My take on "Cap is Crap"

By the way, "holistic" coaching, including personnel, scheme, and motivation, got us past our doom and gloom moment last year... when we lost Mankins, the O-line was not ready for prime time, and we looked like ****.

The Great One had to make adjustments - but did. By season's end, before the SB, we were hearing about Carroll blowing the whistle in practice saying "if you don't get to him in 2.5 seconds you don't get to him..."

The word for Cincinatti was TRUST... that meant go through your reads fast, trust your man to be on time, scope the field regardless of the number on the jersey as you read through your progressions... and get the ball out decisively and fast. That continued to be the word for this season, in essence, until Tom had morphed once again into yet another kind of player - one who could disguise a dropoff in pass blocking with quicker reads and releases.

You can't keep disguising weaknesses without strengths, and the team clearly had strengths this same year -- including the horses in the ground game to make PA a serious threat again.

But it's more "chess not checkers." You can't ditch Vince while he's affordable... But you don't think the pros and cons of more aggressive penetrating DTs had been discussed? We'll see where we zig, when "zag" has been taken away.

Just think how easy it would be to lose an edge if you declared "THIS is the character of OUR team, we will ALWAYS have this character." You are one or two injuries away from each wasted season.

Far better to have "Oh, you prepped for last week's Patriots. This week it's different. Good luck!"

That carries through to how the Pats "heal" the gaps in the roster... Maximize talent with scheme, and go to war with the army you have against the enemy you face -- including all the pros and cons of both.

Here’s a lesson I tell every agent and player about NFL contracts: Ignore the cap; it is simply an accounting mechanism for the team. Through the loophole of prorated signing bonuses, the NFL’s “soft cap” (thinkyarmulke) can easily be manipulated and often portrays an inaccurate picture of the team’s player finances.

Click to expand...

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/25/nfl-salary-cap-myth-los-angeles-stadium/

Deus Irae said:

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/25/nfl-salary-cap-myth-los-angeles-stadium/

Click to expand...

Quoting Andrew Brandt who used the 2014 Saints as an example.
I will also quote Brandt - "The truth, of course, is that if they really want to keep or add players, they will, damn the future consequences.

Example of future consequences -
results of the 2014 Saints (7 and 9)
the 2015 Saints roster construction (trading away 2nd best offensive player on team)

Having managed the NFL salary cap for 10 years, I learned the secret to managing it was getting to a point where cash and cap room used lined up as evenly as possible. Once a “pay as you go” philosophy takes hold, a team can avoid piling up future charges and can always have flexibility.

Click to expand...

DI posted the link to this, but seems to have not read the parts that don't spt cap is crap. If it was crap, you wouldn't need a "secret" or to get to a point where a pay as you go philosophy is in place.

IMO Important to remember about the uncapped year too. It wasn't that long ago and it essentially reset the game board to put about 24-28 teams to an equivalent level (fixing caps for 18 or so and doing little-nothing for the 6-10 well managed teams). But that one time fix, allows the felgers to continue their mantra 'cause nobody else ever goes to cap jail'

Gumby said:

DI posted the link to this, but seems to have not read the parts that don't spt cap is crap. If it was crap, you wouldn't need a "secret" or to get to a point where a pay as you go philosophy is in place.

IMO Important to remember about the uncapped year too. It wasn't that long ago and it essentially reset the game board to put about 24-28 teams to an equivalent level (fixing caps for 18 or so and doing little-nothing for the 6-10 well managed teams). But that one time fix, allows the felgers to continue their mantra 'cause nobody else ever goes to cap jail'

Click to expand...

I read the entire article. I pretty much always do, unless there's a target issue. It's clear: The cap is an accounting tool. If it wasn't, there would have been no need for the NFLPA to negotiate for the actual cash spending requirements in the CBA. Now, this doesn't mean that looking at the cap isn't worthwhile, and it doesn't mean that teams don't have to maneuver. It means just the opposite, really. Just compare how the NFL and NHL caps work, and you can see the significance.

This isn't new. This is not surprising. This is not a problem. The only problem is when people confuse the notion that the cap is an accounting mechanism with the idea that making such a statement means that there are literally zero ramifications.

For crying out loud, Miguel himself was giving all sorts of examples of ways to keep Revis around. You can't do that if you can't massage the cap.

Gumby said:

DI posted the link to this, but seems to have not read the parts that don't spt cap is crap. If it was crap, you wouldn't need a "secret" or to get to a point where a pay as you go philosophy is in place.

IMO Important to remember about the uncapped year too. It wasn't that long ago and it essentially reset the game board to put about 24-28 teams to an equivalent level (fixing caps for 18 or so and doing little-nothing for the 6-10 well managed teams). But that one time fix, allows the felgers to continue their mantra 'cause nobody else ever goes to cap jail'

Click to expand...

Remember that special timing clause in the CBA that let the Jets out of cap Hell?

I do.

Deus Irae said:

For crying out loud, Miguel himself was giving all sorts of examples of ways to keep Revis around. You can't do that if you can't massage the cap.

Click to expand...

We all agree that we could have cut players and spent 20 million picking up Revis' contract. However, Miguel has come out and explicitly stated he disagrees with the premise that the cap is crap concept.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/my-take-on-cap-is-crap.1119005/

Miguel said:

The entire "Cap is crap" concept diminishes the accomplishments of the best team of the salary cap era. If Michael Felger had performed a better job of reporting on the salary cap, I would have never felt the need to start my cap pages. If I did not understand something or do something well like report on the salary cap, I may also say that it is not important. Does not make it true.

Of course, I am a bit biased. I have been covering the Patriots salary cap since 2001. If the cap is indeed crap, I have been wasting my time

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

For crying out loud, Miguel himself was giving all sorts of examples of ways to keep Revis around. You can't do that if you can't massage the cap.

Click to expand...

I have asked on Twitter and on this forum those who claimed that the cap is crap how the Patriots could have matched the Jets' offer or how the Patriots could have kept Revis at his 25 million cap number.

All I have gotten back is that it could have been done without any details.

Pats are under the cap by 6 million. Keeping Revis at 25m would put Pats over the cap by $13.415 million since he would displace a player with a 585,000 salary from the Top 51 list.

Miguel said:

I have asked on Twitter and on this forum those who claimed that the cap is crap how the Patriots could have matched the Jets' offer or how the Patriots could have kept Revis at his 25 million cap number.

All I have gotten back is that it could have been done without any details.

Pats are under the cap by 6 million. Keeping Revis at 25m would put Pats over the cap by $13.415 million since he would displace a player with a 585,000 salary from the Top 51 list.

Click to expand...

It's not a fair question though for 2 reasons, one it assumes the roster would be exactly the same if we had kept Revis. Guys like Sheard, McClain, Fletcher, ect. Likely wouldn't be on it and that would open up space.

Also it assumes that the Pats would have had to duplicate the Jets structure to give the player an equal $value. You can pro rate guarantees while still giving the player as big of a check up front as the Jets did.

I'm not saying the Pats should have done it, but they absolutely could have at least competed with the Jets offer. The Pats ate in fantastic cap shape post 2015, with barely any gtd money on the books besides Brady, McCourty, and Gronk. To really explain how the Pats could have kept Revis takes a holistic view that is impossible to accomplish on twitter.

Miguel said:

It has been over a month since Revis returned to the Jets. If the cap is indeed crap, surely someone who believes that the cap is crap has written/blogged how the Patriots could have matched the Jets' offer and still build a Super Bowl contender this year and future years. As of today, Pats are under the cap by $6,148,315. Adding Revis' 2015 $16m salary would put the Pats over the cap by $9,266,685 since he would replace a player with a $585,000 salary.

It has been easy to criticize the Patriots for not matching the Jets' offer but the lack of proposed alternative scenarios shows how difficult it is to build a Super Bowl contender. It is easy to contend that the cap can be manipulated. It is much harder to back up that contention using Revis as an example.

Click to expand...

The Patriots are returning 18 starters from a Super Bowl champion team (9 of 11 on offense, 9 of 11 on defense, and their kickers and return men). That would be dramatically different if they'd met Revis' salary request. And, they have the chance to be among the top 5 youngest teams in the NFL, setting the Patriots up for the future.

The Patriots' discipline in managing the salary cap is a model for any team looking to build long-term competitiveness.

McClusky said:

It's not a fair question though for 2 reasons, one it assumes the roster would be exactly the same if we had kept Revis. Guys like Sheard, McClain, Fletcher, ect. Likely wouldn't be on it and that would open up space.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely a fair question. If you choose to remove those signings as part of your answer, so be it. Frankly, that isn't a chink in Miguel's assertion, it demonstrates it; even without those guys, you still need at least another $7mm removed before getting back under.

So, if it is so doable, who isn't on the team right now?

Is there reliable information that the Pats didn't try to compete with the Jets? That no exploration was made?

betterthanthealternative said:

Is there reliable information that the Pats didn't try to compete with the Jets? That no exploration was made?

Click to expand...

Of course. See post #109.

Oswlek said:

It's absolutely a fair question. If you choose to remove those signings as part of your answer, so be it. Frankly, that isn't a chink in Miguel's assertion, it demonstrates it; even without those guys, you still need at least another $7mm removed before getting back under.

So, if it is so doable, who isn't on the team right now?

Click to expand...

Which is fair, but assuming the 2015 cap number has to be the same is not. If Sheard, McClain, and Fletcher were off the team the Pats could have structured the contract in such a way that would have given Revis the exact same amount of $ in 2015 as the Jets did at a lower cap hit.

Not saying the Pats should have done this, but the notion that the Pats couldn't have matched the contract for cap reasons is false. The Pats made a choice because they didn't feel the $ matched the value, not because they couldn't work the cap to fit him in.

McClusky said:

The Pats made a choice because they didn't feel the $ matched the value, not because they couldn't work the cap to fit him in.

Click to expand...

You are drawing a much finer line than you seem to realize. How someone fits into the cap picture and consequences of the signing are an enormous part of how "the $ match[es] the value". Otherwise, you stretch the meaning of "couldn't work the cap" to the point where your argument remains intact even with cap hits of $80mm. Even that number is possible, depending on what you're willing to give up.

Deus Irae said:

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/25/nfl-salary-cap-myth-los-angeles-stadium/

Click to expand...

McClusky said:

It's not a fair question though for 2 reasons, one it assumes the roster would be exactly the same if we had kept Revis. Guys like Sheard, McClain, Fletcher, ect. Likely wouldn't be on it and that would open up space.

Also it assumes that the Pats would have had to duplicate the Jets structure to give the player an equal $value. You can pro rate guarantees while still giving the player as big of a check up front as the Jets did.

I'm not saying the Pats should have done it, but they absolutely could have at least competed with the Jets offer. The Pats ate in fantastic cap shape post 2015, with barely any gtd money on the books besides Brady, McCourty, and Gronk. To really explain how the Pats could have kept Revis takes a holistic view that is impossible to accomplish on twitter.

Click to expand...

You do realize that Woody Johnson had 50 million in cap space and was going to top Any and every offer the Patriots made, right?

Ivan said:

You do realize that Woody Johnson had 50 million in cap space and was going to top Any and every offer the Patriots made, right?

Click to expand...

Well that within itself is an assumption, but a fair one I guess. Ultimately the worst case scenario is that the Pats field a competive offer to what the Jets offered, and the Jets need to pay even more, which is hardly a bad outcome considering the off season the Jets ultimately had.

What Revis's ultimate contract was wasn't absurd. The Pats could have at least tried to get up there.

Oswlek said:

You are drawing a much fined line than you seem to realize. How someone fits into the cap picture and consequences of the signing are an enormous part of how "the $ match[es] the value". Otherwise, you stretch the meaning of "couldn't work the cap" to the point where your argument remains intact even with cap hits of $80mm. Even that number is possible, depending on what you're willing to give up.

Click to expand...

I really don't think so. Im just challenging the basic premise of Miguel's question. The Pats didn't resign Revis because they didn't think the $ matched the value, not because of this huge cap crunch they faced. If you're asking me if I would give up Sheard, McClain, Fletcher in 2015 and then cut Mayo in 2016 to keep Revis then I'd absolutely do it. I think most people would. It was less about not being able to get to the number as opposed to the fact that the Pats didn't want to sign a 30 year old corner for 10% of their cap that they wouldn't be able to cut for the next 3 years. Guys like the ones I mentioned before are lower risk investments which keep flexibility open. As opposed to Revis which is a higher risk higher reward investment.

It goes back to the point I've made in the past about the Pats being more conservative than cheap.

McClusky said:

What Revis's ultimate contract was wasn't absurd. The Pats could have at least tried to get up there.

Click to expand...

Seems pretty absurd to me. $16 million a year for 3 years when the franchise tag number for a CB is $13.075 million and the highest paid CB in the league are at $14 million.

McClusky said:

I really don't think so. Im just challenging the basic premise of Miguel's question. The Pats didn't resign Revis because they didn't think the $ matched the value, not because of this huge cap crunch they faced. If you're asking me if I would give up Sheard, McClain, Fletcher in 2015 and then cut Mayo in 2016 to keep Revis then I'd absolutely do it. I think most people would. It was less about not being able to get to the number as opposed to the fact that the Pats didn't want to sign a 30 year old corner for 10% of their cap that they wouldn't be able to cut for the next 3 years. Guys like the ones I mentioned before are lower risk investments which keep flexibility open. As opposed to Revis which is a higher risk higher reward investment.

It goes back to the point I've made in the past about the Pats being more conservative than cheap.

Click to expand...

Fletcher and McClain have nothing to do with it, try giving up Hightower,Jones, and Solder and you will be closer to the truth, and that's if you were just going by the offer he took , had the Patriots offered a little more then Johnson would have kept going, he wasn't going to lose a bidding war when he had unlimited room to win it. The reason Johnson's public tamper mattered so much is because Johnson was the one who shipped Rebids out and wouldn't let Idzik bring him back, once he went public the Patriots had no chance.