Browns - The salary cap thread | Page 2 | Barking Hard

Browns The salary cap thread

I get it stray...but reality is the vast majority of that was NOT this ownership nor this FO. Yes, Mack and Schwartz....but Mack was pretty much out the door years ago...and Schwartz deal still is an enigma. I think the very fact they did not bring in a bunch of aging overpaid FA's speaks to the notion that this FO is going to emphasize having the money on hand to resign their draft picks. Add in a few key pieces when the adding makes sense (ala Collins)...and you get a solid team over 2-3 years....one that can sustain.
 
DawgFan said:
That is going to be HUGE in year 2 and 3 of this regime as they go about retaining all this young talent, and finally spend some bucks on FA's to fill in the gaps for a playoff run.
Click to expand...

YES YES YES.................... IT is going to be ABSOLUTELY HUGE..................to retain this "YOUNG TALENT". I mean, fuck, can you imagine how the Steelers, Cowboys, Patriots and Colts are already salivating at our young talent? Holy, holy fuck, that's all the talking heads or reporting on............. "Are the Browns going to be able to retain all this fucking young talent.

WOW, man, this is a BRILLIANT comment. Hey, at 0 - 16, 0 - 20 soon to be, this fucking young talent is proving itself to be VERY VERY desirable.

Good Chreest, WTF dude, the reason the Browns are so far under the cap is because they have NO FUCKING TALENT. Shit Players = Shit Team, SHit coach, shit FO. That's what being under the cap means. That is what it has always meant............. CHEAP FUCKING OWNERS.
 
No...the reason they are so far under the cap is they are over 1/3rd rookies, and almost 80% of the team is still on their rookie contracts. Rookie contract does not mean no talent...although too many (as we have now) equates to a ton of miscommunication and costly breakdowns....which only coaching and time can correct.

But hey, continue your dichotomy. Oh...other teams have all our great players (Ward/Schwartz/Gipson/Taylor/Sheard/Mack/etc)...well, unless we actually HAVE TALENT, other teams can't steal it.

We have talent, but it needs time to develop and mature. And in 3 years when these rookie contracts come due...the cap will show it.

All I can say is that I am glad this FO and owner seem to be forward thinking instead of believing throwing money at aging vets is the way to championships (see Washington over the past decades)
 
Last edited:
DawgFan said:
I get it stray...but reality is the vast majority of that was NOT this ownership nor this FO. Yes, Mack and Schwartz....but Mack was pretty much out the door years ago...and Schwartz deal still is an enigma. I think the very fact they did not bring in a bunch of aging overpaid FA's speaks to the notion that this FO is going to emphasize having the money on hand to resign their draft picks. Add in a few key pieces when the adding makes sense (ala Collins)...and you get a solid team over 2-3 years....one that can sustain.
Click to expand...

Those are some good points you raise. Kruger was a prime example of an overpriced non impact FA
 
Through all the whining and NM talk about us letting vets go this year....look at what they are doing
Whittner....late signing mid year, sub-par
Kruger...sub-par
Sheard....benched for poor performance
Gabriel....what we knew, decent #3
Gipson...struggling
Benjamin...hurt a ton

There just wasn't this huge talent pool that this FO allowed to slip away.
 
But as we know, that salary floor thing, well to quote Captain Barbossa on the pirate's code, "it's more of a guideline than a rule"


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NFL clubs are required to spend 89% of the cap in cash during a 4-year period. Here is how every team stacks up, per our updated numbers. <a href="https://t.co/FI7Gf2I3OA">pic.twitter.com/FI7Gf2I3OA</a></p>— NFLPA (@NFLPA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/805867703466676224">December 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Bottom spenders: 1) Raiders $491M; 2) Panthers $495M; 3) Patriots $500M; 4) 49ers $514M; 5) Browns $516M; 6) Jaguars $517M. <a href="https://t.co/Rq1tpCOcHu">https://t.co/Rq1tpCOcHu</a></p>— Albert Breer (@AlbertBreer) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/805873168103735296">December 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
DawgFan said:
No...the reason they are so far under the cap is they are over 1/3rd rookies, and almost 80% of the team is still on their rookie contracts. Rookie contract does not mean no talent...although too many (as we have now) equates to a ton of miscommunication and costly breakdowns....which only coaching and time can correct.

But hey, continue your dichotomy. Oh...other teams have all our great players (Ward/Schwartz/Gipson/Taylor/Sheard/Mack/etc)...well, unless we actually HAVE TALENT, other teams can't steal it.

<<We have talent, but it needs time to develop and mature.>>
Yes, the way Rosie O'Donnell needs time to work on her figure. In 3 years, that whore is gonna be HOT.

<<And in 3 years when these rookie contracts come due...the cap will show it.>>

75% - 85% of Rookie players do not make it 3 years in the NFL. According to the NFL Players Association, the average career length of an NFL player is 3.3 years. So, I don't know what fantasy you are pulling out of your ass, but unless De-Pud-Puller has some magic dust to sprinkle on Browns rookies, Most of them will be done in the NFL, and the Browns will STILL, be rebuilding.

Your horseshit fantasy of "looking into the future" is just that, horseshit. There is no promise of a tomorrow, and the statistics don't bear out anything you are saying. That's the problem I have with Browns fans. You can't point to anything good on the field TODAY............ so you make up this pretend shit that under the radar of everyone, the Browns are building this secret war machine to Strike Back The Empire.

This FO is a disaster. They have no vision and have left this team not just shit without talent, but with an environment that nobody in their right fucking mind would want to play here.

<<All I can say is that I am glad this FO and owner seem to be forward thinking instead of believing throwing money at aging vets is the way to championships (see Washington over the past decades)
Click to expand...
>>

Yes, God forbid we were saddled with Roethlisberger, Julio Jones, or a Tom Brady. Who the fuck wants veteran talent? We have pussy boy, fumble fingers Cornhole Coleman.
 
Ghoolie said:
>>

Yes, God forbid we were saddled with Roethlisberger, Julio Jones, or a Tom Brady. Who the fuck wants veteran talent? We have pussy boy, fumble fingers Cornhole Coleman.
Click to expand...

Name the Vet talent we HAD when this regime took over. Mack? Fine, but he was leaving anyway. Schwartz? Maybe, but Pasztor is rating out the same. Gabriel? He is a 3rd WR at best. Same for Benjamin. Mack is the ONLY player that was on this team last year that is playing above an average player level. So...please...explain how NOT having a top end vet on this team (outside of JT/Haden/Bitonio/Collins) is in any way shape or form THIS REGIMES fault.
 
Hadn't heard this...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Browns are $22.6 million OVER the required 89% cap floor. <a href="https://t.co/D2HoOA6BZX">https://t.co/D2HoOA6BZX</a></p>— Ryan (@RyInCBus) <a href="https://twitter.com/RyInCBus/status/809774368612057092">December 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
After day 1 of free agency...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">According to overthecap - <a href="https://twitter.com/Browns">@browns</a> still 3rd most cap space ! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Browns?src=hash">#Browns</a> <a href="https://t.co/sOx8tOmp3P">pic.twitter.com/sOx8tOmp3P</a></p>— Browns Scout (@BrownsScout) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrownsScout/status/840017549739749376">March 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Are we back in first after the RGIII cut?! I think we are!
(chants we're #1, we're #1, we're #1)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

1 Cleveland Browns 67 $59,712,802 $55,854,757 $8,178,213 $50,123,269 $125,900,772 $91,222,497 $83,884,091
2 San Francisco 49ers 64 $40,773,692 $59,989,417 $12,371,526 $38,708,916 $114,948,185 $90,760,731 $88,900,731
3 Jacksonville Jaguars 72 $57,735,959 $63,787,788 $4,041,600 $39,314,310 $128,855,347 $77,458,963 $70,498,963
4 Tennessee Titans 63 $50,533,426 $69,687,314 $4,837,476 $24,046,522 $132,342,884 $58,703,638 $55,913,638
5 Chicago Bears 65 $59,874,479 $57,485,024 $2,738,046 $8,103,197 $120,813,876 $54,289,321 $50,734,321
6 Indianapolis Colts 58 $69,754,365 $44,899,116 $6,376,806 $6,614,106 $126,895,287 $46,718,819 $43,463,819
7 New England Patriots 60 $74,353,320 $42,376,396 $3,379,360 $5,292,335 $127,194,076 $45,098,259 $42,158,259
8 Oakland Raiders 56 $62,365,820 $62,416,591 $55,175 $8,000,000 $131,797,586 $43,202,414 $40,877,414
9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 65 $61,672,083 $64,354,877 $845,126 $5,330,779 $131,793,124 $40,537,655 $34,342,655
10 Cincinnati Bengals 61 $65,693,352 $65,783,641 $321,528 $6,578,866 $136,743,521 $36,835,345 $33,115,345
11 Miami Dolphins 62 $52,177,741 $75,822,423 $8,201,161 $8,363,708 $138,591,659 $36,772,049 $33,982,049
12 Denver Broncos 66 $49,522,478 $84,445,180 $70,448 $7,243,248 $137,884,108 $36,359,140 $29,774,140
13 New York Jets 68 $49,932,523 $72,906,559 $8,032,644 $371,487 $131,430,674 $35,940,813 $29,430,813
14 Minnesota Vikings 60 $52,322,450 $73,380,049 $4,312,476 $400,184 $131,699,975 $35,700,209 $31,980,209
15 Arizona Cardinals 64 $79,653,451 $54,997,191 $440,461 $4,405,068 $136,406,103 $34,998,965 $32,673,965
LEAGUE AVERAGE
$30,159,498
16 Green Bay Packers 50 $74,020,200 $58,500,089 $4,249,786 $7,984,687 $141,450,075 $33,534,612 $33,534,612
17 Houston Texans 63 $59,870,228 $68,021,788 $9,059,710 $4,935,924 $141,051,726 $30,884,198 $25,490,198
18 Detroit Lions 62 $65,201,283 $59,758,007 $9,788,677 $4,725,644 $142,888,056 $28,837,588 $26,047,588
19 Carolina Panthers 69 $75,689,199 $65,854,622 $1,660,425 $13,208,020 $151,527,246 $28,680,774 $23,100,774
20 Buffalo Bills 50 $75,715,451 $58,102,656 $8,265,945 $2,837,222 $142,549,052 $27,288,170 $27,288,170
21 Washington Redskins 68 $80,578,668 $65,556,927 $8,728,156 $15,055,131 $158,106,251 $23,948,880 $17,678,880
22 Los Angeles Rams 62 $62,698,562 $75,974,205 $2,007,335 $304,311 $143,928,875 $23,375,436 $19,190,436
23 New Orleans Saints 67 $78,176,871 $42,594,195 $23,676,452 $5,754,000 $149,687,518 $23,066,482 $17,951,482
24 Baltimore Ravens 58 $82,335,022 $44,170,456 $12,907,598 $2,553,126 $147,853,076 $21,700,050 $19,840,050
25 Atlanta Falcons 55 $89,823,089 $44,990,398 $6,177,670 $926,541 $147,869,491 $20,057,050 $19,127,050
26 Pittsburgh Steelers 76 $96,141,533 $49,650,376 $2,713,387 $3,269,367 $150,970,296 $19,299,071 $7,764,071
27 Seattle Seahawks 62 $66,086,223 $81,995,085 $827,917 $2,065,865 $152,689,225 $16,376,640 $11,261,640
28 Los Angeles Chargers 63 $86,582,706 $59,129,344 $5,187,669 $113,693 $153,149,843 $13,963,850 $9,778,850
29 Philadelphia Eagles 69 $91,492,429 $62,608,031 $7,905,933 $7,933,869 $165,243,893 $9,689,976 $2,024,976
30 New York Giants 63 $60,197,165 $94,265,105 $3,099,441 $1,800,000 $159,361,711 $9,438,289 $5,253,289
31 Dallas Cowboys 62 $101,857,068 $48,752,380 $3,051,856 $2,401,553 $160,631,304 $8,770,249 $2,539,812
32 Kansas City Chiefs 69 $75,584,886 $82,111,185 $1,882,210 $5,002,168 $167,400,281 $4,601,887 $-4,498,353
 
Great "analytics and the Osweiller trade" article, although I had to google "Grotian moment".

Almost started a new thread, but nah, but it's fantastic read.

The article doesn't exactly say this, but I think this trade will be referred to for decades. #Osweilered

Hilarious how the author pretty respectfully calls out Livingston and Grossi on being to old and grumpy to even open their mind and understand the attempt.

Makes me think, the snarky hot-take super-twitter types are more full of crap than I even realized.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Over at <a href="https://twitter.com/WFNYCLE">@WFNYCLE</a> I wrote about analytics, the Browns and an age divide. <a href="https://t.co/hUe5ZDIbWs">https://t.co/hUe5ZDIbWs</a></p>— Mike Hattery (@snarkyhatman) <a href="https://twitter.com/snarkyhatman/status/840910467472187392">March 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Back
Top Bottom