Where is The Cap (after the draftees are signed)?

[maineman209]

This is incorrect. His 2018 cap number would remain the same while the Patriots would get a credit on 2019.

On the other hand, Gillislee's 2018 cap number will go up if he is active for more than 9 games as earned NLTBE roster bonuses immediately hit the cap.

IOW, Gillislee's $2.18M projected cap number for 2018 reflects that fact that he was active for only nine games last season? Sorry. I didn't understand that it was a credit forward.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[Miguel]

IOW, Gillislee's $2.18M projected cap number for 2018 reflects that fact that he was active for only nine games last season? Sorry. I didn't understand that it was a credit forward.

Thanks for the correction!

This is correct. You are so welcome.

 

[maineman209]

Gillislee is an enigma. With the Bills he ran north-south with power and speed. I didn’t see that last year. He always looked a bit tentative, especially the few times I saw him in the red zone. It’s like playing in the Pats system sucked the life out of his game. What was it? Was he overthinking? Not enough reps? Learning a tougher system?

Not necessarily "tougher", mainly just different - different line calls and change-ups/adjustments at the line, though possibly a little more complex (more complex passing game).

In terms of reps, it may be worth remembering that he'd been injured at some point and was not participating in practice during Training Camp until before the 3rd pre-season game.

The assumption among fans was always that the Pats had him slated to be the "lead back", projecting Gillislee to take over Blount's role, more or less in its entirety. I n was never confident that the Pats had that in mind for him at all (different type of runner and not even quite as hefty as Burkhead, much less Blount).

Blount absolutely dominated the offensive snap % for all RBs through most of 2016 (went over 50% a few times), averaged nearly 19 carries per game, and had between 24-29 carries in the first three games.

In Gillislee's time in Buffalo, he'd always been a part-time player, averaging around 30% of the snaps and 7-9 carries per game. He maxxed-out there with 101 totes in 15 games.

Even in week-1, Gillislee was in for only 30% of the snaps (White dominated the RB snap % until Lewis started hitting his stride in week-6). And Gillislee averaged 11.6 totes per game, hitting 40% of the snaps only in week-2 @NOL.

Based on his history (and the Pats' history), I originally projected Gillislee to get between 35% and 45% of the carries - pending a full recovery by Lewis. Well, Lewis most definitely recovered fully, and dominated the carries thereafter. The rest is history, often interpreted in terms of unfulfilled fan expectations.

 

[mgteich]

Sure, if they are considered equal Hill would get the nod to push a million into 2019. However, that is not the same as saying that a backup inactive position RB isn't worth $2M.

There has been inflation of pay, especially RB pay. In any case, IMO, Belichick will keep the best player. Sometimes, RB's get injured during the season. Having a quality backup is OK. And yes, it is OK if we can afford it, which we can.

Having a backup RB may be a luxury, but it is luxury worth having, owhether the player is Gillislie, Hill or Webb.

According to your numbers, the team would save 1m dollars by going with Hill, so if the competition is close I would expect him to have the upper hand. I’m not sure why anyone would find this statement as controversial or out of the norm? We would say this about any position.

 

[supafly]

Sure, if they are considered equal Hill would get the nod to push a million into 2019. However, that is not the same as saying that a backup inactive position RB isn't worth $2M.

An inactive backup isn’t worth 2.2m dollars at the RB position. C’mon, now.

 

[mgteich]

An inactive backup isn’t worth 2.2m dollars at the RB position. C’mon, now.

Consider the possibility that Bulkhead s considered to be a bit better then Gillislie, but definitely better and therefor active. So, for you, we should end Gillisxie's contract and phrase compete for him with others. If Gillislie is considered a bit better,t he Bulkhead should be fired.

We would then keep whoever of the inexpensive RB''s for the inactive position, even if they are considered to be nowhere as good as the top 4. I probably wouldn't bother. I'd just keep a couple on the Practice Squad. The reason for keeping the additional RB on the 53 is because we are fine with him taking a major role if we have an injury to one of our top 2.
=======
MY BOTTOM LINE
I we can agree to disagree.

I believe that Hill and Gillislie are competing for a roster spot, and that Belichick will keep the best between them. I don't think that the million is a key factor in who will be the first off the bench (the backup). Yes, Webb could be competing for that roster spot, but is more likely to end up on the Practive Squad, which is great.

 

[supafly]

Can you provide some examples?

You’re asking me for examples of situations where Belichick kept the cheaper player when the talent level and training camp battles were equal?

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but Belichick has done it his whole career, and I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that most coaches would do the same in the era of a salary cap.

 

[supafly]

Consider the possibility that Bulkhead s considered to be a bit better then Gillislie, but definitely better and therefor active. So, for you, we should end Gillisxie's contract and phrase compete for him with others. If Gillislie is considered a bit better,t he Bulkhead should be fired.

We would then keep whoever of the inexpensive RB''s for the inactive position, even if they are considered to be nowhere as good as the top 4. I probably wouldn't bother. I'd just keep a couple on the Practice Squad. The reason for keeping the additional RB on the 53 is because we are fine with him taking a major role if we have an injury to one of our top 2.
=======
MY BOTTOM LINE
I we can agree to disagree.

I believe that Hill and Gillislie are competing for a roster spot, and that Belichick will keep the best between them. I don't think that the million is a key factor in who will be the first off the bench (the backup). Yes, Webb could be competing for that roster spot, but is more likely to end up on the Practive Squad, which is great.

Our only difference of opinion comes from my ever so bold and controversial statement that Gilleslee would likely be gone if the competition is similar due to his excessive cap hit to ride the bench as a gameday inactive for the second year in a row with a salary north of 2.1m dollars. When else have you ever seen Belichick do that before?

I honestly can’t believe that the conversation has really gone as far as it has.

 

[mgteich]

Our only difference of opinion comes from my ever so bold and controversial statement that Gilleslee would likely be gone if the competition is similar due to his excessive cap hit to ride the bench as a gameday inactive for the second year in a row with a salary north of 2.1m dollars. When else have you ever seen Belichick do that before?

I honestly can’t believe that the conversation has really gone as far as it has.

fair enough

We agree that if the talent is similar, then Gillislie would be cut in favor of the less expensive alternative.

My only issue involves the situation where the competition is not similar, and Belichick must decide whether to spend $2M for a backup or settle for a much weaker choice. I'd spend the money.

I was 100% fine with signing Hill with the expectation that he would learn the system and replace Gillislie on the 53.

 

[maineman209]

You’re asking me for examples of situations where Belichick kept the cheaper player when the talent level and training camp battles were equal?

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but Belichick has done it his whole career, and I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that most coaches would do the same in the era of a salary cap.

And that begs the question, "How do WE know that the talent level/camp battles actually WERE "equal" from the perspective of the coaches?"

I'd guess that, for every specific example you can provide, I can probably come up with one in which BB kept the more expensive player over a guy who I thought outplayed him.

The point is that, unless one of us has BB's office bugged, we really have no way of being certain why BB kept one guy over another. So, no, I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked for examples. Neither of us have any to offer that aren't merely our own speculative opinion.

 

[maineman209]

An inactive backup isn’t worth 2.2m dollars at the RB position. C’mon, now.

To YOU, maybe. BB may have other ideas.

In Gillislee, he's got a guy who now has a year's experience in the system, and who produced like Ajayi (Philly's #2 RB) for roughly the same money. The only reason NOT to keep Gillislee as the "inactive backup" is if someone clearly outplays him. Then that someone will become the inactive backup, regardless of price.

Here's the kicker. If Hill outplays Gillislee, AND outplays one of White, Burkhead or Michel, then THAT GUY becomes the inactive backup - regardless of price (or "prior status").

 

[supafly]

To YOU, maybe. BB may have other ideas.

In Gillislee, he's got a guy who now has a year's experience in the system, and who produced like Ajayi (Philly's #2 RB) for roughly the same money. The only reason NOT to keep Gillislee as the "inactive backup" is if someone clearly outplays him. Then that someone will become the inactive backup, regardless of price.

Here's the kicker. If Hill outplays Gillislee, AND outplays one of White, Burkhead or Michel, then THAT GUY becomes the inactive backup - regardless of price (or "prior status").

And that begs the question, "How do WE know that the talent level/camp battles actually WERE "equal" from the perspective of the coaches?"

I'd guess that, for every specific example you can provide, I can probably come up with one in which BB kept the more expensive player over a guy who I thought outplayed him.

The point is that, unless one of us has BB's office bugged, we really have no way of being certain why BB kept one guy over another. So, no, I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked for examples. Neither of us have any to offer that aren't merely our own speculative opinion.

Fair points, MM.

 

[Uptown]

 

[maineman209]

Reduced his $450k training camp roster bonus by $300k. Replaced the $300k with $100k in weekly roster bonuses and $150k in receiving incentives.

Some real high finance there.

Still, it saves the Pats $300k if Dorsett fails to make the 53-man roster. That probably covers about a week's worth of meals for the DL and OL.