Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Reading and listening to the pundits, the general opinion is tha the Jags are overpaying for promising, but unproven talent. In other words, they're taking a big risk.

1. Overpaying is what free agency is all about. For all the wild fantasies fans have about signing big names who'll come in for a sensible salary and perform amazingly, that's not the reality.
2. They're really not taking a big risk. They have the cap space; they need to spend it. Putting some amount of it into reasonably high risk, high reward players isn't a bad idea at all. It only takes one of them to pay off and it's a big win. And if none of them do, so be it - the cap space was there to be used.

Quote:Depends on how they structure the contracts. That's where the hiring of Idzik comes in.

A lot of guaranteed money, though. You can't get that back.

Quote:A lot of guaranteed money, though. You can't get that back.

No you can't. But we needed to spend them anyway.

Quote:1. Overpaying is what free agency is all about. For all the wild fantasies fans have about signing big names who'll come in for a sensible salary and perform amazingly, that's not the reality.2. They're really not taking a big risk. They have the cap space; they need to spend it. Putting some amount of it into reasonably high risk, high reward players isn't a bad idea at all. It only takes one of them to pay off and it's a big win. And if none of them do, so be it - the cap space was there to be used.

So, to follow your logic, if I come into a windfall of cash, and I decide to " invest " it at the horse track ( read: high risk ), and I lose it all, it's not a big deal because If none of my horses pay off, so be it, the money was there to be bet.

I can't follow that logic. The goal of everyone who manages their cap dollars is to get at least $1.00 worth of value for each $1.00 spent. In the NFL, if you're willing to waste cap dollars, you'll end up on the negative side of the win-loss stats. My point wasn't that the Jags were foolish to pay up for these guys....I realize "overpaying is what free agency is all about". My point was that this is a pivotal point in the careers of our current management.........If a majority of these FA's and draft picks fail to live up to expectations, their careers in Jax will be short-lived. The fans here have bought into the story that this is year 3 of the rebuilding process. If there is no sign of progress in 2015, I can't see how they would be permitted to say " o.k., that didn't work, so we're in year 1 of a new rebuilding process"

Quote:So, to follow your logic, if I come into a windfall of cash, and I decide to " invest " it at the horse track ( read: high risk ), and I lose it all, it's not a big deal because If none of my horses pay off, so be it, the money was there to be bet.

I can't follow that logic. The goal of everyone who manages their cap dollars is to get at least $1.00 worth of value for each $1.00 spent. In the NFL, if you're willing to waste cap dollars, you'll end up on the negative side of the win-loss stats. My point wasn't that the Jags were foolish to pay up for these guys....I realize "overpaying is what free agency is all about". My point was that this is a pivotal point in the careers of our current management.........If a majority of these FA's and draft picks fail to live up to expectations, their careers in Jax will be short-lived. The fans here have bought into the story that this is year 3 of the rebuilding process. If there is no sign of progress in 2015, I can't see how they would be permitted to say " o.k., that didn't work, so we're in year 1 of a new rebuilding process"

It is my understanding that the team was MANDATED to spend up to 89% of the cap.

 

If they didn't, the difference between what the cap floor is and what the Jaguars actually spent below that floor would be charged to the Jaguars, and that money would be given to the NFLPA, who would then give out that money to players as they saw fit.

 

In other words, the Jaguars would have had to pay the money anyway, whether they signed any new player or not.

 

In that case, why not go after players who might actually improve the team?

Quote:It is my understanding that the team was MANDATED to spend up to 89% of the cap.


If they didn't, the difference between what the cap floor is and what the Jaguars actually spent below that floor would be charged to the Jaguars, and that money would be given to the NFLPA, who would then give out that money to players as they saw fit.


In other words, the Jaguars would have had to pay the money anyway, whether they signed any new player or not.


In that case, why not go after players who might actually improve the team?

You all are misunderstanding my post. I realize that the team has to spend the money. HOW they spend the money will determine their longevity as general manager, head coach, etc. So far, they've gambled on a few FA's who weren't even starters on their previous teams. If those players develop into major contributors, then they made the right decisions. If not, they have a very short leash, in my opinion, and they're out. This owner, and these fans, have no appetite for another "start-from-scratch" rebuilding process.

Quote:You all are misunderstanding my post. I realize that the team has to spend the money. HOW they spend the money will determine their longevity as general manager, head coach, etc. So far, they've gambled on a few FA's who weren't even starters on their previous teams. If those players develop into major contributors, then they made the right decisions. If not, they have a very short leash, in my opinion, and they're out. This owner, and these fans, have no appetite for another "start-from-scratch" rebuilding process.

 

The Jaguars tried to go after the "proven" veteran talent. They lost out on McCourty. Cobb never hit the market. Looks like Suh rejected us right away. After those three, there's really not a problem with the rest of the signing.

 

You can look at free-agent tiers, if you wish.

 

Pro-Bowlers - we got 1 in Julius

Good starters - Odrick

Promising starters but with risk - this is where Parnell and House falls into

Veteran player on decline - No signing

Depth/possible starters - Skuta and Brown

 

There's really not much you can ask for. Maybe add another "good starter". But come on, we're just an hour into actual free-agency!

People are posting that the team has to throw money at questionable FA's so that we meet the mandated 89% payout level. Please read this explanation posted on the BigCatCountry.com website regarding this subject:




"The penalty for not reaching the 89 percent spend requirement over the four year cumulative period really isn't that bad. A team will have to give the money they're short by to their own players (via NFLPA-determined distribution). This means there really isn't much of a penalty, other than your own players get somewhat of a bonus, for a lack of a better word. You do not incur fines, you do not lose draft picks. You just have to spend the required money in some manner.


The real bad thing would be the public perception that would follow, as it appears like you're not trying to win because you're not spending money, but we all know it's not that black and white with most teams. Teams need to spend money, but that doesn't mean they need to pay mid-level free agents like top-level free agents, because then you wreck the market.


This means that it doesn't really behoove a team to throw around massive deals and signing bonuses to get to the mark. It's still likely going to have teams handing out big signing bonuses rather than allowing the NFLPA to divvy up the unspent cash, but it's not really something fans should be stressing out over.


Basically, don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal."

Quote:The Jaguars tried to go after the "proven" veteran talent. They lost out on McCourty. Cobb never hit the market. Looks like Suh rejected us right away. After those three, there's really not a problem with the rest of the signing.

 

You can look at free-agent tiers, if you wish.

 

Pro-Bowlers - we got 1 in Julius

Good starters - Odrick

Promising starters but with risk - this is where Parnell and House falls into

Veteran player on decline - No signing

Depth/possible starters - Skuta and Brown

 

There's really not much you can ask for. Maybe add another "good starter". But come on, we're just an hour into actual free-agency!

Again, I'm not criticizing the signings............oh, never mind.

I hate this "we have to spend" argument whenever the Jaguars make a questionable signing.  I don't think anyone on here is saying not to spend the money.  We are just saying to spend it wisely.  

 

Just take Jermey Parnell as an example.  No one is saying that Khan should take the $6.4 million per year Parnell will be paid and buy another yacht.  The question is whether it was smarter to sign Parnell (an almost 29 year old career backup with 7 career starts) for $6.4 million per year or Bulaga (who many consider a top five right tackle) for $7 million.  CBSsports had Bulaga as the 8th best free agent while Parnell was ranked 75th.  Was signing Parnell instead of Bulaga smart?  That's the question.  BTW, even if you don't Bulaga for some reason, ask the question whether there is anyone else who would have represented a better use of the money?

Quote:I hate this "we have to spend" argument whenever the Jaguars make a questionable signing.  I don't think anyone on here is saying not to spend the money.  We are just saying to spend it wisely.  

 

Just take Jermey Parnell as an example.  No one is saying that Khan should take the $6.4 million per year Parnell will be paid and buy another yacht.  The question is whether it was smarter to sign Parnell (an almost 29 year old career backup with 7 career starts) for $6.4 million per year or Bulaga (who many consider a top five right tackle) for $7 million.  CBSsports had Bulaga as the 8th best free agent while Parnell was ranked 75th.  Was signing Parnell instead of Bulaga smart?  That's the question.  BTW, even if you don't Bulaga for some reason, ask the question whether there is anyone else who would have represented a better use of the money?

 

we'll have to see.

 

Bulaga is considered somewhat of an injury risk as well.

 

Apparently some people say it was Parnell all along for the Jags, so maybe they see something that the layman doesn't.  

 

The big point is that even if Parnell turns out to be a bust, we will be able to get out of that contract in 1-2 years without too much backlash.

Quote:I hate this "we have to spend" argument whenever the Jaguars make a questionable signing.  I don't think anyone on here is saying not to spend the money.  We are just saying to spend it wisely.  

 

Just take Jermey Parnell as an example.  No one is saying that Khan should take the $6.4 million per year Parnell will be paid and buy another yacht.  The question is whether it was smarter to sign Parnell (an almost 29 year old career backup with 7 career starts) for $6.4 million per year or Bulaga (who many consider a top five right tackle) for $7 million.  CBSsports had Bulaga as the 8th best free agent while Parnell was ranked 75th.  Was signing Parnell instead of Bulaga smart?  That's the question.  BTW, even if you don't Bulaga for some reason, ask the question whether there is anyone else who would have represented a better use of the money?

 

Good points. The concern with Bulaga is his injury history. OTOH, he played all 16 games last year.


 

My bigger question mark is the signing of Odrick. The Jags gave him nearly as much as they gave Julius Thomas, and the value really wasn't there. What was the point? He's not replacing Alualu who just signed a new contract. He apparently will replace Bryant, but I don't think that's a major upgrade if at all. There was no hurry to get rid of Bryant; he should be good for two more years, and maybe a 5-tech pops up as the BAP in one of the next two drafts.


 

As far as RT goes, I said it two years ago and I still believe the Jags should have signed Andre Smith, or one of the other five good free agent RTs, during the 2013 FA period when bargains could have been had.

Quote:I hate this "we have to spend" argument whenever the Jaguars make a questionable signing.  I don't think anyone on here is saying not to spend the money.  We are just saying to spend it wisely.  

 

Just take Jermey Parnell as an example.  No one is saying that Khan should take the $6.4 million per year Parnell will be paid and buy another yacht.  The question is whether it was smarter to sign Parnell (an almost 29 year old career backup with 7 career starts) for $6.4 million per year or Bulaga (who many consider a top five right tackle) for $7 million.  CBSsports had Bulaga as the 8th best free agent while Parnell was ranked 75th.  Was signing Parnell instead of Bulaga smart?  That's the question.  BTW, even if you don't Bulaga for some reason, ask the question whether there is anyone else who would have represented a better use of the money?

If its not about the money and they thought Bulaga was a better option, they would have gone after him.

 

Obviously, there is something they don't like about Buluga that has nothing to do with his price tag.

 

Do you really believe they just randomly targeted Parnell? You act like they didn't do their due diligence as if there is some guy available that they would be "Wow, why didn't we think about this guy before we signed Parnell?".

Quote:Good points. The concern with Bulaga is his injury history. OTOH, he played all 16 games last year.


 

My bigger question mark is the signing of Odrick. The Jags gave him nearly as much as they gave Julius Thomas, and the value really wasn't there. What was the point? He's not replacing Alualu who just signed a new contract. He apparently will replace Bryant, but I don't think that's a major upgrade if at all. There was no hurry to get rid of Bryant; he should be good for two more years, and maybe a 5-tech pops up as the BAP in one of the next two drafts.


 

As far as RT goes, I said it two years ago and I still believe the Jags should have signed Andre Smith, or one of the other five good free agent RTs, during the 2013 FA period when bargains could have been had.

 

It could be that they believe Odrick is going to be a Sen'Derrick Mark type of player in terms of impact.

Also, not sure how important it is, but maybe getting at least somewhat of a pass rush at the Red Bryant position would make this defense a lot better?   Who knows.

 

To me, I think it's a good signing just by talking to dolphin fans at work today.  They say he's very good.

Call me crazy, but I'm liking the Dan Skuta signing.

 

I just have a hunch he's going to be very solid for us.  I think I just saw him while he was on the 49ers last year in a game and remember thinking "this looks like a good LB"... and never considered that he may become available.

Quote:It could be that they believe Odrick is going to be a Sen'Derrick Mark type of player in terms of impact.

Also, not sure how important it is, but maybe getting at least somewhat of a pass rush at the Red Bryant position would make this defense a lot better?   Who knows.

 

To me, I think it's a good signing just by talking to dolphin fans at work today.  They say he's very good.

Odrick is more of your prototypical 5 tech than Bryant. Bryant is good at what he does, but he is very one dimensional. I think the scheme they want to run requires more production from that position.

 

With the addition of a true Otto, the need to have that primarily run stuffing anchor on the end of the line becomes less important. The 5 tech now has a large LB who can come up to the line of scrimmage and play run support to help anchor the line. This allows the 5 tech to be a quicker more dynamic player that can be disruptive in the passing game. You now have a guy who can not only rush the passer but also has that long frame that enables him to get his hands up into the passing lanes.

Quote:Call me crazy, but I'm liking the Dan Skuta signing.

 

I just have a hunch he's going to be very solid for us.  I think I just saw him while he was on the 49ers last year in a game and remember thinking "this looks like a good LB"... and never considered that he may become available.

Skuta is another prototype player. He fits right in size wise between your normal 3-4 OLB and 4-3 OLB, the perfect size for an Otto.

 

He also has experience playing traditional LB positions and pass rush 3-4 OLB, so he has the size and skill set to potentially flourish in this hybrid position.

Quote:Skuta is another prototype player. He fits right in size wise between your normal 3-4 OLB and 4-3 OLB, the perfect size for an Otto.

 

He also has experience playing traditional LB positions and pass rush 3-4 OLB, so he has the size and skill set to potentially flourish in this hybrid position.

 

Not to mention the likely contribution to ST that he could provide. (Possibly Brown and House too)

Quote:People are posting that the team has to throw money at questionable FA's so that we meet the mandated 89% payout level. Please read this explanation posted on the BigCatCountry.com website regarding this subject:




"The penalty for not reaching the 89 percent spend requirement over the four year cumulative period really isn't that bad. A team will have to give the money they're short by to their own players (via NFLPA-determined distribution). This means there really isn't much of a penalty, other than your own players get somewhat of a bonus, for a lack of a better word. You do not incur fines, you do not lose draft picks. You just have to spend the required money in some manner.


The real bad thing would be the public perception that would follow, as it appears like you're not trying to win because you're not spending money, but we all know it's not that black and white with most teams. Teams need to spend money, but that doesn't mean they need to pay mid-level free agents like top-level free agents, because then you wreck the market.


This means that it doesn't really behoove a team to throw around massive deals and signing bonuses to get to the mark. It's still likely going to have teams handing out big signing bonuses rather than allowing the NFLPA to divvy up the unspent cash, but it's not really something fans should be stressing out over.


Basically, don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal."

This is how I think about it, if we would have to split the money up between our players why would we give Lewis and Evans a bonus because thats what would happen? Spend the money and acquire more talent. The money will be allocated anyway. You might as well get additional players than give more money to the same players that went 3-13

Quote:I hate this "we have to spend" argument whenever the Jaguars make a questionable signing.  I don't think anyone on here is saying not to spend the money.  We are just saying to spend it wisely.  

 

Just take Jermey Parnell as an example.  No one is saying that Khan should take the $6.4 million per year Parnell will be paid and buy another yacht.  The question is whether it was smarter to sign Parnell (an almost 29 year old career backup with 7 career starts) for $6.4 million per year or Bulaga (who many consider a top five right tackle) for $7 million.  CBSsports had Bulaga as the 8th best free agent while Parnell was ranked 75th.  Was signing Parnell instead of Bulaga smart?  That's the question.  BTW, even if you don't Bulaga for some reason, ask the question whether there is anyone else who would have represented a better use of the money?

The unstated premise that drives this question is that signing starters is better than signing backups.

 

As a general proposition I suppose that is true.

 

But I urge you to consider that arguably three of the best signings/acquisitions in Jaguars history are players who began their careers as backups-Mark Brunell, Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell. 

 

Brunell was behind Favre in Green Bay.  Jimmy Smith was, at best, 3rd in Dallas behind Irvin, and Harper, and at times was 4th when you throw in Kelvin Martin.  McCardell was, at best, 4th in Washington behind Monk, Sanders and Clark, and only started 5 games his last year in Cleveland before coming here.

 

A non Jaguars example would be Michael Turner, who languished behind LaDanian Tomlinson before being traded to Atlanta, where he became a quality starter for years.  Wes Welker also was not a starter in Miami before coming to New England and becoming a star.

 

Conversely, Jaguars history is replete with free agency signings of starters that proved to be spectacular failures.

 

We all know the names:

 

Douglas

Paup

Nickerson

Porter

 

 

Sometimes a guy comes into a situation where there is an entrenched starter ahead of him.  Sometimes that same player thrives in a different environment.

 

One "backup" I am comfortable with is House.

 

Our DB coach knows him, having coached him directly.  he knows what kind of guy and player he is.  He knows if he is a scheme fit.  From what I have read, he excels in man coverage, and actually had strong outings against Megatron and Julio Jones.  His main problem is durability.  I think he can play well for us.

 

No, neither House nor Parnell nor Brown had Hall of Famers ahead of them.

 

But it doesn't mean they can't start and thrive here.  Not just in Jaguars lowered expectations after years of "sucktitude" standards.

 

But they could become quality starters by most standards, and help the team improve.

 

Just like Welker, McCardell, and those other guys I mentioned.