All this because the Raiders have placed themselves in a position of having to spend way more money than they need to this offseason and will likely have to well overpay players to reach the cap floor? At least the Jaguars picked up enough players over the years that they can do what they want to do this offseason.

So your reply to my comment is based on the Raiders having to overspend this offseason? The Jaguars have overspent the last two free agency periods on backups who did nothing to improve this team. I'm talking about giving money to scrub players on other good teams to come here and start. And guess what, they're about to overspend some more on a few more players who might do the same thing. You gotta be kidding me with that man.

---

So your reply to my comment is based on the Raiders having to overspend this offseason? The Jaguars have overspent the last two free agency periods on backups who did nothing to improve this team. I'm talking about giving money to scrub players on other good teams to come here and start. And guess what, they're about to overspend some more on a few more players who might do the same thing. You gotta be kidding me with that man.

 

 

Odrick, Parnell, House and Skuta have all improved the roster.


 

My Raiders comment was about your suggestion that they've managed their cap better. Baloney. They've put themselves in a position where they may have to spend far more than they might otherwise want to.

---

'02

All that says to me is the Oakland Raiders are way better at building a team than the Jaguars. Significantly better coached too.

Do you realize that this report isn't saying that the Raiders have 13 million more In current cap space than we do, but that they have spent less money since 2013 with last year being the only year in that time span where they had a better record?

---

Odrick, Parnell, House and Skuta have all improved the roster.


 

My Raiders comment was about your suggestion that they've managed their cap better. Baloney. They've put themselves in a position where they may have to spend far more than they might otherwise want to.

What about the others like, Sergio Brown, Toby Gerhart, Zane Beadles, Dekota Watson? Chris Clemons gave you one ok season but this year was trash. What have they improved on this team manning starting spots? And get outta here with Dan Skuta. He's on the list of nobody's cashing checks too. My comment wasn't about the cap actually, it was about their drafting the past few years and getting quality players. Clearly what they've been drafting put them in a position to not spend on duds like we've been these last two years in free agency. Yeah they'll have to make some moves this off season but guess who else does too? Like I said in a division with the league champs and another playoff team they are doing a better job at building a team at this point.

---

Do you realize that this report isn't saying that the Raiders have 13 million more In current cap space than we do, but that they have spent less money since 2013 with last year being the only year in that time span where they had a better record?

Thanks for the breakdown guy.

---

What about the others like, Sergio Brown, Toby Gerhart, Zane Beadles, Dekota Watson? Chris Clemons gave you one ok season but this year was trash. What have they improved on this team manning starting spots? And get outta here with Dan Skuta. He's on the list of nobody's cashing checks too. My comment wasn't about the cap actually, it was about their drafting the past few years and getting quality players. Clearly what they've been drafting put them in a position to not spend on duds like we've been these last two years in free agency. Yeah they'll have to make some moves this off season but guess who else does too? Like I said in a division with the league champs and another playoff team they are doing a better job at building a team at this point.

Still don't understand why people expected so much from guys like Sergio Brown,Dekoda Watson,Toby Gerhart,Ziggy Hood etc etc


Zane Beadles was a let down though I'll agree on that.

---

I want a left tackle in free agency.

---

I want a left tackle in free agency.

You will be disappointed sir.

---

You will be disappointed sir.

 

Why? I'm not talking about a stud--I know good LTs are valuable, and teams are reluctant to let them go. I'm talking about an up-and-comer type player, some like Parnell, only on the left side. Even if Luke is the LT of the future, he needs someone to push him. And we need the depth.

---

Why? I'm not talking about a stud--I know good LTs are valuable, and teams are reluctant to let them go. I'm talking about an up-and-comer type player, some like Parnell, only on the left side. Even if Luke is the LT of the future, he needs someone to push him. And we need the depth.

An up and comer is not gonna come here to be a back up. They wanna be starters.

---

So apparently the cap is gonna be raised to 155 mil. How much room does that give us?

---

So apparently the cap is gonna be raised to 155 mil. How much room does that give us?

 

Not enough.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

An up and comer is not gonna come here to be a back up. They wanna be starters.

 

And they very well may be, if they come here.

---

Give us around 78 millions I guess.

---

An up and comer is not gonna come here to be a back up. They wanna be starters.

It wouldn't be a guarantee that an up-and-comer at any position would be told up front they'd be a backup.  I would imagine any player they pursue would be given every opportunity to win the starting job.  That's been their process up to this point.  I don't see that changing.  So, if they identify an LT who would be considered a young player on the rise, he'd no doubt be told that he'd be competing to win the starting job. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

It wouldn't be a guarantee that an up-and-comer at any position would be told up front they'd be a backup.  I would imagine any player they pursue would be given every opportunity to win the starting job.  That's been their process up to this point.  I don't see that changing.  So, if they identify an LT who would be considered a young player on the rise, he'd no doubt be told that he'd be competing to win the starting job. 

Exactly. If nothing else, we need someone who can push Luke.  We face JJ Watt twice next year, along with Von Miller.

---

What about the others...

 

 

Oh yeah... I should have mentioned Julius Thomas.

---

'02

Exactly. If nothing else, we need someone who can push Luke. We face JJ Watt twice next year, along with Von Miller.

we need to go after Donald Penn, Luke would have someone to learn from

---

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/story...7617181608

 

<p class="">"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The Oakland Raiders and Jacksonville Jaguars are the only two NFL teams below the 89 percent cash spending required by next year, and they are significantly under the minimum, the players' union said Thursday.

<p class="">NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith singled out the Oakland Raiders as being $41 million below the spending floor they must reach by March 2017. The Jacksonville Jaguars are $28 million short of the collectively bargained requirements, Smith added."

<p class=""> 

<p class="">"Early last month, Jaguars general manager Dave Caldwell said: "The philosophy is you've got to look, at least for us, not this year but next year. We have some very key guys on our team that are going to be free agents or going to be in their third year and able to redo their contracts."

<p class=""> 

<p class="">===========================================================

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Okay, what Dave said sounds logical, however, as I understand it, by rule we cannot do contract extensions for the 2014 draft class (Blake, Telvin, Allan Robinson) until March 2017, but also by rule, we have to reach minimum spending levels by March 2017.   At 12:00 AM, March 1, 2017, we get penalized, but we can't sign Blake's extension until 12:00 AM, March 1, 2017.   I don't see how we can beat the clock on the penalty by extending current players.   Because outside of our 2014 draft class, whose extension would use up any significant amount of cash? 

---

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/story...7617181608

 

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The Oakland Raiders and Jacksonville Jaguars are the only two NFL teams below the 89 percent cash spending required by next year, and they are significantly under the minimum, the players' union said Thursday.

NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith singled out the Oakland Raiders as being $41 million below the spending floor they must reach by March 2017. The Jacksonville Jaguars are $28 million short of the collectively bargained requirements, Smith added."

 

"Early last month, Jaguars general manager Dave Caldwell said: "The philosophy is you've got to look, at least for us, not this year but next year. We have some very key guys on our team that are going to be free agents or going to be in their third year and able to redo their contracts."

 

===========================================================

 

Okay, what Dave said sounds logical, however, as I understand it, by rule we cannot do contract extensions for the 2014 draft class (Blake, Telvin, Allan Robinson) until March 2017, but also by rule, we have to reach minimum spending levels by March 2017.   At 12:00 AM, March 1, 2017, we get penalized, but we can't sign Blake's extension until 12:00 AM, March 1, 2017.   I don't see how we can beat the clock on the penalty by extending current players.   Because outside of our 2014 draft class, whose extension would use up any significant amount of cash? 

But we can always extend Luke Joeckel!

---

"It was Blake Bortles the whole time. They believe in this kid. He reminds me a bit of a young Ben Roethlisberger." ~Mike Mayock