Lorenzon Alexander and Jasper Brinkley's contract numbers per Jurecki

[kerouac9]

Thanks for the info. So the owners trying to protect themselves against themselves?

I don't think so. I think it's owners realizing what a smokin' deal they have on the rookie wage scale, and locking it in.

Seattle and Indy can spend ungodly sums of money over the next three years because they have very good quarterbacks who are making 1/3 of the salary they'd command on the open market.

The entirety of rookie (first round?) contracts are guaranteed, so players that bust out have some protection, but pretty much everyone except busted draft picks and NFL owners got monumentally screwed by the new CBA.

NFL players must have very, very poor financial management to have folded so easily during the lockout.

 

[Finito]

Wilson was being "phased out" to the tune of participating in 85% of the defensive snaps instead of 99% of the defensive snaps. He played a majority of defensive snaps in the last five or six games of the 2012 season. That story is way overplayed.

Meanwhile, safties (the area where we've unquestionable downgraded) are going to be on the field 90% of the time, while the #3 corner position is going to be on the field maybe half the time. So if we've taken a huge step back at a position that's more important and a marginal improvement at a position that's less important, how are we better off?

Our run defense wasn't that bad last year. T19th in YPA, 0.1 YPA from being among the top half in the NFL. As I've repeated exhaustively, Wilson, Gay, Lenon, Rhodes, and Toler were not the problem with the run defense. The problem with the run defense was putting two down linemen out there in downs, and being in the position where teams were playing against the clock once they got up by 6 points.

Why pay anyone above the minimum salary if you're not going to be competing for a championship this year (trick question: we're hardly paying anyone on the roster that we don't have to under Graves/Whis contracts above minimum salary this year)? Rhodes was worth keeping on the roster--even at an expense of $6M--because he improved the quality of the product on the field.

I'd be interested in paying $55 to see Kerry Rhodes play football (in part). I am not interested in paying $55 to see Yeremiah Bell play football.

It's hilarious to me how many fans are thinking that somehow this defense is going to get better by taking out a handful of established veterans and adding in a bunch of guys the rest of the NFL believed weren't worth better than one-year contracts.

Jesus ****ing Christ. Rhodes did not want to restructure or extend his contact. According to Jurecki he said he wanted to test the free agent market he had no plans on coming back. Don't wanna be here? Good bye

Fact is we haven't lost anyone that can't be replaced. There are legit reasons why Wilson, Rhodes and Gay are gone.

 

[Duckjake]

Jesus ****ing Christ. Rhodes did not want to restructure or extend his contact. According to Jurecki he said he wanted to test the free agent market he had no plans on coming back. Don't wanna be here? Good bye

Fact is we haven't lost anyone that can't be replaced. There are legit reasons why Wilson, Rhodes and Gay are gone.

Is this a new post or did someone bump this from March 2010?

Doesn't matter though if they can be adequately replaced or not if we don't have a top QB. DWash for Dansby. Campbell for Smith. Rhodes for Rolle. Roberts for Boldin. 18 and 30.

 

[kerouac9]

Jesus ****ing Christ. Rhodes did not want to restructure or extend his contact. According to Jurecki he said he wanted to test the free agent market he had no plans on coming back. Don't wanna be here? Good bye

Fact is we haven't lost anyone that can't be replaced. There are legit reasons why Wilson, Rhodes and Gay are gone.

Would you feel that way if Larry Fitzgerald said that he was done with rebuilding the QB position and didn't have enough say on the hiring of Bruce Arians, and asked for a trade?

Rhodes didn't ask for his release; he just wanted to play out his contract. It would be different if we'd re-invested that money to make other areas of the team better.

But we re-invested that money in paying off Whis's buyout. Something only a Bidwill could get behind.

If Rhodes was so easy to replace, someone would make an affirmative case that we're better off with Yeremiah Bell or Rashad Johnson. No one has even offered that, because they're clearly inferior players.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Wilson was being "phased out" to the tune of participating in 85% of the defensive snaps instead of 99% of the defensive snaps. He played a majority of defensive snaps in the last five or six games of the 2012 season. That story is way overplayed.

Meanwhile, safties (the area where we've unquestionable downgraded) are going to be on the field 90% of the time, while the #3 corner position is going to be on the field maybe half the time. So if we've taken a huge step back at a position that's more important and a marginal improvement at a position that's less important, how are we better off?

Our run defense wasn't that bad last year. T19th in YPA, 0.1 YPA from being among the top half in the NFL. As I've repeated exhaustively, Wilson, Gay, Lenon, Rhodes, and Toler were not the problem with the run defense. The problem with the run defense was putting two down linemen out there in downs, and being in the position where teams were playing against the clock once they got up by 6 points.

Why pay anyone above the minimum salary if you're not going to be competing for a championship this year (trick question: we're hardly paying anyone on the roster that we don't have to under Graves/Whis contracts above minimum salary this year)? Rhodes was worth keeping on the roster--even at an expense of $6M--because he improved the quality of the product on the field.

I'd be interested in paying $55 to see Kerry Rhodes play football (in part). I am not interested in paying $55 to see Yeremiah Bell play football.

It's hilarious to me how many fans are thinking that somehow this defense is going to get better by taking out a handful of established veterans and adding in a bunch of guys the rest of the NFL believed weren't worth better than one-year contracts.

According to Arians the Cards will be in the nickle at least 60% of the time. Also 1 of those 2 corners we added will be on the field likely over 90% of the time as well.

 

[Finito]

Would you feel that way if Larry Fitzgerald said that he was done with rebuilding the QB position and didn't have enough say on the hiring of Bruce Arians, and asked for a trade?

Rhodes didn't ask for his release; he just wanted to play out his contract. It would be different if we'd re-invested that money to make other areas of the team better.

But we re-invested that money in paying off Whis's buyout. Something only a Bidwill could get behind.

If Rhodes was so easy to replace, someone would make an affirmative case that we're better off with Yeremiah Bell or Rashad Johnson. No one has even offered that, because they're clearly inferior players.

First of all your comparing Larry Fitzgerald to Rhodes, really?

Yes I would if you don't want to be here good bye, simple as that.

It was made clear he wanted to test the free agent market when his contact was up. How much you wanna bet he's not gonna get the money the cardinals were willing to pay him. you would think Rhodes was Ed Reed in his prime the way people are acting. How many pro bowls Kerry Rhodes been to? That's right none. Bottom line he's good far from great.

If Rhodes was so great teams would of been all over him the second he was let go, I notice he's still out of work.

 

[kerouac9]

Take a look at what the Green Bay Packers did with Jermichael Finley. Finley hasn't yet completely cashed in on his immense potential, but he was due $8M+ in the last year of his deal. Instead of cutting him, the Packers slightly overpaid him because they wanted to keep consistency in a unit that was already losing Greg Jennings and Donald Driver.

Imagine that. There's a reason that Green Bay is perennially competitive and the Arizona Cardinals are perennially drafting in the top half of the first round.

 

[Finito]

Take a look at what the Green Bay Packers did with Jermichael Finley. Finley hasn't yet completely cashed in on his immense potential, but he was due $8M+ in the last year of his deal. Instead of cutting him, the Packers slightly overpaid him because they wanted to keep consistency in a unit that was already losing Greg Jennings and Donald Driver.

Imagine that. There's a reason that Green Bay is perennially competitive and the Arizona Cardinals are perennially drafting in the top half of the first round.

I would have to say Green Bay's success had a little more to do with Aaron Rodgers than jermicheal Finley. If I'm not mistaken Green Bay also let to go of Charles Woodson go, is he better than Rhodes?

I'm sorry what don't you get he didn't want to be here. He was already getting 6 million a year he was already being overpaid. He turned down an extension for Christ sakes. Jurecki said he made it very known he wanted to test the open market. Well hey good luck with that. Like I said bet he doesn't get the money or the years Arizona was offering

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Wilson was being "phased out" to the tune of participating in 85% of the defensive snaps instead of 99% of the defensive snaps. He played a majority of defensive snaps in the last five or six games of the 2012 season. That story is way overplayed.

Meanwhile, safties (the area where we've unquestionable downgraded) are going to be on the field 90% of the time, while the #3 corner position is going to be on the field maybe half the time. So if we've taken a huge step back at a position that's more important and a marginal improvement at a position that's less important, how are we better off?

Our run defense wasn't that bad last year. T19th in YPA, 0.1 YPA from being among the top half in the NFL. As I've repeated exhaustively, Wilson, Gay, Lenon, Rhodes, and Toler were not the problem with the run defense. The problem with the run defense was putting two down linemen out there in downs, and being in the position where teams were playing against the clock once they got up by 6 points.

Why pay anyone above the minimum salary if you're not going to be competing for a championship this year (trick question: we're hardly paying anyone on the roster that we don't have to under Graves/Whis contracts above minimum salary this year)? Rhodes was worth keeping on the roster--even at an expense of $6M--because he improved the quality of the product on the field.

I'd be interested in paying $55 to see Kerry Rhodes play football (in part). I am not interested in paying $55 to see Yeremiah Bell play football.

It's hilarious to me how many fans are thinking that somehow this defense is going to get better by taking out a handful of established veterans and adding in a bunch of guys the rest of the NFL believed weren't worth better than one-year contracts.

We'll see what the rest of the NFL thinks of Rhodes and if he's even worth a 1 year contract.

I thought I read somewhere that teams are playing 3+ WR sets over 60% of the time. So, playing 3-4 CB's is going to be important.

I didn't say we took a "huge step back" at safety, you did.

Where did I say to not pay anyone over the minimum? I said Rhodes isn't worth 6 mill and it's bad business to pay someone who is not worth it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many, if any, safeties that are making base salaries of 6 mill. Dashon Goldson, a better player and was an UFA, received 4.5 mill on the open market.

I looked it up. Polamalu, Eric Berry, Rolle, and Jarius Byrd(FTag) would be the only safeties making more than Rhodes if we had kept him at that contract.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Would you feel that way if Larry Fitzgerald said that he was done with rebuilding the QB position and didn't have enough say on the hiring of Bruce Arians, and asked for a trade?

Rhodes didn't ask for his release; he just wanted to play out his contract. It would be different if we'd re-invested that money to make other areas of the team better.

But we re-invested that money in paying off Whis's buyout. Something only a Bidwill could get behind.

If Rhodes was so easy to replace, someone would make an affirmative case that we're better off with Yeremiah Bell or Rashad Johnson. No one has even offered that, because they're clearly inferior players.

Really?

This is along the lines of the specious argument that if a government invests in "X" it's therefore at the expense of "Y".

Whiz's contract adjusted by his new deal in SD is part of the overall football operations budget. If at the end of the off-season, we have 53 players whose total compensation, plus dead money, plus contingency nears the CAP, etc. then the money was invested in the team.

We don't have the figures, but I would guess that total compensation for coaches this year is greater than last. Something a Bidwill supported.

 

[Chopper0080]

I don't think so. I think it's owners realizing what a smokin' deal they have on the rookie wage scale, and locking it in.

Seattle and Indy can spend ungodly sums of money over the next three years because they have very good quarterbacks who are making 1/3 of the salary they'd command on the open market.

The entirety of rookie (first round?) contracts are guaranteed, so players that bust out have some protection, but pretty much everyone except busted draft picks and NFL owners got monumentally screwed by the new CBA.

NFL players must have very, very poor financial management to have folded so easily during the lockout.

This was the entire strategy behind the owners lockout. The top % of NFL players had nothing to worry about financially, but that group is also not the majority. The majority are living on less than 2 mil per season and get the majority of their pay in game checks from Sept to Jan. They have to make that income work over the entire rest of the year when they are generally not getting paid. I'm not saying it is impossible to live on less than 2 mil per year, but the majority of these players fail to manage their money accordingly. They want to live a lifestyle that is not appropriate for their level if income. The owners banked on this and the players folded.

 

[kerouac9]

Really?

This is along the lines of the specious argument that if a government invests in "X" it's therefore at the expense of "Y".

Whiz's contract adjusted by his new deal in SD is part of the overall football operations budget. If at the end of the off-season, we have 53 players whose total compensation, plus dead money, plus contingency nears the CAP, etc. then the money was invested in the team.

We don't have the figures, but I would guess that total compensation for coaches this year is greater than last. Something a Bidwill supported.

And the Cards created that dead money not out of necessity, but out of convenience. There was no reason to cut anyone besides clearly underperforming players in Stewart Bradley and Kevin Kolb. All other roster cuts have been entirely financially motivated.

It shouldn't be shocking that the dead money/"contingency" money that the Cards don't spend will come very close to whatever buyout the Cards have for Whis and his staff. Of course we'll spend more on coaches this year--we're paying for two entire coaching staffs!

 

[kerouac9]

I didn't say we took a "huge step back" at safety, you did.

Okay. So are we more talented at safety now with Bell/Johnson/Bethel/possible draft pick than we were three weeks ago with Rhodes/Wilson/Johnson/Bethel?

 

[Chopper0080]

We'll see what the rest of the NFL thinks of Rhodes and if he's even worth a 1 year contract.

I thought I read somewhere that teams are playing 3+ WR sets over 60% of the time. So, playing 3-4 CB's is going to be important.

I didn't say we took a "huge step back" at safety, you did.

Where did I say to not pay anyone over the minimum? I said Rhodes isn't worth 6 mill and it's bad business to pay someone who is not worth it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many, if any, safeties that are making base salaries of 6 mill. Dashon Goldson, a better player and was an UFA, received 4.5 mill on the open market.

I looked it up. Polamalu, Eric Berry, Rolle, and Jarius Byrd(FTag) would be the only safeties making more than Rhodes if we had kept him at that contract.

I agree he is not WORTH 6 mil for the production that he generates, BUT the point is that unless you replace him with someone of equal skill or upgrade another position that plays as much as your starting FS, your team is worse. The benefit we had is Rhodes was playing on the last year of his contract. If we just overpay him for this one year, we have the flexability of drafting his replacement and giving that player a year to develop without losing anything in terms of productivity.

I believe it is very smart to overpay players that are on your roster unless you are able to sign a player of equal talent for less or upgrade another key position. This is because that player knows your system, has less of an adjustment, and has an established communication level with the other players on the defense.

Maybe Arians and Keim decided that Rhodes would have the same level of adjustment of a player they brought in due to the system. I understand that level of thinking. What I don't understand is why you make that move and then sit on the cap savings rather than using it to upgrade your roster. Maybe they have always planned on using that money to sign Carson Palmer, but it is a huge gamble to bank on another team cutting a player.

 

[GuernseyCard]

And the Cards created that dead money not out of necessity, but out of convenience. There was no reason to cut anyone besides clearly underperforming players in Stewart Bradley and Kevin Kolb. All other roster cuts have been entirely financially motivated.

It shouldn't be shocking that the dead money/"contingency" money that the Cards don't spend will come very close to whatever buyout the Cards have for Whis and his staff. Of course we'll spend more on coaches this year--we're paying for two entire coaching staffs!

Were you not one who was recently arguing at length about re-structured contracts simply putting off major CAP issues to the future? Not something you seemed to approve, although as a chameleon of argument this may have changed. Paying off "dead money' for aging, diminishing assets can be described as a convenience, if you choose to ignore that the piper must be paid at some point within a CAP system that will not increase substantially from year-to-year.

Good to see that you accept that the Bidwill's are not simply pocketing money out of these transactions.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Okay. So are we more talented at safety now with Bell/Johnson/Bethel/possible draft pick than we were three weeks ago with Rhodes/Wilson/Johnson/Bethel?

No we are not at this point.

But, using $$$ as a measure of value, as so many do, do you believe that Rhodes is 4 to 5 times better than Bell?

 

[kerouac9]

Were you not one who was recently arguing at length about re-structured contracts simply putting off major CAP issues to the future? Not something you seemed to approve, although as a chameleon of argument this may have changed. Paying off "dead money' for aging, diminishing assets can be described as a convenience, if you choose to ignore that the piper must be paid at some point within a CAP system that will not increase substantially from year-to-year.

Good to see that you accept that the Bidwill's are not simply pocketing money out of these transactions.

Re-structured contracts DO put off major cap issues into the future. That's not an argument; that's a statement of fact. I'm not coming of my position on that, but I don't really understand how that's germane to the argument of whether it's better to overpay a good player on the last year of his deal versus cutting him, settling for a cheap player of much less talent, and then pocketing the difference.

The Cards already had Rhodes salary in the budget for 2013, and he came off the cap altogether in 2014. These are not arguments; they're statements of fact.

No we are not at this point.

But, using $$$ as a measure of value, as so many do, do you believe that Rhodes is 4 to 5 times better than Bell?

Yes. Rhodes is 4 to 5 times better than Yeremiah Bell. Although I would argue that the measure of value to salary is more of a logarithmic relationship than it is a linear one. Elvis Dumervil isn't four times better than Quentin Groves, but he's probably twice as good.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Re-structured contracts DO put off major cap issues into the future. That's not an argument; that's a statement of fact. I'm not coming of my position on that, but I don't really understand how that's germane to the argument of whether it's better to overpay a good player on the last year of his deal versus cutting him, settling for a cheap player of much less talent, and then pocketing the difference.

The Cards already had Rhodes salary in the budget for 2013, and he came off the cap altogether in 2014. These are not arguments; they're statements of fact.



Yes. Rhodes is 4 to 5 times better than Yeremiah Bell. Although I would argue that the measure of value to salary is more of a logarithmic relationship than it is a linear one. Elvis Dumervil isn't four times better than Quentin Groves, but he's probably twice as good.

You can't say that as fact because we don't kow what Bowles system is going to be. However, Bell does and that gives him value. Bell is going to be the leader back there in acclimating everyone to the new system. I'm not saying Bell is a better player but he does have value.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Okay. So are we more talented at safety now with Bell/Johnson/Bethel/possible draft pick than we were three weeks ago with Rhodes/Wilson/Johnson/Bethel?

Probably not as talented, but I don't think it's going to the dramatic falloff you are predicting.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I agree he is not WORTH 6 mil for the production that he generates, BUT the point is that unless you replace him with someone of equal skill or upgrade another position that plays as much as your starting FS, your team is worse. The benefit we had is Rhodes was playing on the last year of his contract. If we just overpay him for this one year, we have the flexability of drafting his replacement and giving that player a year to develop without losing anything in terms of productivity.

I believe it is very smart to overpay players that are on your roster unless you are able to sign a player of equal talent for less or upgrade another key position. This is because that player knows your system, has less of an adjustment, and has an established communication level with the other players on the defense.

Maybe Arians and Keim decided that Rhodes would have the same level of adjustment of a player they brought in due to the system. I understand that level of thinking. What I don't understand is why you make that move and then sit on the cap savings rather than using it to upgrade your roster. Maybe they have always planned on using that money to sign Carson Palmer, but it is a huge gamble to bank on another team cutting a player.

But Bell knows Bowles system better than Rhodes.

Also, alot of your points coud be made as reason for keeping Kevin Kolb too. My point is there is value to keeping your own players but Rhodes would be ridiculously overpaid at 6mill. I would have no problem keepin him at a lower figure but he wasn't interested in that.

If my choices are vastly overpay a guy for 1 year or bring in a guy who knows the system for a fraction of the cost and help him implement the new defense. Then, unless the former player was a superstar or huge difference maker, which Rhodes is not, I am taking the new guy.

 

[kerouac9]

You can't say that as fact because we don't kow what Bowles system is going to be. However, Bell does and that gives him value. Bell is going to be the leader back there in acclimating everyone to the new system. I'm not saying Bell is a better player but he does have value.

You're putting a lot of eggs in the "Todd Bowles has a complicated system that only a guy who played in it two years ago can explain" basket, aren't you?

Bowles was last a defensive coordinator (before the abomination in Philly) 15 years ago. With Grambling State.

Rhodes is a veteran player who has played in a number of defensive schemes with a number of different terminologies at a very high level. There's no reason to believe that he can't succeed immediately in whatever Parcells/Nolan defense Bowles is ostensibly going to implement.

No reason outside of an a posteriori justification for downgrading at the position to save money to sign nobodies.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

You're putting a lot of eggs in the "Todd Bowles has a complicated system that only a guy who played in it two years ago can explain" basket, aren't you?

Bowles was last a defensive coordinator (before the abomination in Philly) 15 years ago. With Grambling State.

Rhodes is a veteran player who has played in a number of defensive schemes with a number of different terminologies at a very high level. There's no reason to believe that he can't succeed immediately in whatever Parcells/Nolan defense Bowles is ostensibly going to implement.

No reason outside of an a posteriori justification for downgrading at the position to save money to sign nobodies.

Rhodes didn't succeed in the Jets system and was benched. The same system Bell played in last year.

 

[kerouac9]

Rhodes didn't succeed in the Jets system and was benched. The same system Bell played in last year.

Rhodes was 2nd team All-Pro in the Jets system. Rhodes was shipped off because he butted heads with Rex Ryan.

Bell played so well in that Jets system that he was allowed to come here for peanuts while the Jets sit on $12M+ in cap room.

Just coming back on this, Rhodes was "benched" for two games in week 12 and 13 in 2009, when he still played (he never missed a game as a Jet), and he still had 2 INTs in that Week 12 game when he didn't start: http://www.nfl.com/player/kerryrhodes/2506460/gamelogs?season=2009

Yeremiah Bell, on the other hand, had 16 starts in 2013 for the Jets and had exactly 2 passes defensed and 0 INTs. I guess he racked up a lot of tackles though, so maybe he's as good as Pat Tillman.

 

[Finito]

Hopeless

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

The bottom line is that he's not worth 6 mill/year. I bet he gets 1/3 of that, at most, on the open, market and likely on a 1 year deal.