(03-16-2018, 01:31 PM)NJ JagsFan Wrote: [ -> ]I really wanted his reasoning for that Hayden pick up and contract...
Otherwise i'm extremely happy with the FA's we got and the contracts we gave them.
Overall, he handled himself well and is more confident and you can tell by his answers they were more aggressive then defensive. I like it, lets hope it works out.
Paraphrasing:
"He's a really good player that can't play outside or inside... he'll slide into the nickel spot for us.
He can blitz, he can play the run and he's got good zone and man coverage skills underneath.
we think he'll be a really good fit defensively for us."
(03-16-2018, 01:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 01:31 PM)NJ JagsFan Wrote: [ -> ]I really wanted his reasoning for that Hayden pick up and contract...
Otherwise i'm extremely happy with the FA's we got and the contracts we gave them.
Overall, he handled himself well and is more confident and you can tell by his answers they were more aggressive then defensive. I like it, lets hope it works out.
Paraphrasing:
"He's a really good player that can't play outside or inside... he'll slide into the nickel spot for us.
He can blitz, he can play the run and he's got good zone and man coverage skills underneath.
we think he'll be a really good fit defensively for us."
I’m sure Wash and Fewell signed off on it as well. If he’s a scheme fit then why not?
Seemed like the panicked after the colvin deal didn't work out.
It would be easier to stomach if the vastly superior Robey-Coleman and Patrick Robinson didn't sign for less money. As is it's quite possibly the worst deal of this FA period.
(03-16-2018, 02:04 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Seemed like the panicked after the colvin deal didn't work out.
I highly doubt that. They’ve been planning different scenarios for months now. He was “plan B”. Now whether or not their evaluation was correct remains to be seen.
(03-16-2018, 01:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 01:31 PM)NJ JagsFan Wrote: [ -> ]I really wanted his reasoning for that Hayden pick up and contract...
Otherwise i'm extremely happy with the FA's we got and the contracts we gave them.
Overall, he handled himself well and is more confident and you can tell by his answers they were more aggressive then defensive. I like it, lets hope it works out.
Paraphrasing:
"He's a really good player that can't play outside or inside... he'll slide into the nickel spot for us.
He can blitz, he can play the run and he's got good zone and man coverage skills underneath.
we think he'll be a really good fit defensively for us."
Not much of a response IMO. Very vague and could literally be said about any CB that your team just signed but I guess what else is he going to say? He is confident about him and lets hope its a good call.
I just don't understand the contract with what hes shown in his career. Even if they do think this guy is legit he probably could have came cheaper.
If I am not mistaken, offset language only applies to salaries and not bonus money.
For us to recoup any savings, Bortles would have to receive a 6.5 mil+ salary from whomever signs him for the year 2019 which would be high for a back up. If Bortles gets cut after 1 year and goes on to be a back up, he would most likely get a deal that would pay him the veteran minimum salary in 2019 of 805k forcing us to compensate him for the remaining amount of the 6.5 mil he was due. So there would be no benefit to cut him if his play relegates him to a back up player.
So for us to take advantage of the offset language Bortles would have to play next year at a high enough level to command a starter level contract on the open market and we would have to have a player that plays even better than that.
So unless we find a Russel Wilson type transcending player in the draft who immediately plays at a high level or we decide to spend big bucks in the the FA market next year for a top notch QB even if Bortles is playing well ( both of which are unlikely scenarios), Bortles contract is effectively a 2 year deal.
(03-16-2018, 02:24 PM)NJ JagsFan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 01:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Paraphrasing:
"He's a really good player that can't play outside or inside... he'll slide into the nickel spot for us.
He can blitz, he can play the run and he's got good zone and man coverage skills underneath.
we think he'll be a really good fit defensively for us."
Not much of a response IMO. Very vague and could literally be said about any CB that your team just signed but I guess what else is he going to say? He is confident about him and lets hope its a good call.
I just don't understand the contract with what hes shown in his career. Even if they do think this guy is legit he probably could have came cheaper.
I agree with you on the contract.
Though I don't think "vague" is the right word for the Caldwell quotes.
He's actually very specific in his expectations and intentions for the signed player.
(03-16-2018, 02:47 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]If I am not mistaken, offset language only applies to salaries and not bonus money.
For us to recoup any savings, Bortles would have to receive a 6.5 mil+ salary from whomever signs him for the year 2019 which would be high for a back up. If Bortles gets cut after 1 year and goes on to be a back up, he would most likely get a deal that would pay him the veteran minimum salary in 2019 of 805k forcing us to compensate him for the remaining amount of the 6.5 mil he was due. So there would be no benefit to cut him if his play relegates him to a back up player.
So for us to take advantage of the offset language Bortles would have to play next year at a high enough level to command a starter level contract on the open market and we would have to have a player that plays even better than that.
So unless we find a Russel Wilson type transcending player in the draft who immediately plays at a high level or we decide to spend big bucks in the the FA market next year for a top notch QB even if Bortles is playing well ( both of which are unlikely scenarios), Bortles contract is effectively a 2 year deal.
Yes the offset applies to his the portion of his base salary that is guaranteed for 2019 ($6.5 million) and not the signing bonus.
I think you're glossing over the "why was the offset language put in there" question. They've provided themselves flexibility with the deal, even in 2019. They piss that away if they don't get a legitimate heir on the roster this year. And Bortles doesn't have to play poorly necessarily for the front office to decide to move on, it could be just continued inconsistency.
Also, you're grossly under estimating backup QB salaries especially for a guy that now has playoff wins under his belt and is still young. Chad Henne got $3.25 million from us last year and $4.75 million the year before. Chad Henne. Nick Foles got $7.6 million last year to backup Wentz. Chase Daniel just signed a 2 year $10 million dollar deal to back up Brees. In Jet land, McCown just got a 1 year $10 million dollar deal to start and Teddy got $5 million to back him up.
There's a handful of vet backup QBs getting vet minimum or something close to it and those guys have never done anything in their career. The rest are either on their rookie deals or they're vets getting $2 to $4 million. I don't know that there are any with playoff experience let alone playoff wins. In the scenario where Bortles is cut next year, vet minimum isn't happening for him. He'll get at least $5 million to back someone up next year and probably more in a situation where he's holding the seat warm for a rookie in waiting.
I wonder if Fowler JR is part of the long term plans, or is he part of the "plan" to get a QB in the draft? Would Fowler be a top 10 pick in this draft as is right now? Fowler + #29 to move up might be something they try. Reason I bring it up is shortly after the draft a decision on his 5th year option will be discussed. It will be a big price for #3 overall I am guessing (TBH I don't know how prices on 5th year options are determined), but Blake's was 19M so I am thinking ~13M after looking at the numbers from last year. WIthout adding this years crop of rookies, spotrac has the Jags 24M over the cap next season... adding Fowler's 5th year option + rookies will put them 40M over the cap. Something to look for. I think teams would jump at Fowler.
Unless they package the first three picks to move up for a QB, we'll be cutting a few decent players.
Also, is Rivera still under contract?
(03-16-2018, 03:47 PM)JaG4LyFe Wrote: [ -> ]Unless they package the first three picks to move up for a QB, we'll be cutting a few decent players.
Also, is Rivera still under contract?
Rivera was released last season.
(03-16-2018, 03:41 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 02:47 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]If I am not mistaken, offset language only applies to salaries and not bonus money.
For us to recoup any savings, Bortles would have to receive a 6.5 mil+ salary from whomever signs him for the year 2019 which would be high for a back up. If Bortles gets cut after 1 year and goes on to be a back up, he would most likely get a deal that would pay him the veteran minimum salary in 2019 of 805k forcing us to compensate him for the remaining amount of the 6.5 mil he was due. So there would be no benefit to cut him if his play relegates him to a back up player.
So for us to take advantage of the offset language Bortles would have to play next year at a high enough level to command a starter level contract on the open market and we would have to have a player that plays even better than that.
So unless we find a Russel Wilson type transcending player in the draft who immediately plays at a high level or we decide to spend big bucks in the the FA market next year for a top notch QB even if Bortles is playing well ( both of which are unlikely scenarios), Bortles contract is effectively a 2 year deal.
Yes the offset applies to his the portion of his base salary that is guaranteed for 2019 ($6.5 million) and not the signing bonus.
I think you're glossing over the "why was the offset language put in there" question. They've provided themselves flexibility with the deal, even in 2019. They piss that away if they don't get a legitimate heir on the roster this year. And Bortles doesn't have to play poorly necessarily for the front office to decide to move on, it could be just continued inconsistency.
Also, you're grossly under estimating backup QB salaries especially for a guy that now has playoff wins under his belt and is still young. Chad Henne got $3.25 million from us last year and $4.75 million the year before. Chad Henne. Nick Foles got $7.6 million last year to backup Wentz. Chase Daniel just signed a 2 year $10 million dollar deal to back up Brees. In Jet land, McCown just got a 1 year $10 million dollar deal to start and Teddy got $5 million to back him up.
There's a handful of vet backup QBs getting vet minimum or something close to it and those guys have never done anything in their career. The rest are either on their rookie deals or they're vets getting $2 to $4 million. I don't know that there are any with playoff experience let alone playoff wins. In the scenario where Bortles is cut next year, vet minimum isn't happening for him. He'll get at least $5 million to back someone up next year and probably more in a situation where he's holding the seat warm for a rookie in waiting.
He would get the vet minimum not based on his skill level but because it would be smart for the signing team to force us to pay the bulk of his salary in 2019.
6.5 mil is a high salary for a back up. It's higher than the salary than we are paying him this year.
Just look at the deal McCown got. A team could pay Bortles a base salary of 800k give him a 3.5 mil signing bonus and then we would be on the hook for 5.7 mil, effectively giving him a 1 year 10 mil contract just like McCown.
So the offset language doesn't protect us unless Bortles signs a big contract somewhere and may not even protect us then based on how the new contract is structured.
If all you need is a backup (someone to protect the football if the starter goes down) then we easily could have re-signed Henne yet again. A no-brainer... he's been here in the system.
If you want a backup to groom into something more than a guy who protects the football, you draft.
So, IMO, if we sign a vet it's not with the intention that we're "set," it will be with the intention of hedging their bet to find a QB to groom in the draft. The intention I don't feel would be to immediately replace Bortles, but someone who legitimately has a shot at pushing for the job in due time.
To me drafting a QB does seem to be their intention, given it would have been way too easy to re-sign Henne already.
(03-16-2018, 04:44 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 03:41 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Yes the offset applies to his the portion of his base salary that is guaranteed for 2019 ($6.5 million) and not the signing bonus.
I think you're glossing over the "why was the offset language put in there" question. They've provided themselves flexibility with the deal, even in 2019. They piss that away if they don't get a legitimate heir on the roster this year. And Bortles doesn't have to play poorly necessarily for the front office to decide to move on, it could be just continued inconsistency.
Also, you're grossly under estimating backup QB salaries especially for a guy that now has playoff wins under his belt and is still young. Chad Henne got $3.25 million from us last year and $4.75 million the year before. Chad Henne. Nick Foles got $7.6 million last year to backup Wentz. Chase Daniel just signed a 2 year $10 million dollar deal to back up Brees. In Jet land, McCown just got a 1 year $10 million dollar deal to start and Teddy got $5 million to back him up.
There's a handful of vet backup QBs getting vet minimum or something close to it and those guys have never done anything in their career. The rest are either on their rookie deals or they're vets getting $2 to $4 million. I don't know that there are any with playoff experience let alone playoff wins. In the scenario where Bortles is cut next year, vet minimum isn't happening for him. He'll get at least $5 million to back someone up next year and probably more in a situation where he's holding the seat warm for a rookie in waiting.
He would get the vet minimum not based on his skill level but because it would be smart for the signing team to force us to pay the bulk of his salary in 2019.
6.5 mil is a high salary for a back up. It's higher than the salary than we are paying him this year.
Just look at the deal McCown got. A team could pay Bortles a base salary of 800k give him a 3.5 mil signing bonus and then we would be on the hook for 5.7 mil, effectively giving him a 1 year 10 mil contract.
So the offset language doesn't protect us unless Bortles signs a big contract somewhere.
Fair point, but all it would take is two teams or more to be interested in his services for the “let’s stick it to the Jags” strategy to likely go out the window. You make me question whether the offset is salary only and not just total guaranteed amount in a new deal, else why would anyone ever use offset language? The Jags front office would have thought of all this, right? So why would the Jags bother putting the language in the deal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-16-2018, 05:06 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 04:44 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]He would get the vet minimum not based on his skill level but because it would be smart for the signing team to force us to pay the bulk of his salary in 2019.
6.5 mil is a high salary for a back up. It's higher than the salary than we are paying him this year.
Just look at the deal McCown got. A team could pay Bortles a base salary of 800k give him a 3.5 mil signing bonus and then we would be on the hook for 5.7 mil, effectively giving him a 1 year 10 mil contract.
So the offset language doesn't protect us unless Bortles signs a big contract somewhere.
Fair point, but all it would take is two teams or more to be interested in his services for the “let’s stick it to the Jags” strategy to likely go out the window. You make me question whether the offset is salary only and not just total guaranteed amount in a new deal, else why would anyone ever use offset language? The Jags front office would have thought of all this, right? So why would the Jags bother putting the language in the deal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If two teams were competing for him, all they would need to do is up his signing bonus. I'm sure Bortles would rather have the money up front anyway and wouldn't be concerned about the salary. It would have nothing to do with wanting to "stick it to the jags" but rater save almost 6 mil on their salary cap which would be a benefit to their organization.
From some further reading, it sounds like if another team takes over Bortles contract (ie trade or picked up off waiver), they become responsible for the 6.7 mil. So it sounds like we would recoup the 6.7 mil if someone were to take over Bortles contract, but we would most likely eat about 5.7 mil if we were to allow him to become a FA before the second season.
(03-16-2018, 05:40 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 05:06 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Fair point, but all it would take is two teams or more to be interested in his services for the “let’s stick it to the Jags” strategy to likely go out the window. You make me question whether the offset is salary only and not just total guaranteed amount in a new deal, else why would anyone ever use offset language? The Jags front office would have thought of all this, right? So why would the Jags bother putting the language in the deal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If two teams were competing for him, all they would need to do is up his signing bonus. I'm sure Bortles would rather have the money up front anyway and wouldn't be concerned about the salary. It would have nothing to do with wanting to "stick it to the jags" but rater save almost 6 mil on their salary cap which would be a benefit to their organization.
From some further reading, it sounds like if another team takes over Bortles contract (ie trade or picked up off waiver), they become responsible for the 6.7 mil. So it sounds like we would recoup the 6.7 mil if someone were to take over Bortles contract, but we would most likely eat about 5.7 mil if we were to allow him to become a FA before the second season.
If Tyrod Taylor is tradeable on a team friendly contract then I will say Bortles is as well.
(03-16-2018, 05:47 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018, 05:40 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]If two teams were competing for him, all they would need to do is up his signing bonus. I'm sure Bortles would rather have the money up front anyway and wouldn't be concerned about the salary. It would have nothing to do with wanting to "stick it to the jags" but rater save almost 6 mil on their salary cap which would be a benefit to their organization.
From some further reading, it sounds like if another team takes over Bortles contract (ie trade or picked up off waiver), they become responsible for the 6.7 mil. So it sounds like we would recoup the 6.7 mil if someone were to take over Bortles contract, but we would most likely eat about 5.7 mil if we were to allow him to become a FA before the second season.
If Tyrod Taylor is tradeable on a team friendly contract then I will say Bortles is as well.
So it's effectively a 2 year contract for us. The only way to get out of it earlier without big cap implications is for someone else to take over the contract.
(03-15-2018, 11:39 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]The structure of Bortles' contract indicated QB would be a priority in the draft. It's a 1 year deal if we want it to be and they aren't going into next season without a legitimate heir apparent on the roster if it becomes resoundingly clear that it's time to move on. The free agent moves support this line of thinking as well. The draft still has to fall the right way and/or we need to find a willing trade partner, but you'd think QB has to be a strong possibility in round 1. A rookie backup QB that could ascend to the starting job is also going to have a very team friendly contract for 4 or 5 years which will go a long way in enabling us to keep the core of this team together for a long time.
A round one QB is possible, but I just don't see that happening. They talked to Litton, and he's a viable candidate for their late round three pick along with Luke Falk who I really like.
Listening to Caldwell, he mentioned we very well might get two QBs... a vet backup and a developmental rookie. If they do both, it makes even more sense to use a day two pick for a guy like Falk or Litton as opposed to using their first round pick for a Mason Rudolph or Lamar Jackson.
(03-16-2018, 12:55 AM)VisitingCobra Wrote: [ -> ]After today, I was sure Caldwell was going to trade up into the top of the draft and get a QB ... until I just read his comments.
Now, I'm thinking maybe they could go FA: Kaepernick, Geno Smith, Fitzpatrick, Matt Moore, Cutler.
But I don't know about that either. So I'm going to say ... they give up a draft pick for ... Jacoby Brissett!
... Or also, yea they probably just draft a QB.
Brissett would be a great add, but the Colts would be insane to trade him within the division.
All of those options actually make plenty of sense except for Kaep as he would turn off too many fans with his antics. In particular, I could totally see Fitz or Cutler on the sideline holding a clipboard.