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

[mr_irie1]

Kempski tweeted that the Eagles are set to gain another $4.4 million this year after June 1st from the Brooks and Cox deals.

[paco]

17 minutes ago, mr_irie1 said:

Kempski tweeted that the Eagles are set to gain another $4.4 million this year after June 1st from the Brooks and Cox deals.

Do you have the tweet?  I went on his page and didn't see it.

 

Reason I ask is that by making Brooks a post June 1st retirement, that's roughly 10 million more for this years cap right there.  I wonder if there was some additional bonus\etc that we were not aware of?

[MillerTime]

1 hour ago, paco said:

Do you have the tweet?  I went on his page and didn't see it.

 

Reason I ask is that by making Brooks a post June 1st retirement, that's roughly 10 million more for this years cap right there.  I wonder if there was some additional bonus\etc that we were not aware of?

 

[paco]

31 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

 

Thank you.  So they aren't looking at it from a 2022 perspective with the dead money shifting, rather, an overall impact of the cap

Quote

Brooks was originally scheduled to count for $19,439,235 on the 2022 salary cap. The Eagles would have been left with $15,736,472 in dead money with an outright release and/or retirement prior to June 1. However, they will spread out his dead money hit over two seasons ($5,939,235 in 2022, and $9,797,237 in 2023) by keeping him on the roster until after June 1 (contract details via OTC).

Shortly before Brooks' retirement, the Eagles lowered his salary from $13.4 million to the veteran minimum of $1.2 million. That lowered his cap number from the $19.4 million cited above to around $7.1 million. When the Eagles place Brooks on the Reserve/Retired List (again, likely on Wednesday), his veteran minimum salary of $1.2 million will come off the books.

 

So, basically a big old nothingburger.

[Aerolithe_Lion]

15 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Apples and oranges situation.  That team had a strong group of players in their prime and complemented them nicely with some players and there were career years by over half a dozen guys, not the least of which was both QBs.  This team doesn't have even 5 players in their prime that would approach that team's level.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, pedantics dictates that I think we can find 5…

 

Mailata over Vaitai

Hargrave over Jernigan (ESPECIALLY post-extension, down the stretch Jernigan)

Josh Sweat over Vinny Curry? Hmm, yeah I’ll take Sweat over Curry

Bradberry and Slay over Mills and Darby

Bradham moved inside when Hicks went down right? So it’s Reddick vs Kendricks or Reddick vs Goode. I’ll take Reddick there. Then it’s White vs either, White vs Kendricks is an interesting one as I’m a big Kendricks guy, but White is obvious better than Goode.

Devonta Smith over Torrey Smith. I am very much against anointing DeVonta this early, but TS was memorably a nonfactor on that team. 

That’s about it as far as starters. I think at least 5 can be acquiesced to out of there

[Iggles_Phan]

17 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

While I agree with your overall sentiment, pedantics dictates that I think we can find 5…

 

Mailata over Vaitai

Hargrave over Jernigan (ESPECIALLY post-extension, down the stretch Jernigan)

Josh Sweat over Vinny Curry? Hmm, yeah I’ll take Sweat over Curry

Bradberry and Slay over Mills and Darby

Bradham moved inside when Hicks went down right? So it’s Reddick vs Kendricks or Reddick vs Goode. I’ll take Reddick there. Then it’s White vs either, White vs Kendricks is an interesting one as I’m a big Kendricks guy, but White is obvious better than Goode.

Devonta Smith over Torrey Smith. I am very much against anointing DeVonta this early, but TS was memorably a nonfactor on that team. 

That’s about it as far as starters. I think at least 5 can be acquiesced to out of there

Vaitai was an injury replacement for Peters.  Peters in 2017 was better than Mailata now.

Hargrave wouldn't be competing against Jernigan.  Hargrave would be competing against 2017 Cox.   I'd give the edge to Cox in 2017.  And today's Cox would be compared to Jernigan.  I'd take 2017 Jernigan over 2022 Cox.

Sweat vs. Curry is outside the realm of this discussion.  Sweat versus Curry?  Very different roles for them.  Curry was a run stopper who came off the field for Long or Barnett.  Long in 2017 was 4 FF, 5 sacks, and 19 QB hits.  Sweat in 2022 1 FF, 7.5 sacks and 13 QB hits.  Tough to put one over the other.  Maybe a push.

Bradberry and Slay over Mills and Darby is a given.  Absolutely. There's 2.

You could go WRs over that crop, but that offense was very TE heavy, so the stats are lower for the WRs than might have been otherwise.  But, even going with the starting 2... that's still only 4.  

 

[Connecticut Eagle]

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Vaitai was an injury replacement for Peters.  Peters in 2017 was better than Mailata now.

Hargrave wouldn't be competing against Jernigan.  Hargrave would be competing against 2017 Cox.   I'd give the edge to Cox in 2017.  And today's Cox would be compared to Jernigan.  I'd take 2017 Jernigan over 2022 Cox.

Sweat vs. Curry is outside the realm of this discussion.  Sweat versus Curry?  Very different roles for them.  Curry was a run stopper who came off the field for Long or Barnett.  Long in 2017 was 4 FF, 5 sacks, and 19 QB hits.  Sweat in 2022 1 FF, 7.5 sacks and 13 QB hits.  Tough to put one over the other.  Maybe a push.

Bradberry and Slay over Mills and Darby is a given.  Absolutely. There's 2.

You could go WRs over that crop, but that offense was very TE heavy, so the stats are lower for the WRs than might have been otherwise.  But, even going with the starting 2... that's still only 4.  

I am not going to go to mattresses with you on this.

But you are comparing 2017 results to 2022 expectations.

Think about what our expectations were for 2017, coming off a 7-9 record.

[Aerolithe_Lion]

17 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Vaitai was an injury replacement for Peters.  Peters in 2017 was better than Mailata now.

Hargrave wouldn't be competing against Jernigan.  Hargrave would be competing against 2017 Cox.   I'd give the edge to Cox in 2017.  And today's Cox would be compared to Jernigan.  I'd take 2017 Jernigan over 2022 Cox.

Sweat vs. Curry is outside the realm of this discussion.  Sweat versus Curry?  Very different roles for them.  Curry was a run stopper who came off the field for Long or Barnett.  Long in 2017 was 4 FF, 5 sacks, and 19 QB hits.  Sweat in 2022 1 FF, 7.5 sacks and 13 QB hits.  Tough to put one over the other.  Maybe a push.

Bradberry and Slay over Mills and Darby is a given.  Absolutely. There's 2.

You could go WRs over that crop, but that offense was very TE heavy, so the stats are lower for the WRs than might have been otherwise.  But, even going with the starting 2... that's still only 4.  

 

Are we debating the 2017 preseason depth chart? At the time we only knew that team from what they did in 2016, and their expectations were lower than right now. Or are we comparing our current depth to the eventual SB team?

 

Peters was the training-camp-on-paper LT, Vaitai was the results LT. Even with Peters being better than Vaitai, to say he was our 2017 blindside is not true

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Peters was the training-camp-on-paper LT, Vaitai was the results LT. Even if Peters was better than Vaitai, to say he was our 2017 blindside is categorically false

It was about 50/50.   Do you know that Mailata will play all the games this year?  I don't know that.

[Aerolithe_Lion]

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

It was about 50/50.   Do you know that Mailata will play all the games this year?  I don't know that.

No one knows that, but that’s what you get for trying to compare a completed season to a season that hasn’t even happened. "This team doesn't have even 5 players in their prime that would approach that team's level.”
We know for a fact that Peters played in 7 games and Vaitai started 13, including every playoff game. Peters was not a participant on the team that made the SB run.

 

 

If your intent was never to compare the 2022 team to the 2017 SB team, then who were you intending to compare them too? The preseason team that everyone thought would struggle to win 10 games? At that point when Peters was still a factor, from the limited perception of post-2016 season, this team is comparable. Just as we really have no idea if this team goes 6-11 or 11-6.

[Iggles_Phan]

40 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

No one knows that, but that’s what you get for trying to compare a completed season to a season that hasn’t even happened. "This team doesn't have even 5 players in their prime that would approach that team's level.”
We know for a fact that Peters played in 7 games and Vaitai started 13, including every playoff game. Peters was not a participant on the team that made the SB run.

 

 

If your intent was never to compare the 2022 team to the 2017 SB team, then who were you intending to compare them too? The preseason team that everyone thought would struggle to win 10 games? At that point when Peters was still a factor, from the limited perception of post-2016 season, this team is comparable. Just as we really have no idea if this team goes 6-11 or 11-6.

I'm talking about the on-paper going into 2017 versus on-paper 2022.  Not sure why that's hard to understand.   Whatever.  5, 6 it's still not close to the same level of talent on the team.  This team doesn't have the studs (which is what I was meaning) in their prime that that team had.

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I am not going to go to mattresses with you on this.

But you are comparing 2017 results to 2022 expectations.

Think about what our expectations were for 2017, coming off a 7-9 record.

2017 expectations:  Cox was a stud.  As was Jenkins, Kelce, Johnson, Brooks and Peters.  Wentz was 'the future' and a helluva lot better passer in 2016 than was Hurts in 2021.  The TEs were way better than this group.  The WRs were expected to be a massive upgrade after adding Jeffery and to a lesser extent Smith (whom they were reportedly interested in adding prior to end of 2016).

 

But, yeah... the talent was a lot better on paper heading into the 2017 season than the talent on paper for this year.  The records are another thing altogether.  The 2016 schedule wasn't full of the weakest of the weak, and the Eagles actually held their own against some tough teams in 2016, rather than getting pretty much trounced by every single team that made the playoffs.  The 2016 SOS for the Eagles was actually the toughest in the NFL (0.559) vs. 2021 30th in the NFL ahead of only the Washingteam and Dallas (0.464).  That's a dramatically different scenario.  They took Dallas to OT (they were the #1 seed), they beat the Giants once (#6 seed), they beat the Steelers (#3 seed in AFC).  I'd say expectations were that the 2017 Eagles should be pushing hard for a playoff birth, and could win the division.  What we got was unexpected, but I felt much better about the team going into 2017 than I do about this team in 2022.  And that's not revisionist history.  This team benefitted from a super easy schedule and an expanded playoff tournament to get to a 9-8 record and make the playoffs.  They had no business being there.  They weren't good enough to earn it.  2016 team earned that 7-9 record, and had 3 wins against playoff teams, while playing some others very tough.  Much different in terms of the play on the field, and the actual outcome in games.  

 

But, I would also like to move on from this conversation.  I think the 2017 team was much more talented than this team, and it was much younger.  This team is much older and doesn't have the same depth that that team did.   We'll squeeze another year out of Kelce, hope to get another year out of Johnson and have a wide open competition at RG.  The only real comparable piece along the OL for 2017 to 2022 is that LG was pretty wide open going into that season as well.  I guess you could also compare having Vaitai to come of the bench at LT to having Dillard as well.

[pallidrone]

22 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

2017 expectations:  Cox was a stud.  As was Jenkins, Kelce, Johnson, Brooks and Peters.  Wentz was 'the future' and a helluva lot better passer in 2016 than was Hurts in 2021.  The TEs were way better than this group.  The WRs were expected to be a massive upgrade after adding Jeffery and to a lesser extent Smith (whom they were reportedly interested in adding prior to end of 2016).

 

But, yeah... the talent was a lot better on paper heading into the 2017 season than the talent on paper for this year.  The records are another thing altogether.  The 2016 schedule wasn't full of the weakest of the weak, and the Eagles actually held their own against some tough teams in 2016, rather than getting pretty much trounced by every single team that made the playoffs.  The 2016 SOS for the Eagles was actually the toughest in the NFL (0.559) vs. 2021 30th in the NFL ahead of only the Washingteam and Dallas (0.464).  That's a dramatically different scenario.  They took Dallas to OT (they were the #1 seed), they beat the Giants once (#6 seed), they beat the Steelers (#3 seed in AFC).  I'd say expectations were that the 2017 Eagles should be pushing hard for a playoff birth, and could win the division.  What we got was unexpected, but I felt much better about the team going into 2017 than I do about this team in 2022.  And that's not revisionist history.  This team benefitted from a super easy schedule and an expanded playoff tournament to get to a 9-8 record and make the playoffs.  They had no business being there.  They weren't good enough to earn it.  2016 team earned that 7-9 record, and had 3 wins against playoff teams, while playing some others very tough.  Much different in terms of the play on the field, and the actual outcome in games.  

 

But, I would also like to move on from this conversation.  I think the 2017 team was much more talented than this team, and it was much younger.  This team is much older and doesn't have the same depth that that team did.   We'll squeeze another year out of Kelce, hope to get another year out of Johnson and have a wide open competition at RG.  The only real comparable piece along the OL for 2017 to 2022 is that LG was pretty wide open going into that season as well.  I guess you could also compare having Vaitai to come of the bench at LT to having Dillard as well.

How is that possible? That 2017 team was the 25th oldest team in the league with an average age of 26.4.

[Procus]

Doesn't seem that long ago that the Eagles were roasted for having too much cap space every year.  After the Dream Team debacle and Chip Kelly's fumbling of the cap, it seemed like the organizational philosophy shifted in large part to being less concerned with having a cushion of cap space. 

[Iggles_Phan]

59 minutes ago, Procus said:

Doesn't seem that long ago that the Eagles were roasted for having too much cap space every year.  After the Dream Team debacle and Chip Kelly's fumbling of the cap, it seemed like the organizational philosophy shifted in large part to being less concerned with having a cushion of cap space. 

And in large part that Banner was ousted in favor of Roseman.   Dream Team was 2011.  Banner left the following June.  

[paco]

2 hours ago, Procus said:

Doesn't seem that long ago that the Eagles were roasted for having too much cap space every year.  After the Dream Team debacle and Chip Kelly's fumbling of the cap, it seemed like the organizational philosophy shifted in large part to being less concerned with having a cushion of cap space. 

Back then there was not nearly as much info available. Draft and FA would end and we would hear "The Eagles are XXXX under the cap” and that was it.  But then during the season Banner would re-up folks before they hit FA (sometimes multiple years ahead) with front loaded contracts to eat up the remaining space.  We never saw the final numbers but I bet they were closer to using it all than most think

[HazletonEagle]

17 minutes ago, paco said:

Back then there was not nearly as much info available. Draft and FA would end and we would hear "The Eagles are XXXX under the cap” and that was it.  But then during the season Banner would re-up folks before they hit FA (sometimes multiple years ahead) with front loaded contracts to eat up the remaining space.  We never saw the final numbers but I bet they were closer to using it all than most think

Currently void years are all the rage. But back then NLTBEs were the big thing. Those contact numbers were inflated by bonuses that they knew a player would never earn. 

When that money wasn't paid out, it created cap space that they were able to roll in to the next year. 

 

I think years ago the NFL changed rules about NLTBEs. I think they're around,  but not as good of a loophole anymore. 

[NOTW]

Howie will always keep them under the cap, and extend/restructure (kick the can down the road) to make moves as needed.  For me the issues were the bad contracts to some of the guys they should have let go or signed to shorter term deals and giving Wentz a big contract prematurely which ended up a bad decision.  He has mostly fixed all those issues and admitted he was trying to hold onto the players from the SB team too long.  The team got younger and this offseason he was able to make some acquisitions so seems back on the right track. 

If they want to keep Hurts long term and pay him, he'll have decisions to make.  It won't be "doom" or "hell" but it will require more restructuring. But if the core of the team is set and they just need a couple pieces then you try to add pieces to contend. 

Drafting better helps the situation overall when you have backups that can step in and start to let a free agent walk.  Example replace Cox and Graham with Davis and Sweat.  He drafted so poorly for years that he kept extending older guys who were underperforming or getting paid to sit on IR.  It's been a positive offseason so hopefully everything is moving in the right direction.

[Procus]

1 hour ago, paco said:

Back then there was not nearly as much info available. Draft and FA would end and we would hear "The Eagles are XXXX under the cap” and that was it.  But then during the season Banner would re-up folks before they hit FA (sometimes multiple years ahead) with front loaded contracts to eat up the remaining space.  We never saw the final numbers but I bet they were closer to using it all than most think

I guess that was the difference.  Back then, the team used up its cap currently by paying young players now, and charging those payments up front.  Today, it looks like there's a lot more restructuring and kicking the can down the road.  Is that an accurate statement?

[Guest]

@paco Cox June 1 gymnastics and Brooks retirement now on the books.

52 million in dead cap this year.

25 million in dead cap so far for next year, which is actually 50 million when you account for all the dummy year stuff.

[Iggles_Phan]

46 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@paco Cox June 1 gymnastics and Brooks retirement now on the books.

52 million in dead cap this year.

25 million in dead cap so far for next year, which is actually 50 million when you account for all the dummy year stuff.

Not that that's a problem... 

[pallidrone]

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Not that that's a problem... 

Not in the least bit. 

[Iggles_Phan]

7 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

Not in the least bit. 

Yeah... that's a false narrative.  The dead cap does impact the team, whether you want to accept that or not.

[pallidrone]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:22 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Yeah... that's a false narrative.  The dead cap does impact the team, whether you want to accept that or not.

Of course, a dead cap number impacts the team. It just does not impact the team as negatively as people make it out to be. 

In fact, I could argue that having a ton of cap space is a bad thing. It means you are not investing in the players on your team and have probably been bad at drafting and evaluating talent.

[HazletonEagle]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:22 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Yeah... that's a false narrative.  The dead cap does impact the team, whether you want to accept that or not.

We probably have more now with all that dead cap, than we could have if we just stuck to the current years salary cap and had no dead cap.

It allows you do do MORE. Not less.