Essentially the same thing as saying...


A.) End the year with 47 million in cap space.


B.) End the year with 37 million in cap space but have the best running back in the AFC on your team.


What would you prefer, considering the jaguars had a pretty big hole at RB as well?

Not really...with the draft pick the 16 million is a 1 year hit...if the 2nd round pick is a bust the commitment is minimal.

 

The FA signing is a 2 year minimum commitment..with dead money still in years 3/4/5 if he doesn't pan out.

 

 

Also the value of a 2nd round draft pick is higher than Ivory is...even at the time of his signing...NYJ would have traded him for  2nd in a heartbeat if they could have.

---

As soon as someone tells me how the jaguars wasted money but the browns didn't, without using hindsight...


Did the jaguars have more cap space than they could have spent? Yes.


That's the argument made to defend the browns move.


Why is that argument valid for the browns and not the jaguars?

I'm not understanding the angle here.


The Browns move is a good move, the owner essentially paid 16 million for 2nd round pick.


The Jaguars move with Ivory is pretty much dependent on what you think of Ivory as a player with us. I still like the move because A) Always loved Ivory and think he's good enough with decent run blocking and B) The contract is irrelevant to me with regards our cap.


Other people might not like Ivory though and would see the signing as a bad move.

---

This was written by Bill Barnwell of ESPN

 

"Start with the picks. Cleveland sent the 142nd pick to the Texans for Osweiler, the 188th selection and a 2018 second-rounder. We don't know where the Texans will finish, obviously, but the fairest assumption would be that they will go 8-8 and hold the 17th pick in the second round, which would be pick 49. Trading 142 for 188 and next year's 49th pick generates 8.1 points of draft capital, which is equivalent to the 64th pick of the draft. That's the very last selection of the second round, the worst second-rounder available.

<p style="font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(72,73,74);">Is the 64th pick worth the $16 million the Browns will have to pay for Osweiler? No. While players like Dwayne Allen and Randall Cobb have been taken with the 64th pick in recent years and delivered plenty of surplus value on the relatively low rookie contracts they were assigned, those draft picks don't always hit. Cobb might have been worth $16 million in surplus value, but the average return on that pick doesn't approach $16 million. Research by Cade Massey and Richard Thaler and ESPN's Brian Burke suggests that these Day 2 picks are the most valuable ones in the draft, but even they don't come close to the salary the Browns picked up on Osweiler."

 

 

The question remains what would they be doing with 68 Million in cap that they couldn't do with 52 Million? 

---

Not really...with the draft pick the 16 million is a 1 year hit...if the 2nd round pick is a bust the commitment is minimal.


The FA signing is a 2 year minimum commitment..with dead money still in years 3/4/5 if he doesn't pan out.



Also the value of a 2nd round draft pick is higher than Ivory is...even at the time of his signing...NYJ would have traded him for 2nd in a heartbeat if they could have.

Read my last post.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Read my last post.

Read mine...

---

The question remains what would they be doing with 68 Million in cap that they couldn't do with 52 Million?

What would the jaguars do with the extra money in cap space that they couldn't do before singing ivory?


No one can answer that question. It's ok for the browns to waste pointless money, but not the jaguars. I get it.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

I'm not understanding the angle here.


The Browns move is a good move, the owner essentially paid 16 million for 2nd round pick.


The Jaguars move with Ivory is pretty much dependent on what you think of Ivory as a player with us. I still like the move because A) Always loved Ivory and think he's good enough with decent run blocking and B) The contract is irrelevant to me with regards our cap.


Other people might not like Ivory though and would see the signing as a bad move.

 

That's because people are thinking of the Ivory move in terms of hindsight. 

 

At the time of the contract the jaguars had extra money to spend and had a hole at RB. The jaguars, even after signing Ivory, had plenty of extra money to spend. The jaguars took extra money they had and invested it in something they thought would help the team.

 

That is the exact same thing the browns did. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

That is pretty much my point. Either you like both deals or you dislike both deals because they're pretty similar situations. The teams had more money than they could spend, and overspent for a player that they hope will help their team. 

But the difference is, the Jaguars, to my recollection, never sent another team a draft choice AND a player to take that player's contract off the books.

 

The closest thing to that was the expansion draft when Houston came into the league.  There, the Jaguars were so cash strapped, they agreed to leave Boselli, Walker and Payne unprotected and the Texans took all three.

 

The difference is, they didn't also send the Texans a 2nd round pick on top of that to do so.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

What would the jaguars do with the extra money in cap space that they couldn't do before singing ivory?


No one can answer that question. It's ok for the browns to waste pointless money, but not the jaguars. I get it.

Who is that up in arms over Ivory? 

 

Certainly not myself,  the Jags took a shot...if Ivory doesn't work out you cut him....no different from Beadles//Any signing considered a bust. 

 

Just because you have extra space doesn't mean you can't call a bust signing a bust.  Will it cause some long lasting effect that will spiral us down...no because we have the space but a bust signing is a bust signing.

 

What makes the Ivory signing any worse/better than the Texans Osweiler signing? 

 

Both can be seen as bad since they didn't live up to the billing...but are you trying to imply that Ivory isn't because Jags had the money anyways?

---

 

That's because people are thinking of the Ivory move in terms of hindsight. 

 

At the time of the contract the jaguars had extra money to spend and had a hole at RB. The jaguars, even after signing Ivory, had plenty of extra money to spend. The jaguars took extra money they had and invested it in something they thought would help the team.

 

That is the exact same thing the browns did. 

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

Who is that up in arms over Ivory? 

 

Certainly not myself,  the Jags took a shot...if Ivory doesn't work out you cut him....no different from Beadles//Any signing considered a bust. 

 

Just because you have extra space doesn't mean you can't call a bust signing a bust.  Will it cause some long lasting effect that will spiral us down...no because we have the space but a bust signing is a bust signing.

 

What makes the Ivory signing any worse/better than the Texans Osweiler signing? 

 

Both can be seen as bad since they didn't live up to the billing...but are you trying to imply that Ivory isn't because Jags had the money anyways?


 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

So do you consider the Beadles signing a bust or not?

---

Who is that up in arms over Ivory? 

 

Certainly not myself,  the Jags took a shot...if Ivory doesn't work out you cut him....no different from Beadles//Any signing considered a bust. 

 

Just because you have extra space doesn't mean you can't call a bust signing a bust.  Will it cause some long lasting effect that will spiral us down...no because we have the space but a bust signing is a bust signing.

 

What makes the Ivory signing any worse/better than the Texans Osweiler signing? 

 

Both can be seen as bad since they didn't live up to the billing...but are you trying to imply that Ivory isn't because Jags had the money anyways?

Just as purely bad signings, they are equal.

 

The question is how best to mitigate the damage from a bad signing?

 

Do you:

 

1.  Keep the bad signing on the roster another year?;

2.  Dump the bad signing and take the cap hit?

3.  Pay another team a 2nd round pick to take the bad signing off the roster and take the cap hit?

 

I think the Texans chose 3-the worst of the three options.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

So do you consider the Beadles signing a bust or not?

Completely irrelevant.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

That's because people are thinking of the Ivory move in terms of hindsight.


At the time of the contract the jaguars had extra money to spend and had a hole at RB. The jaguars, even after signing Ivory, had plenty of extra money to spend. The jaguars took extra money they had and invested it in something they thought would help the team.


That is the exact same thing the browns did.

Its not the exact same thing though. The Browns received a draft pick for money which in turn can be used to draft a prized prospect or packaged in a trade.


The Jaguars received a running back for money. As said before I still like Ivory and don't mind the deal but others already A) Didn't like Ivory before the deal or B) After seeing him this season don't like Ivory.


You are looking at the wrong stuff. Focus on the asset received by the Brown's and focus on the asset received by the Jaguars.


Browns asset: 2nd round pick, a valuable asset to have and can yield a high level starter. Its value is in the opportunity. The subjective part is if you think a 2nd round pick is worth 16 million. Most would seem to say yes.


Jaguars asset: An oldish running back who had very poor production for us for a wide variety of reasons and fumbled a lot. The subjective part of this asset is whether you like him as a player. I still like Ivory but can see how others would not.



So when you compare the two, some will like the Browns asset received , while others might not like the Jaguars asset received. This is how someone may like the Browns deal but not the Jags, and vice versa.

---

Completely irrelevant.

How so...

 

Beadles was considered top OG FA....Jags had the money.

 

How is this different from your Ivory argument?

---

The whole concept is silly. Its easy to like one of the deals and not the other. They are quite different.

---

The whole concept is silly. Its easy to like one of the deals and not the other. They are quite different.

Exactly...

---

The whole concept is silly. Its easy to like one of the deals and not the other. They are quite different.

Agree to disagree.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

The whole concept is silly. Its easy to like one of the deals and not the other. They are quite different.

Paying for the opportunity to draft another player and paying a player premium money despite him not being a premium player arent the same thing. Its not about the money spent or the cap space left after, its about the reasoning for doing it. At the time the contract for Ivory was drawn up there was no feasible reason for him to be paid like that. None. We didnt pay for an unknown player with some untapped ceiling, we paid top money to a guy whos best year was average. Thats the whole point.

---

Paying for the opportunity to draft another player and paying a player premium money despite him not being a premium player arent the same thing. Its not about the money spent or the cap space left after, its about the reasoning for doing it. At the time the contract for Ivory was drawn up there was no feasible reason for him to be paid like that. None. We didnt pay for an unknown player with some untapped ceiling, we paid top money to a guy whos best year was average. Thats the whole point.

Yep, pretty much what I've said.

---