Jump to content

2023: Continued dead cap hell (Currently $54 Million)


paco
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Actually the money given to Barnett and Harris to return is also dead money.  Not sure how then returning lowers the dead cost as it was already sunk.  And Harris did nothing for this team.

Never said it did. They are on the team and need to contribute this year. Barnett is 10M of our cap. If he out produces his 2M cap hit then it’s no longer a sunk cost. Same with Harris. If they don’t then yeah criticize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Never said it did. They are on the team and need to contribute this year. Barnett is 10M of our cap. If he out produces his 2M cap hit then it’s no longer a sunk cost. Same with Harris. If they don’t then yeah criticize. 

I think I'll beat the rush.  They were both wasted roster spots last year.  Not sure how it will improve this year.  The dead part of the cap hit was already sunk cost, no matter how you want to slice it.  And they could have gone a different direction than those two... but chose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think I'll beat the rush.  They were both wasted roster spots last year.  Not sure how it will improve this year.  The dead part of the cap hit was already sunk cost, no matter how you want to slice it.  And they could have gone a different direction than those two... but chose not to.

Yeah I remember people saying the same about Graham. Barnett is only 25 man. 10M for a DE if he produces is good value.

Graham sacks first 5 years: 17 - Next 6 years: 42

Barnett sacks first 5 years: 21.5

Not sure it can improve? History has already shown it can

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MillerTime said:

Yeah I remember people saying the same about Graham. Barnett is only 25 man. 10M for a DE if he produces is good value.

Graham sacks first 5 years: 17 - Next 6 years: 42

Barnett sacks first 5 years: 21.5

Not sure how it can improve? History has already shown it can

Care to compare the rest of the responsibilities each has as a DE?  Or their penalties?   Looking at sacks alone to compare Barnett and Graham shows how uninformed on their play you are.  

#FalseEquivalenceFallacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Care to compare the rest of the responsibilities each has as a DE?  Or their penalties?   Looking at sacks alone to compare Barnett and Graham shows how uninformed on their play you are.  

#FalseEquivalenceFallacy

Tackles: Graham 122, Barnett 147

QB hits: Graham 33, Barnett 76

TFL: Graham 27, Barnett 36

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MillerTime said:

Tackles: Graham 122, Barnett 147

QB hits: Graham 33, Barnett 76

TFL: Graham 27, Barnett 36

🙄

Still playing the stats game, eh?  How many times did Barnett move inside to play DT?   How many personal fouls?  Offsides calls?  And how many times he got sucked into chasing down the line and giving up containment?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Still playing the stats game, eh?  How many times did Barnett move inside to play DT?   How many personal fouls?  Offsides calls?  And how many times he got sucked into chasing down the line and giving up containment?   

You JUST asked me to do that. Are you kidding me? Just seems like you’re being irrational about him now. He outperformed Graham in almost every metric in the first 5 years. Show me where Graham didn’t give up containment in the first 5 years because i remember people complaining about it then too. Yes the penalties are a problem but that’s fixable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MillerTime said:

You JUST asked me to do that. Are you kidding me? Just seems like you’re being irrational about him now. He outperformed Graham in almost every metric in the first 5 years. Show me where Graham didn’t give up containment in the first 5 years because i remember people complaining about it then too. Yes the penalties are a problem but that’s fixable.

Nope.  Compare the rest of the responsibilities does not mean read the stats page.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Nope.  Compare the rest of the responsibilities does not mean read the stats page.  

Well then what did Graham do better other than penalties in his first 5 years? Because the stuff you brought up he wasn’t.

Either way you’re acting like he can’t get any better at 25 and that’s ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Yeah I remember people saying the same about Graham. Barnett is only 25 man. 10M for a DE if he produces is good value.

Graham sacks first 5 years: 17 - Next 6 years: 42

Barnett sacks first 5 years: 21.5

Not sure it can improve? History has already shown it can

Talk about spinning the stats. :lol: In the first 5 years:

Graham games started:  13. 
Barnett games started: 45.  

3.5 times as many starts but only 4.5 more total sacks.  Great point!

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Talk about spinning the stats. :lol: In the first 5 years:

Graham games started:  13. 
Barnett games started: 45.  

:roll:

Graham also got moved to OLB under Chip Kelly for 2 of those years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Talk about spinning the stats. :lol: In the first 5 years:

Graham games started:  13. 
Barnett games started: 45.  

3.5 times as many starts but only 4.5 more total sacks.  Great point!

:roll:

Fair, ill concede. Didn’t look at that. It was a separate argument off a point. Barnett can get better. Dead cap is 7M, new contract 2M. If he produces THIS YEAR like another DE making 10M than the sunk cost of his dead cap is no longer valid. That was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MillerTime said:

Yeah I remember people saying the same about Graham. Barnett is only 25 man. 10M for a DE if he produces is good value.

Graham sacks first 5 years: 17 - Next 6 years: 42

Barnett sacks first 5 years: 21.5

Not sure it can improve? History has already shown it can

Derrick Burgess comes to mind as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MillerTime said:

Fair, ill concede. Didn’t look at that. It was a separate argument off a point. Barnett can get better. Dead cap is 7M, new contract 2M. If he produces THIS YEAR like another DE making 10M than the sunk cost of his dead cap is no longer valid. That was my point.

This team can't wait 7 years for a guy to finally play well, and you can't use a rare outlier like BG as a comparison. Sweat was a 4th round pick drafted a year after Barnett and a better player. Trent Cole a 5th rounder who didn't take years to make a difference. 

There's a reason Barnett got that type of deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Procus said:

Derrick Burgess comes to mind as well.

Burgess always showed flashes. His problem was he was always hurt. Heck even Brandon Graham started his career a little slow because of injuries and position changes. Barnett has also had his injury problems too, but last year it was basically him all year and he could only muster two sacks. Heck after starting 15 games he should luck into at least five sacks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NOTW said:

This team can't wait 7 years for a guy to finally play well, and you can't use a rare outlier like BG as a comparison. Sweat was a 4th round pick drafted a year after Barnett and a better player. Trent Cole a 5th rounder who didn't take years to make a difference. 

There's a reason Barnett got that type of deal.

Sweat has 17.5 sacks after 4 years and last year was the first year he played more than 40% of defensive snaps.  He's developed into what Barnett should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Procus said:

Derrick Burgess comes to mind as well.

You mean the guy that was constantly injured while he was here?  False equivalency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You mean the guy that was constantly injured while he was here?  False equivalency. 

The bar is so low that fans are citing a guy who was constantly injured and a guy who took 7 years to become a decent starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

The bar is so low that fans are citing a guy who was constantly injured and a guy who took 7 years to become a decent starter. 

There was a time that Reggie White and Clyde Simmons were the bar by which DEs were judged in this town.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There was a time that Reggie White and Clyde Simmons were the bar by which DEs were judged in this town.  

I'll take another Trent Cole at least! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You mean the guy that was constantly injured while he was here?  False equivalency. 

BG was constantly injured in his early years with the Eagles.  True equivalency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Procus said:

BG was constantly injured in his early years with the Eagles.  True equivalency.

48 games vs. 29 games played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

48 games vs. 29 games played.

1st rounder vs 3rd rounder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Procus said:

1st rounder vs 3rd rounder

Irrelevant to injury history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There was a time that Reggie White and Clyde Simmons were the bar by which DEs were judged in this town.  

That's what happens when you spend 13 yrs of reaching for fastballs or guys that try real hard. Minus Cole who also was still technically a fastball but, actually worked out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...