I think I might just have to bump my "Every time we are on national TV" thread again in the third quarter... Hope not though. Either that, or I'm hoping someone starts a "Brock is the football Jesus" thread.
On this topic, you're actually misstating facts on a near-consistent basis - even after you've been repeatedly corrected. No mater how much you want it to be, Brock Osweiler's contract is not a financial albatross.
No; your point is that they had no money - here, I'll quote you directly since you're obviously confused: If you want to argue they didn't spend their money wisely, fair game. But, even after signing Osweiler, they not only had money to spend "elsewhere," they most assuredly *did* spend money elsewhere. I look forward to you ignoring this to push the same inaccurate narrative.
It made it seem like it was Deion and Woodson back there in the Broncos secondary lol I don't think anyone is expecting this to be remotely accurate. Still kinda of a fun way to pass time before the real game starts.
They took a gamble on Jeff Allen that didn't pan out and they drafted a beast center who got hurt. Also both tackles have had injury problems this season. That's why the Texans' O line has been bad, not due to Osweiler's contract.
No, I'm saying we had less to spend elsewhere. It isn't a narrative, it's common knowledge that there is a finite amount to spend
"Less" being irrelevant because there was still plenty of money if they wanted to use it. You're reaching in a similar manner to the Colts owner blaming all of their problems on Andrew Luck's contract. It's simply not true.
And we're saying, No, that's not true. They currently have $5.249MM available - and that's in-season, adding roster replacements, etc. - IIRC, they had $6+MM during the summer; if you remove Allen and Bergstrom (-$8.75MM), that leaves them $13.999MM. And that's a very conservative number as there are myriad ways they could have created more money. Bottom line, even with Osweiler, they had ample space to sign any free agent offensive lineman/men they wanted.
When you consistently (inaccurately) state doomsday scenarios on how his contract is going to kill this team's cap flexibility (which it isn't), then yes... you are decidedly wrong when discussing this team's salary cap situation, and probably shouldn't continue to comment on it wrongly (which you are). But that's the crux of your current take (of the week) on the Osweiler contract. That if he's average, and they then decide to keep him, it becomes a truly "bad" contract that will limit all sorts of flexibility. So again, who would be a valid comparison of an "average" QB (that would supposedly be worth keeping, and thus cause your oft-mentioned cap hits and salary cap implications). This is a league where Ryan Fitzpatrick just got $12million + for one year, and Kirk Cousins has a franchise tag attached to him. A 2 year deal for a QB that at worst case is "average" and makes them think about possibly keeping him is a far cry from being in a desperate/cap-limiting situation.
Every team leaves some capspace. That doesn't mean they have tons of flexibility. And no I don't accept "the have myriad ways to create more money." Outside of cutting Cushing, they don't. It's really not a difficult concept, if you overpay guys, you are hampering yourself. It makes you downgrade from Brooks/Jones to Allen/Bergstrom.
How do you know? Seriously your main point has been that no one is a cap expert and no one knows. So how are you claiming to know that this large contract for a bad QB isn't hurting the team? You don't even have to look at other moves, it just doesn't make common sense.
You're right - it's not... well, assuming we leave you out of the discussion as you have consistently demonstrated an almost comical misunderstanding of the salary cap. For instance... Combined 2016-17 cap hits: Allen/Bergstrom: $18.5MM Brooks/Jones: $17.15MM
No, it's not a difficult concept, it's just inaccurate. They didn't HAVE to "downgrade" from Brooks/Jones to Allen/Martin, they chose to and so far it hasn't worked out. It had nothing to do with Osweiler's contract. Nothing at all.
Because we have access to a calculator and understand the basic fundamentals of addition?... You simply can't be more wrong about this. They had ample money; the problem is that, this year, they invested nearly $18MM in their tackles - *that's* what hampered their ability - assuming it was even a priority - to sign Brown insurance. There are three OL among their 10 highest-paid players this year. Next year, they'll be able to create ample money to again be players - if they choose to be - in free agency.
This is laughable. Jeff Allen guaranteed- $12m Bergstrom guaranteed- $1.5m Brooks guaranteed- $21m Jones guaranteed- $7.5m Not even close man. Brooks and Jones are paid far more. In fact, Jones is closer to Allen than Allen is to Brooks. And our OL went from one of the best to one of the worst. But at least we have Brock!
