Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by genus49:

Lol dude what's happening with you?

I don't even understand where you're going with this argument. If anything that Rams game was Jimmy's worst. If anything I'd think you'd want to point to that game as why we shouldn't have signed Jimmy since he couldn't keep turning the ball over even against their backups...but then again we know you were all about that deal at the time.

So why change the narrative on why he got the deal? It changes nothing. He got it and we have to figure out what to do with him because he is overpaid based on his production.

The question is the good that he brings this team under Kyle is it worth going with an unknown just to cut down that contract?

I find it funny you think I'm not the one being objective in this situation

He turned the ball over regardless of the game.

Explain to me how you're being objective? It's been nothing but excuses on when he doesn't play well and Jimmy is the reason when we win.

Ive brought up the ALEX score to show how much he actually contributes to 3rd conversions...hell yeah 1st downs are 1st downs but you can't simply acknowledge that our playmakers played a massive part in that in 2019. Why? What's the excuse for being top 8 in INT % yet throwing the ball shorter than most QBs in the league? That's not a good thing dude.

I simply do not agree with your takes on him as a QB. It's nothing against you, we for he most part are on the same page...clearly not on this topic.

Think about what you're even arguing now lol.

Garoppolo got paid based on 4 starts in 2017 vs 5...

How does this even matter to what we've been talking about lately? But you threw that out there and then because I pointed out the Rams game still counted I'm not being objective?

You are though? When it's brought up to you that the ALEX numbers you keep throwing around had Matt Ryan who was the MVP that season at a slightly lower value than Jimmy last season you wave by that and point out to another value Ryan had higher than Jimmy last year.

You know I'm cool with you but you're losing it here lol. The pic from Always Sunny in Philly with the dude and his whiteboard with conspiracy stuff on there is very fitting right now.

You're digging for these silly stats to try to discredit the guy needlessly. Ryan's numbers being similar to Jimmy's shows the offense is designed to work similarly which is on 3rd down Kyle isn't having his QBs chuck it down beyond the yard marker more times than not. He designs plays to get guys into space and relies on YAC to pick things up. Even more with our roster.

Jimmy has his weaknesses and deep ball is one of them but why are we acting like this offense asks him to chuck it down the field all game long? It doesn't. WCO wasn't built on the long ball.

Getting someone for cheaper who can do what Jimmy does in the short/intermediate levels while also giving us the ability to make plays down the field more consistently would be fantastic. Everyone wants that I'm sure.

But why bend over backwards to try to diminish what he has done well?

Originally posted by genus49:

Players have been very vocal about Jimmy's leadership. He doesn't need to be super rah rah to be a good leader.

His contract also has nothing to do with how vocal he should be.

This, especially the first paragraph.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by genus49:

Lol dude what's happening with you?

I don't even understand where you're going with this argument. If anything that Rams game was Jimmy's worst. If anything I'd think you'd want to point to that game as why we shouldn't have signed Jimmy since he couldn't keep turning the ball over even against their backups...but then again we know you were all about that deal at the time.

So why change the narrative on why he got the deal? It changes nothing. He got it and we have to figure out what to do with him because he is overpaid based on his production.

The question is the good that he brings this team under Kyle is it worth going with an unknown just to cut down that contract?

I find it funny you think I'm not the one being objective in this situation

He turned the ball over regardless of the game.

Explain to me how you're being objective? It's been nothing but excuses on when he doesn't play well and Jimmy is the reason when we win.

Ive brought up the ALEX score to show how much he actually contributes to 3rd conversions...hell yeah 1st downs are 1st downs but you can't simply acknowledge that our playmakers played a massive part in that in 2019. Why? What's the excuse for being top 8 in INT % yet throwing the ball shorter than most QBs in the league? That's not a good thing dude.

I simply do not agree with your takes on him as a QB. It's nothing against you, we for he most part are on the same page...clearly not on this topic.

Think about what you're even arguing now lol.

Garoppolo got paid based on 4 starts in 2017 vs 5...

How does this even matter to what we've been talking about lately? But you threw that out there and then because I pointed out the Rams game still counted I'm not being objective?

You are though? When it's brought up to you that the ALEX numbers you keep throwing around had Matt Ryan who was the MVP that season at a slightly lower value than Jimmy last season you wave by that and point out to another value Ryan had higher than Jimmy last year.

You know I'm cool with you but you're losing it here lol. The pic from Always Sunny in Philly with the dude and his whiteboard with conspiracy stuff on there is very fitting right now.

You're digging for these silly stats to try to discredit the guy needlessly. Ryan's numbers being similar to Jimmy's shows the offense is designed to work similarly which is on 3rd down Kyle isn't having his QBs chuck it down beyond the yard marker more times than not. He designs plays to get guys into space and relies on YAC to pick things up. Even more with our roster.

Jimmy has his weaknesses and deep ball is one of them but why are we acting like this offense asks him to chuck it down the field all game long? It doesn't. WCO wasn't built on the long ball.

Getting someone for cheaper who can do what Jimmy does in the short/intermediate levels while also giving us the ability to make plays down the field more consistently would be fantastic. Everyone wants that I'm sure.

But why bend over backwards to try to diminish what he has done well?

good post. never will understand why he goes to the lengths he goes to when it comes to what Jimmy has done well for us, when they aren't unreasonable takes that don't take away from the playmakers around him and how they factored in as well.

Originally posted by 9ers4u:

This thread is like surfing the tv channels and seeing "The View" is on.

I try to skip past real fast but I see Whoopy is talking and listen for a sec.

Then I have to see what the other peeps are saying and then I have to snap out of it and leave.

Lol love you guys

😂

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

And?

JImmys always been a man of few words even when we went to the SB. Not sure what your point is.

If youre insinuating that Kittle wants to come back and Jimmy doesnt, thats gotta be one of the dumbest hot takes ive read in a while. Both are doing exactly what theyve always been doing since day 1. Kittle is out there being the "Peoples TE" and Jimmys being Jimmy. This dude finished out a half after having his ankle rolled over by fat ass Quinnen Williams. He seen his team struggling and tried to come back when his ankle still clearly wasnt fully healed.

Question his ability all you want but to insinuate whatever it is youre insinuating makes no sense.

First of all....how dare you?

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Originally posted by JEP83:

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because Jimmy's contract and savings next year are a relevant topic which makes the potential cap and the factors that will affect that final number a relevant topic.

Originally posted by JEP83:

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by JEP83:

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Tanking isn't something you purposefully do, but speaking of businessmen, it is definitely bad business to pay Garoppolo what we're paying him if an rookie can also throw -6 yard passes that turn into 8 yard gains for four to six times less money, especially with players on the rise like Jason Verrett we might want to extend.

Keeping Verrett, Sherman, and others will be hard with Jimmy's completely undeserved contract. "Market value" my asp; Jimmy has played BELOW what his contract's current market value is, and only the blind homers don't see it. Everyone else, from this forum to the sports media, knows he's being paid way more than his production warrants.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by CJ75:

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

Being all rah rah! is an intangible?

Are Sherman & Kittle's leadership in the locker rooms not valuable? No i'm not talking about the rah rah nonsense.

Players have been very vocal about Jimmy's leadership. He doesn't need to be super rah rah to be a good leader.

His contract also has nothing to do with how vocal he should be.

Consistent accuracy (which he doesn't have) is way more important than leadership.

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by JEP83:
And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Tanking isn't something you purposefully do, but speaking of businessmen, it is definitely bad business to pay Garoppolo what we're paying him if an rookie can also throw -6 yard passes that turn into 8 yard gains for four to six times less money, especially with players on the rise like Jason Verrett we might want to extend.

Keeping Verrett, Sherman, and others will be hard with Jimmy's completely undeserved contract. "Market value" my asp; Jimmy has played BELOW what his contract's current market value is, and only the blind homers don't see it. Everyone else, from this forum to the sports media, knows he's being paid way more than his production warrants.

LOL this is such a dumb narrative.

Jimmy throws to the plays that Kyle calls. The short passing game is what Kyle wants because that is what he calls. You guys blame JG for doing what he is told to do by the play caller and HC. It is not the smartest argument I have heard that is for sure.

So I suppose you reckon that JG should just ignore the play calls and throw deep every time just to prove that he can to the genius fans who bag him?

You crack me up

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by genus49:

Lol dude what's happening with you?

I don't even understand where you're going with this argument. If anything that Rams game was Jimmy's worst. If anything I'd think you'd want to point to that game as why we shouldn't have signed Jimmy since he couldn't keep turning the ball over even against their backups...but then again we know you were all about that deal at the time.

So why change the narrative on why he got the deal? It changes nothing. He got it and we have to figure out what to do with him because he is overpaid based on his production.

The question is the good that he brings this team under Kyle is it worth going with an unknown just to cut down that contract?

I find it funny you think I'm not the one being objective in this situation

He turned the ball over regardless of the game.

Explain to me how you're being objective? It's been nothing but excuses on when he doesn't play well and Jimmy is the reason when we win.

Ive brought up the ALEX score to show how much he actually contributes to 3rd conversions...hell yeah 1st downs are 1st downs but you can't simply acknowledge that our playmakers played a massive part in that in 2019. Why? What's the excuse for being top 8 in INT % yet throwing the ball shorter than most QBs in the league? That's not a good thing dude.

I simply do not agree with your takes on him as a QB. It's nothing against you, we for he most part are on the same page...clearly not on this topic.

Think about what you're even arguing now lol.

Garoppolo got paid based on 4 starts in 2017 vs 5...

How does this even matter to what we've been talking about lately? But you threw that out there and then because I pointed out the Rams game still counted I'm not being objective?

You are though? When it's brought up to you that the ALEX numbers you keep throwing around had Matt Ryan who was the MVP that season at a slightly lower value than Jimmy last season you wave by that and point out to another value Ryan had higher than Jimmy last year.

You know I'm cool with you but you're losing it here lol. The pic from Always Sunny in Philly with the dude and his whiteboard with conspiracy stuff on there is very fitting right now.

You're digging for these silly stats to try to discredit the guy needlessly. Ryan's numbers being similar to Jimmy's shows the offense is designed to work similarly which is on 3rd down Kyle isn't having his QBs chuck it down beyond the yard marker more times than not. He designs plays to get guys into space and relies on YAC to pick things up. Even more with our roster.

Jimmy has his weaknesses and deep ball is one of them but why are we acting like this offense asks him to chuck it down the field all game long? It doesn't. WCO wasn't built on the long ball.

Getting someone for cheaper who can do what Jimmy does in the short/intermediate levels while also giving us the ability to make plays down the field more consistently would be fantastic. Everyone wants that I'm sure.

But why bend over backwards to try to diminish what he has done well?

In Atlanta, Matt Ryan threw more deep passes
than 25 starting quarterbacks. (20+ yards)


This offense doesn't ask Jimmy to chuck it deep BECAUSE he sucks at chucking it deep. In Atlanta, Shanahan threw the ball down the field often and did so well.

Also, this offense IS NOT the WCO. "It's not the f***ing west coast offense." - Kyle Shanahan.





I don't know how you're going to rationalize away the fact that Shanahan threw it deep more than almost any team when he had someone who could do it well, but I must confess I look forward to seeing how you do it.




https://brickwallblitz.com/2017/03/26/the-2016-17-deep-ball-project-part-33/


https://www.atlantafalcons.com/news/falcons-offense-has-historically-great-regular-season-18378527


https://www.pff.com/news/pro-the-nfls-10-best-deep-passers-this-season


https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/lists/12968/the-nfl-s-5-best-deep-ball-quarterbacks-from-2016/2-matt-ryan-atlanta-falcons-4/amp

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by JEP83:

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Tanking isn't something you purposefully do, but speaking of businessmen, it is definitely bad business to pay Garoppolo what we're paying him if an rookie can also throw -6 yard passes that turn into 8 yard gains for four to six times less money, especially with players on the rise like Jason Verrett we might want to extend.

Keeping Verrett, Sherman, and others will be hard with Jimmy's completely undeserved contract. "Market value" my asp; Jimmy has played BELOW what his contract's current market value is, and only the blind homers don't see it. Everyone else, from this forum to the sports media, knows he's being paid way more than his production warrants.

LOL this is such a dumb narrative.

Jimmy throws to the plays that Kyle calls. The short passing game is what Kyle wants because that is what he calls. You guys blame JG for doing what he is told to do by the play caller and HC. It is not the smartest argument I have heard that is for sure.

So I suppose you reckon that JG should just ignore the play calls and throw deep every time just to prove that he can to the genius fans who bag him?

You crack me up

In Atlanta, when Shanahan had an QB who was good at passing deep, his starting QB Matt Ryan threw it deep more than 25 other starting QBs.

What is your excuse for that?


Fact: the reason Shanahan isn't calling deep plays is because Jimmy isn't good at throwing deep.




Edit - of note: when you blame it on Julio, those of us who aren't Jimmy cultists will laugh as we remember all the horrid deep passes Jimmy has thrown, and will muse at the fact that you blame Jimmy's OBJECTIVELY OBVIOUSLY BAD deep throws on the WRs, like when he missed the game winning throw against the Cardinals this season, with the WR wide open deep despite not being Julio Jones.

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by JEP83:

And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Tanking isn't something you purposefully do, but speaking of businessmen, it is definitely bad business to pay Garoppolo what we're paying him if an rookie can also throw -6 yard passes that turn into 8 yard gains for four to six times less money, especially with players on the rise like Jason Verrett we might want to extend.

Keeping Verrett, Sherman, and others will be hard with Jimmy's completely undeserved contract. "Market value" my asp; Jimmy has played BELOW what his contract's current market value is, and only the blind homers don't see it. Everyone else, from this forum to the sports media, knows he's being paid way more than his production warrants.

LOL this is such a dumb narrative.

Jimmy throws to the plays that Kyle calls. The short passing game is what Kyle wants because that is what he calls. You guys blame JG for doing what he is told to do by the play caller and HC. It is not the smartest argument I have heard that is for sure.

So I suppose you reckon that JG should just ignore the play calls and throw deep every time just to prove that he can to the genius fans who bag him?

You crack me up

In Atlanta, when Shanahan had an QB who was good at passing deep, his starting QB Matt Ryan threw it deep more than 25 other starting QBs.

What is your excuse for that?


Fact: the reason Shanahan isn't calling deep plays is because Jimmy isn't good at throwing deep.




Edit - of note: when you blame it on Julio, those of us who aren't Jimmy cultists will laugh as we remember all the horrid deep passes Jimmy has thrown, and will muse at the fact that you blame Jimmy's OBJECTIVELY OBVIOUSLY BAD deep throws on the WRs, like when he missed the game winning throw against the Cardinals this season, with the WR wide open deep despite not being Julio Jones.

Ya its hilarious how this isn't brought up. And dont forget WAS and Cleveland, he did the same there.

To think that Shanny is devolving as a play caller

Its so damn obvious why deep balls aren't be called. Did people miss those hanging ducks that he threw to Taylor and Bourne? Hes thrown 2 deep passes this year and that s**t looked worse than Shaun Hill's. No good play caller in their right mind would attack down the field with Jimmy as their QB. Even Andy Reid would have to change his playcalling with Jimmy.

As Goatie would say, that's a very dumb narrative.

Originally posted by TheGore49er:

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by Goatie:

Originally posted by Gabberwocky:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by JEP83:
And......

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
They agreed to a floor, meaning they don't know the revenues with the uncertainty but all agreed that anything below 175 mil would destroy the league as the revenues on a per team average could be as low as 270 million.

That doesn't mean they agreed to a cap. To me, it's a good faith gesture by the owners to set the precedent with the union that they're willing to bypass the 47% cap calculation to protect the game - but will then expect players to do their part and agree to a league wide pay-cut claused into all contracts to try and maintain the market values of players.

I get that it's capitalism, but the NFL is also a product based game. They've worked for their audience for decades and while we can act like owners are just greedy guys, they're business men first and foremost and entertainment business men. You protect your audience - that's your real product. That's what they sell advertisers. They don't sell advertisers the games or the scores, they sell the audience. If you lose your audience, you lose your product.

They're not going to further risk losing an audience because once you lose an audience, it's very, very hard to get them back - just ask WCW or WWF/E, if you're familiar with wrestling, how easy it is to get the 11 million people who were watching in 1998 and aren't watching now, to come back.

If you allow the league to be gutted of dozens and dozens of playmakers and fill out teams with 1 year players or UDFA's because of the cap, the audience will leave and your product is less valuable.

The audience isn't going anywhere, especially if it's for a season. The owners having a good faith gesture is funny. The literally wanted the opposite of what the players wanted during negations

It's not just about the cap, but actual cash that they have to hand out

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

Once the TV rights are done (2022) they will have plenty of capital going forward.

Like everything in the world s**t is gonna be a little lean for the next yr....the NFL like everything else will have to adapt. Including the players.

And why is this in this thread?

Because it has been brought up a bunch of times that to keep the team together next year with COVID affecting the cap that we need to tank, cut Jimmy and draft a rookie to get a cheap rookie qb contract.

Tanking isn't something you purposefully do, but speaking of businessmen, it is definitely bad business to pay Garoppolo what we're paying him if an rookie can also throw -6 yard passes that turn into 8 yard gains for four to six times less money, especially with players on the rise like Jason Verrett we might want to extend.

Keeping Verrett, Sherman, and others will be hard with Jimmy's completely undeserved contract. "Market value" my asp; Jimmy has played BELOW what his contract's current market value is, and only the blind homers don't see it. Everyone else, from this forum to the sports media, knows he's being paid way more than his production warrants.

LOL this is such a dumb narrative.

Jimmy throws to the plays that Kyle calls. The short passing game is what Kyle wants because that is what he calls. You guys blame JG for doing what he is told to do by the play caller and HC. It is not the smartest argument I have heard that is for sure.

So I suppose you reckon that JG should just ignore the play calls and throw deep every time just to prove that he can to the genius fans who bag him?

You crack me up

In Atlanta, when Shanahan had an QB who was good at passing deep, his starting QB Matt Ryan threw it deep more than 25 other starting QBs.

What is your excuse for that?

Fact: the reason Shanahan isn't calling deep plays is because Jimmy isn't good at throwing deep.

Edit - of note: when you blame it on Julio, those of us who aren't Jimmy cultists will laugh as we remember all the horrid deep passes Jimmy has thrown, and will muse at the fact that you blame Jimmy's OBJECTIVELY OBVIOUSLY BAD deep throws on the WRs, like when he missed the game winning throw against the Cardinals this season, with the WR wide open deep despite not being Julio Jones.

Ya its hilarious how this isn't brought up. And dont forget WAS and Cleveland, he did the same there.

To think that Shanny is devolving as a play caller

Its so damn obvious why deep balls aren't be called. Did people miss those hanging ducks that he threw to Taylor and Bourne? Hes thrown 2 deep passes this year and that s**t looked worse than Shaun Hill's. No good play caller in their right mind would attack down the field with Jimmy as their QB. Even Andy Reid would have to change his playcalling with Jimmy.

As Goatie would say, that's a very dumb narrative.

Quite the opposite. Shanahan is developing as a play caller.

Deep passes are poor percentage football. They are risky no matter who the passer is. Shanahan is playing the percentages and you will find that shorter passes lead to more yards in the game. Pity some of you can not figure out the value in that.