit of 1mil or more this year. The Pats have 27. This supports your argument, so I'm not sure why you're fighting me on this.

Simon didnt play most or any of last year, and there is not a single person around who expected him to play this year. McFarland was lost before the season, so those were not exactly suprises like Freeney was. Stop playing with the numbers and argue with some intellectual honesty.

Playing with what numbers? I'm saying that the Colts did have three players on their DLine that they lost. They were already thin, and losing Freeney made them thinner. When you lose someone at a position that you're thin at for any length of time, you go out and sign another player that can play at that position. This isn't a sign of lack of depth; it's a sign that a team got injured quite a bit at one position. Given what happened against San Diego I don't think it's particularly clear that whoever else was on the Colts line couldn't step up to replace Freeney. Again, the defense wasn't the problem, and San Diego didn't score a single point after Freeney left. Signing Rice was an easy way to add someone who could put in a couple reps in relief of their starters.

Again, the Colts problems on Sunday weren't anything to do with defense. The defense kept them in the game at all. If they had issues, it was depth at receiver and on their OLine.

What are you talking about? I used the Pats injuries to illustrate that you dont get to use injuries as an excuse for sucking. Thats it.

You were saying that the Pats are so much deeper than the Colts and that the Colts are kinda like Washington - big stars, no depth. I'm saying that's not supported by the facts. Really, the Colts lost because their kicker couldn't make a 29 yard field goal and their quarterback had a historically bad night. It happens, and it happened once. That isn't an indicator of how bad the Colts are or how good the Pats are; it's not like the Colts have lost 7 in a row or something.

I'm not using their injuries as an excuse for sucking. I do think that Manning would've done better with Ugoh and Harrison in the game against the Pats, but that doesn't guarantee anything. I certainly don't think that Manning's issues were all because of bad receiver options. Manning had a bad night. This isn't because of lack of depth on the Colts, it's because he's a human being.

Of course not, but if Brady can make Caldwell look good,

No one can make Caldwell look good.

and Jabar Gaffney outperform Marvin Harrison in the playoffs, then why cant Manning make his newer WR's look like anything but crap?

Right, because the cornerbacks defending the receivers don't matter. Nick Harper may, may, just be slightly worse than Asante Samuel. Maybe. This is exactly akin to the argument that Brady is better than Manning because Brady plays better against the Colts than Manning does against the Patriots. Gaffney outperforming Harrison only matters if Gaffney was actually being defensed by Harrison.

[Rockroi]

Kal:

Yeah, like I said a few times, I did my math and then I saw that the Colts numbers were outdated and was like, "Well, fuck it, I did all that work, I'm making a point!" With the more accurate numbers its more square, the Colts still more top heavy than the Pats, but by only $3 million or so. I may have simply miscalculated the Pats numbers. I would like to see the basics of how much these salaries are spread over the years and if THAT impacts the Colts' inflexibility.

Really, the Colts lost because their kicker couldn't make a 29 yard field goal and their quarterback had a historically bad night. It happens, and it happened once. That isn't an indicator of how bad the Colts are or how good the Pats are; it's not like the Colts have lost 7 in a row or something.

I agree, but at the same time, it is sort of striking that the "If Brady and Manning switched places" dare is starting to come to fruition. Unlike the last few years its BRADY, not Manning, using intense offensive weapons and just obliterating opponents; and its MANNING not Brady dealing with a string of injuries on both sides of the ball and less-than optimum offensive weapons. And yet, Manning STILL has a better running back in Addai than the Pats have had and Reggie Wayne would be a #1 WR on most NFL teams. But I agree, Manning had one bad night and the salary does not seem to be the source of the Colts problems.

No one can make Caldwell look good.

Finally. Thank God we finally have common ground; though I do think he will never look better than he did with Brady. Has he caught a pass yet for the Skins? I'm really curious.

[DanteGabriel]

Finally. Thank God we finally have common ground; though I do think he will never look better than he did with Brady. Has he caught a pass yet for the Skins? I'm really curious.

Reche Caldwell still has no catches.

There was an interesting piece on the fate of ex-Patriots by a Football Outsiders contributor:

http://www.patriotsdaily.com/2007/11/outsi...th-the-ex-pats/

Reinforces the idea that the Pats have consistently made the right call on FA departures, cutting guys just as they hit the downside of their years. It's hard and it takes a toll on fans' hearts, but it's how you keep winning.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, I saw that. Pretty good evidence that the Pats strategy of sending people off works out for the best. Also a good indication of how important the system is relative to the player, at least for some positions.

[14th Dragon]

Reche Caldwell still has no catches.

There was an interesting piece on the fate of ex-Patriots by a Football Outsiders contributor:

http://www.patriotsdaily.com/2007/11/outsi...th-the-ex-pats/

Reinforces the idea that the Pats have consistently made the right call on FA departures, cutting guys just as they hit the downside of their years. It's hard and it takes a toll on fans' hearts, but it's how you keep winning.

Which is why I figure that Samuel will retained at the end of this year. The franchise year was to show if last year was an aberation or a trend. With two data points, call it a trend and give him a long term deal.

Wilson I do believe is going to be quietly shown the door. Three years of injuries is just too much.

[DanteGabriel]

Which is why I figure that Samuel will retained at the end of this year. The franchise year was to show if last year was an aberation or a trend. With two data points, call it a trend and give him a long term deal.

There will be some team desperate for corner help that will throw more money at him than the Patriots are willing to offer.

I'm also curious what the Pats are going to do with Randy Moss, who I believe is a free agent after this year. I've seen literally no columns, articles or even rank speculation about what Moss will do. Does he use this year to get a fat contract with another team, or does he take the (probably) short money to stick with New England and the team that resurrected his career?