BearFan PHX

Id even settle for having the breaking of the huddle be PIP, just so i could see it! Then again, I often watch with the sound off. Living in NYC for years, I used to go to sports bars to see the games in the 90s and 00s, and they always had the sound from some other game on the PA, and I learned to watch it without announcers. Now, with the sound off, the whole thing is so much easier to watch. Occasionally, I will miss and injury piece of info or something, but then again, i dont need to hear the announcer repeat some national press troupe that isnt true and makes no sense. Truthfully, you can predict everything the announcers are going to say. If I watch a game with a woman, I will almost always be saying some stupid cliche to her (probably showing off I guess lol) about 10 seconds before the announcer says it. I dont think that means im smart. I think it means me and the announcers are both cheesy cliches hahaha "You know honey, the ground cant cause a fumble" or "one knee equals two feet" etc etc lol

Ok, in looking at sporttrac details, here are the hard numbers. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/las-vegas-raiders/davante-adams-14463/ If no post-June 1st designation, the Raiders would have to carry $31.4 Million dollars on their cap in dead space for 2023 if they trade him to us. If they do not trade or cut him, he will cost them $14M on their cap. So they'd have to find an additional $17M in cap room just to get rid of him. If they keep him, then their new QB, whoever he is, has a great target to throw to, and you can spend that $17M on additional players too. On our side, it's a great deal. He gets $11M the first year, $16M or so the second year, and then you have to cut him, because he jumps up to $35M after that, or you restructure. And he will be old then too. So while you get a great 2 year rental on an exceptional WR, he leaves just when Justin needs him most. It's an interesting idea, but I dont think the Raiders can afford it, and I dont think the Bears get enough value (2 years of Devante at half price) in exchange for moving down from pick 1 or 2 to pick 9. If Devante was 25, this might all look different.

if the cap were no object, they might trade Devante for a top pick if they believe a QB in the draft is the next Tom Brady. That makes good sense. But when you factor in Devante's contract is only one year old and the cap hit for trading him now, it becomes basically impossible this year. You'd have to gut the whole team even worse than Poles has for us. In fact, Im not even sure they could cut enough guys to get Devante's trade cap hit under the cap at all. It may even be mathematically impossible, or close to it.

of course this is correct. too bad, but reality.

Oh I agree. Artie Lange is an awful human being. But if that had been David Letterman, he would have destroyed Lange, and instead Lange showed what a hollow suit Buck is, and damn if it wasnt hilarious and shocking LOL

LOL did you ever see Artie Lange destroy Joe Buck's talk show on the first episode so bad that they cancelled Buck's show the next day? It's an epic media beat down like none other. Buck did not have the skills to stand toe to toe with comedians. If you dont like Joe Buck, you will love this. and Michael Irvin with the perfect comment LOL

In other words, when you said "If the Adams trade is labeled as "post Jun 1st" then LV carries just $7.8mil in dead cap space for each of the next 5 years. Or the length of their rookie QB contract." That is the part that is incorrect. When you said "the Bears would carry Adams with cap hits of: $14.5 mil and then $25mil in 2024. He'd never see the $44mil in 2025 but we'd be free to renegotiate if we wanted, or just cut him " that was 100% correct.

Oh and re-reading, the dead cap money doesnt go across five years - that's the whole point Im making. If it goes as a June 1st cut, then it splits in half and kills 2023 and 2024 caps. Ill lay it out here for everyone who might be confused (not saying you are!) If you sign a player to a 5 year, $100 Million dollar deal that includes a $50 Million guarantee (aka signing bonus), then the team cuts a check to the player for $60 Million in year one, and $10 Million in years 2 thru 5. For example. The thing is, no one can afford a $60M cap hit, so the league lets you spread that money across the life of the deal as far as the cap is concerned. So from the caps point of view, its 5 years at $20M each ($10M salary and the $50M signing bonus spread across five years) BUT if you trade or cut that player, you no longer need to pay the player the salary portion of their deal, and the team that gets the players takes that on, the guaranteed money. But the $50M that they were going to count across five years suddenly becomes due in that year. And the Raiders would have to pay all of it at once. Now of course they already paid the dollars to the player, but the cap hit would happen all at once, no longer spread out over the 5 years. From the Bears point of view, it'd be a GREAT deal. Devante would only count half his value against the cap (only the salary) and we could cut him at ANY time with no ill effects (since we arent responsible for any of the guaranteed money on the cap). It was the same deal for us with Mack. He had a huge contract, and because we traded him, we had to eat all that guaranteed money against our cap all in this year. And keep in mind, this wasnt year two of Macks deal. That's the point. We had to wait, and it still killed our cap this year. Thats why we couldnt get any good free agents this year. When a player gets a long term deal with big guaranteed money, it makes them impossible to trade or cut for a few years.

All of this makes sense. I agree with you. The point I'm making is that the remaining cap hit on Adams would accelerate and ALL become due on the Raiders 2023 cap. It would gut them. Im not saying the wasted money matters - it doesnt I agree, sunk costs and all of that. It's what it would do to their cap next year that makes it impossible.

for sure, if it's an alternate broadcast, fine. I was just using it as an example of where the NFL is putting its priorities, and that's why coaches have to stop and talk to sideline reporters when they only have 12 minutes to make adjustments. It's also why we cant see the offense break the huddle and approach the LOS.

I think the NFL is so interested in making a spectacle of the game that they forget the game. Witness the Nikelodeon slime graphic nonsense. Coaches need halftime to prepare. Worse, they are always zoomed in on some guys face, or someone on the sidelines, and we miss the formation and motion on a lot of plays. When I yell at the TV about it I call it "winning emmys" as in "Stop winning emmys and show me the g-damned play!" If turning the NFL into WWE would make them more $ theyd do it. THe problem is, they dont understnad what an amazing thing they already have, and they might expand viewership short term, but it is the integrity of the game that has brought it to the level it is it, not more mascots, closeups and personal stories from the players while the game is going on.

yes, he is a zone CB, so he should fit in well to our system!

amen

actually Devante would be very cap friendly for us, coming at basically half price. The problem is the raiders would have all his guaranteed money accelerate against their cap right away. If you sign a player to a long term deal big money deal, you cant afford to trade them the next year. We even had to wait a couple years before trading Mack and it was still a cap destroying move for this year. Remember the guaranteed money stays against the cap of the team that signed the contract and doesnt go to new team with the player. ANd where before that guaranteed money was spread across the years of the deal, if you trade the guy, it all comes due that year. (or over two years for a June first cut) - LV cant afford to trade Devante this year.

The Raiders just signed Devante to a deal last year. The cap hit to them, to trade him would be too much to even consider. I dont think they can even do it, no matter all the other arguments for and against?

oh GOOD! You guys are right! I was confused. More power to Poles!

I'm liking a lot of what Poles has done, but I think this was a mistake. Luckily, we didn't win the bidding. I like to hope he was learning info, or trying to jack up the price for someone else. Doing due diligence etc. But if he really meant to sign Wilson, it was a mistake. We didnt get him, so i cant blame Poles for it. Like I said, I dont know what his intentions were, how serious he was, etc. But this would have been a disaster. We will know more after Free Agency and the draft.

right. you lose two years of his rookie contract, but you get a guy with 2 years experience. It's like you drafted him two years ago with this years pick. It's not so bad at all. The real question in all of this, which will make this a great trade or a terrible one, is what kind of WR Claypool will be for us. If he is great, Poles is a genius, if he sucks, it's a real bad move. He has the traits and has shown it on film. let's hope our coaches can get him there. If they do, and he dominates, the 2nd round pick is no problem.

in the abstract, we paid too much. But given the lack of Free Agent WRs, and blue chip WRs in the draft, it makes more sense. And Claypool can still develop into a stud. I won't count that chicken while it's still an egg, but it's not a given that he is a flop either. Maybe his slowness to develop will cause Poles to get another high value WR and then when Claypool arrives, we could have an excellent WR room?

yup

are you talking about the kid from TCU?

oh yeah, I agree

I think more than 5 Free Agents! But your overall point is right on, and it is the kind of sustainable plan that allows franchises to be competitive year in and out, even as the players change over time. Finally.

I fully agree. If we do this right, we wont ever have to again.

ty, yes thats what I thought. They need to win one more to make todays win mean anything.