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.
Well, your analogy turns *really* convoluted, because it would also have to be a case where if you don't spend the money it gets thrown away, where all investments are high risk and where the safer the investment the more you have to invest (up to and including well beyond the expected return on that investment). In that case, sure, bet on a few horses.
Quote: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.
I can't agree with you here. If just one or two of the free agent acquisitions made with cap money that had to be spent anyway work out to the extent that the team hopes, that's a brilliant result. It spreads the risk better than burning hundreds of millions on Suh, for example, and the expectation that more than one will work out as an improvement probably helps the team quite a lot.
Quote: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"
This makes no sense. Having a handful of high-risk, high-reward contracts
that we can afford of which some don't pay off does not in any way set the team back to year one of rebuilding.
Quote:Good points. The concern with Bulaga is his injury history. OTOH, he played all 16 games last year.
That and the fact that it was well known that he wanted to stay in Green Bay. The idea that we could have had him for the same money they gave him is laughable.
Quote:Well, your analogy turns *really* convoluted, because it would also have to be a case where if you don't spend the money it gets thrown away, where all investments are high risk and where the safer the investment the more you have to invest (up to and including well beyond the expected return on that investment). In that case, sure, bet on a few horses.I can't agree with you here. If just one or two of the free agent acquisitions made with cap money that had to be spent anyway work out to the extent that the team hopes, that's a brilliant result. It spreads the risk better than burning hundreds of millions on Suh, for example, and the expectation that more than one will work out as an improvement probably helps the team quite a lot.This makes no sense. Having a handful of high-risk, high-reward contracts that we can afford of which some don't pay off does not in any way set the team back to year one of rebuilding.
i
I guarantee you that the Jaguars are not one or two players away from fielding a contender. So the straw man you presented is not valid. If we were the Patriots, coming off a long string of winning seasons, your argument would have merit. Bill B. et al would not be in danger of losing their jobs if they made a few mistakes in free agency and/ or the draft. The Patriot's owner as well as the fan base would shrug their shoulders and say " next year will be better ". This GM and these coaches will not get that latitude.
As to your point about my horse betting analogy, let me point out that any unspent money below the 89% threshold would not be " wasted ". First of all, the Jaguars cap managers are too smart to violate the 89% rule.......that won't happen. Secondly, given our overall talent level, it would be difficult not to be able to upgrade it ........if we fail, that's a serious black mark against our expertise in identifying and attracting talent. Third, if there was unspent money, it would be distributed to players on our roster already......sort of a windfall bonus. We wouldn't lose draft picks or face fines. My final point is that this 89% rule covers a four year period, not just 2015. We would have time after 2015 to " make up the difference ".
A previous poster opined that we have the cap space, so no big deal if we select some players who bomb. Again, given our recent struggles to field a competitive team, I believe it is a big deal.
Quote:i
I guarantee you that the Jaguars are not one or two players away from fielding a contender. So the straw man you presented is not valid. If we were the Patriots, coming off a long string of winning seasons, your argument would have merit. Bill B. et al would not be in danger of losing their jobs f they made a few mistakes in free agency and/ or the draft. The Patriot's owner as well as the fan base would shrug their shoulders and say " next year will be better ". This GM and these coaches will not get that latitude.
As to your point about my horse betting analogy, let me point out that any unspent money below the 89% threshold would not be " wasted ". First of all, the Jaguars cap managers are too smart to violate the 89% rule.......that won't happen. Secondly, given our overall talent level, it would be difficult not to be able to upgrade it ........if we fail, that's a serious black mark against our expertise in identifying and attracting talent. Third, if there was unspent money, it would be distributed to players on our roster already......sort of a windfall bonus. We wouldn't lose draft picks or face fines. My final point is that this 89% rule covers a four year period, not just 2015. We would have time after 2015 to " make up the difference ".
A previous poster opined that we have the cap space, so no big deal if we select some players who bomb. Again, given our recent struggles to field a competitive team, I believe it is a big deal.
That would be wasting money. We already have those players under contract....let's give them a bonus instead of trying to bring in more talent? Even if only a couple of the FA's pan out, consider it a success. We are at a point where we have to spend money on our roster. What's the downside to free agency at that point? If any of them pan out, we have more talent than the abysmal roster we've had the last few years.
Quote:That would be wasting money. We already have those players under contract....let's give them a bonus instead of trying to bring in more talent? Even if only a couple of the FA's pan out, consider it a success. We are at a point where we have to spend money on our roster. What's the downside to free agency at that point? If any of them pan out, we have more talent than the abysmal roster we've had the last few years.
" wasted " is a relative term. If we signed a FA and gave him guaranteed money of $5 million and he bombed in year one, I would call that wasted money. It might also reduce the level of future cap space, depending on how the deal was structured. We all have lived through previous mismanagement of the salary cap, with huge amounts of dead money on the books.......money which could have been spent on acquiring talent could have resulted in fielding a more competitive team. Currently, I believe the Jags have the seventh lowest amount of dead money on the books. That's good.
Distributing unspent money to existing players will not happen. That provision became part of the collective bargaining arrangement as an additional incentive for team management to compete for, and therefore increase the demand and price tag of, players in free agency. As you can see by the huge contracts being signed in free agency, it's working.
I just don't understand the people that are upset that the Jags are signing players to help the roster. The roster from the last 2 years has absolutely, without a doubt, sucked. Why get upset when the Jags pay out some of their horde of cash? We have to spend it on players, we might as well try to improve the roster. What's the alternative?
Quote:I just don't understand the people that are upset that the Jags are signing players to help the roster. The roster from the last 2 years has absolutely, without a doubt, sucked. Why get upset when the Jags pay out some of their horde of cash? We have to spend it on players, we might as well try to improve the roster. What's the alternative?
That's the real question. I have no problem with folks having reservations about what we are doing. I am not really sure we should be trying to sign Murray, as I am leery of spending big bucks on a running back. I am concerned about throwing a big contract at Hardy given his issues.Everyone will have their own preferences. But for those saying we shouldn't have signed certain guys, what would you suggest we do with the money instead?
One example of this is Parnell. Some question spending the money on a long-time back-up rather than going after Bulaga. From the way it played out, Bulaga went back to the Pack. From what we have seen with McCourty et al, often times players will go back to their old teams even if getting comparable (or sometimes even better) money elsewhere. Further, Caldwell never seriously considered Bulaga from what I read. What would those who critique the Parnell signing have wanted us to do at Right Tackle? I am just curious what folks wish we would have done rather than the steps we have made.
Quote:I guarantee you that the Jaguars are not one or two players away from fielding a contender. So the straw man you presented is not valid.
You don't know what a straw man is. And I never claimed that the Jaguars were one or two players away from fielding a contender.
Quote:If we were the Patriots, coming off a long string of winning seasons, your argument would have merit. Bill B. et al would not be in danger of losing their jobs if they made a few mistakes in free agency and/ or the draft. The Patriot's owner as well as the fan base would shrug their shoulders and say " next year will be better ". This GM and these coaches will not get that latitude.
Garbage. Firstly, gambling on a player and losing is
not a mistake. Every move you make as a GM is a calculated risk. There's a (completely unknown) chance of each move paying off. If one GM makes a move which is 99% likely to improve his team massively and it goes wrong, and another makes a move which is 1% likely to improve his team massively and gets lucky, which GM made a mistake? Which is the better GM? Which should you pick to take your team forward?
Secondly, why hold GMs of different teams to different standards? The best teams want to have GMs who perform as well as they can. That's how they get to *stay* the best teams.
Quote:As to your point about my horse betting analogy, let me point out that any unspent money below the 89% threshold would not be " wasted ". First of all, the Jaguars cap managers are too smart to violate the 89% rule.......that won't happen. Secondly, given our overall talent level, it would be difficult not to be able to upgrade it ........if we fail, that's a serious black mark against our expertise in identifying and attracting talent. Third, if there was unspent money, it would be distributed to players on our roster already......sort of a windfall bonus. We wouldn't lose draft picks or face fines.
Ah, so losing draft picks or facing fines is the only way to waste money, and giving a nice big salary bonus to Chad Henne is a
perfectly good use of it? Of course money distributed this way is wasted; the team should be determining where the money is spent.
As for the team being too smart to let it happen, that's exactly what they're doing by signing young players with a lot of potential to contracts, on the understanding that (as with
any signing) some of them will probably not live up to that potential. But you think that's a horrible risk, for some reason.
Quote:I just don't understand the people that are upset that the Jags are signing players to help the roster. The roster from the last 2 years has absolutely, without a doubt, sucked. Why get upset when the Jags pay out some of their horde of cash? We have to spend it on players, we might as well try to improve the roster. What's the alternative?
I assume you're not directing that comment at me, because I'm 100% in favor of " signing players to help the roster". I'm 100% opposed to signing players just to use up our bountiful amount of cap space. I've been there, done that, and I have the tee-shirt. For the fourth and last time. My point is this........the loyal Jaguar fan base has been very patient over the last decade. We've listened year after year to promises about improving the quality of the roster. Our fans are quickly losing that patience.
Quote:I assume you're not directing that comment at me, because I'm 100% in favor of " signing players to help the roster". I'm 100% opposed to signing players just to use up our bountiful amount of cap space. I've been there, done that, and I have the tee-shirt. For the fourth and last time. My point is this........the loyal Jaguar fan base has been very patient over the last decade. We've listened year after year to promises about improving the quality of the roster. Our fans are quickly losing that patience.
The comment was directed at the posters here that are up in arms about every single signing it seems. Or the better one is the ones that are upset because these players might "hamper" the development of our young talent. It's almost like they are averse to bringing anyone in to add to the roster. It's baffling.
Quote:The comment was directed at the posters here that are up in arms about every single signing it seems. Or the better one is the ones that are upset because these players might "hamper" the development of our young talent. It's almost like they are averse to bringing anyone in to add to the roster. It's baffling.
So a person could not be happy overall with the signings but still not have a legitimate concern about the development of players on the roster?
So you think that neither of the second round picks from just last year merit further development and that the team should immediately upgrad the roster with vets at the WR position?
[quote name="iapetus" post="453001" timestamp="1426091934"]You don't know what a straw man is.
"A straw-man proposal is a brainstormed simple draft proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and to provoke the generation of new and better proposals. The term is considered American business jargon,[1] but it's also encountered in engineering office culture. Sometimes "straw dog" is used instead as form of political correctness.[2][3][4]"
Wrong. I think this definition precisely describes your approach. You propose that, given the generous amount of cap space we have, we can afford to miss on a few FA signings because if we hit a home run on a couple, it will all be worth it.
How elitist you are!
A recent list of the 100 best players in the NFL contained NO Jacksonville Jaguars. Hitting on a couple players in free agency does not solve the problem. Creating millions of dollars of " dead money" directly affects our ability to sign talent in the future. This management team does not have the luxury of time on its side. The future is now. We're entering the third year of rebuilding the roster.
Quote:Wrong. I think this definition precisely describes your approach. You propose that, given the generous amount of cap space we have, we can afford to miss on a few FA signings because if we hit a home run on a couple, it will all be worth it.
How elitist you are!
A recent list of the 100 best players in the NFL contained NO Jacksonville Jaguars. Hitting on a couple players in free agency does not solve the problem. Creating millions of dollars of " dead money" directly affects our ability to sign talent in the future. This management team does not have the luxury of time on its side. The future is now. We're entering the third year of rebuilding the roster.
OK, now I am really confused. You seem to be making the case for spending big in free agency and taking those gambles. For example, 3 of the top 50 free agents on several lists were signed by the Jaguars. If we do not have the luxury of time on our side, aren't these exactly the players we should be signing? As another poster asked, and I don't believe you answered, What's the alternative?
As long as the people we bring in are an upgrade over what we had, we did it right.
Quote:OK, now I am really confused. You seem to be making the case for spending big in free agency and taking those gambles. For example, 3 of the top 50 free agents on several lists were signed by the Jaguars. If we do not have the luxury of time on our side, aren't these exactly the players we should be signing? As another poster asked, and I don't believe you answered, What's the alternative?
I'm going to reduce my position to its simplest form............
I am NOT against spending every available penny in free agency to acquire talent. We DON'T have the luxury of just throwing darts at the wall just BECAUSE WE HAVE A PILE Of MONEY. Some of you have suggested that we sign free agents willy-nilly simply because we have the money. I submit that's not wise, and it's what got us into the mess we find ourselves in. Bad signings affect us in the future. I'm all for good signings. O.K, you ask.......how do we differentiate between a good and bad signing? That's exactly the right question to ask.........and the answer is........I don't know. But that's why the brain squad of the Jaguars are paid the big bucks.........to evaluate talent and spend money concurrent with their perceived value to the team. So I fully support their efforts. Pay attention now........here it comes.....The Brain Squad has a short leash.......success for them is measured in months, not years. How can anyone disagree with that?
Quote:"A straw-man proposal is a brainstormed simple draft proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and to provoke the generation of new and better proposals. The term is considered American business jargon,[1] but it's also encountered in engineering office culture. Sometimes "straw dog" is used instead as form of political correctness.[2][3][4]"
I didn't present a brainstormed draft proposal intended to generated discussion of its disadvantages. So... um... no, you don't understand what a straw man is. Note that definition says 'not to be confused with straw man argument' which you seem to be doing here. Not that you understand what that is either. Some pointers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Quote:Wrong. I think this definition precisely describes your approach. You propose that, given the generous amount of cap space we have, we can afford to miss on a few FA signings because if we hit a home run on a couple, it will all be worth it.
How elitist you are!
You don't understand what the word 'elitist' means either. I'm not sure it can be considered elitist to point out that since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and you don't even seem to understand what
you're saying, we're not likely to make much progress here. I
do propose exactly that, because that's how free agency works.
Every free agency pick up is a risk, no matter what Madden might have taught you to the contrary. So you have to expect to miss on a few. This applies whether you're at the bottom of the league or the top, and whether your GM is the best or the worst in the league.
Quote:A recent list of the 100 best players in the NFL contained NO Jacksonville Jaguars.
While we're introducing you to the correct definitions of logical fallacies:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
There
are Jaguars who should probably be on that list, and if the team were more successful, those players would be more widely recognised. There are also Jaguars who
shouldn't be on that list, but would be if the team were more successful. That's the nature of such lists. Of course, the Jaguars are where they are right now partly because they don't have enough players who should be on the list on their own merits (and partly because of the players behind them, and partly for all sorts of other reasons that aren't relevant here).
Quote:Hitting on a couple players in free agency does not solve the problem. Creating millions of dollars of " dead money" directly affects our ability to sign talent in the future. This management team does not have the luxury of time on its side. The future is now. We're entering the third year of rebuilding the roster.
Really? Hitting on a couple of players in free agency could easily give the Jaguars their fair share of players in your all-important top-100 list.
As for the rest of what you're saying, you're arguing against yourself with great enthusiasm. If this management team does not have the luxury of time on its side, why on earth would it care about dead money in the future?
Quote:I didn't present a brainstormed draft proposal intended to generated discussion of its disadvantages. So... um... no, you don't understand what a straw man is. Note that definition says 'not to be confused with straw man argument' which you seem to be doing here. Not that you understand what that is either. Some pointers:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html'>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html</a><a class="bbc_url" href='https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman'>https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman</a>You don't understand what the word 'elitist' means either. I'm not sure it can be considered elitist to point out that since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and you don't even seem to understand what you're saying, we're not likely to make much progress here. I do propose exactly that, because that's how free agency works. Every free agency pick up is a risk, no matter what Madden might have taught you to the contrary. So you have to expect to miss on a few. This applies whether you're at the bottom of the league or the top, and whether your GM is the best or the worst in the league.While we're introducing you to the correct definitions of logical fallacies:<a class="bbc_url" href='https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority'>https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority</a>There are Jaguars who should probably be on that list, and if the team were more successful, those players would be more widely recognised. There are also Jaguars who shouldn't be on that list, but would be if the team were more successful. That's the nature of such lists. Of course, the Jaguars are where they are right now partly because they don't have enough players who should be on the list on their own merits (and partly because of the players behind them, and partly for all sorts of other reasons that aren't relevant here).Really? Hitting on a couple of players in free agency could easily give the Jaguars their fair share of players in your all-important top-100 list.As for the rest of what you're saying, you're arguing against yourself with great enthusiasm. If this management team does not have the luxury of time on its side, why on earth would it care about dead money in the future?
DUHH, o.k.......so you flunked logic 101.... It's not a big deal. Besides, recess is over, time to get back to class.
Quote:I'm going to reduce my position to its simplest form............
I am NOT against spending every available penny in free agency to acquire talent. We DON'T have the luxury of just throwing darts at the wall just BECAUSE WE HAVE A PILE Of MONEY. Some of you have suggested that we sign free agents willy-nilly simply because we have the money. I submit that's not wise, and it's what got us into the mess we find ourselves in. Bad signings affect us in the future. I'm all for good signings. O.K, you ask.......how do we differentiate between a good and bad signing? That's exactly the right question to ask.........and the answer is........I don't know. But that's why the brain squad of the Jaguars are paid the big bucks.........to evaluate talent and spend money concurrent with their perceived value to the team. So I fully support their efforts. Pay attention now........here it comes.....The Brain Squad has a short leash.......success for them is measured in months, not years. How can anyone disagree with that?
OK, so basically, you are concerned the free agent signings might not pan out, and there is little room for error. No problem. Got it. Personally, I like the signings, but we'll see. Still doesn't answer the question ... what is the alternative? By your own logic, given the time frame we had to do something or do another staff rebuild. Unless you have specific alternatives, all I get is .. you are worried. Buck up, happy camper, it will all be fine! Does that help? :teehee: