Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: In grudging praise of Bradway

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    16,616
    Post Thanks / Like
    You're wrong about Barret RS.

    Overall, a solid post.

    I could do without your Patriot arrogance however, the Patriots while the defending champs, aren't a "shoe in" right now either. The Patritos have aging players, BB has never been able to win with a young football team, and he lost some key players this off-season.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cromwell, CT
    Posts
    951
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thank you, RS, for your insight.

    One thing though;

    Why, when anyone mentions the Jets WR Corps, they never EVER mention the very talented Jonathan Carter???? Ya gotta love this kid, possibly the fastest player on the Jets (herm said something like that) and he has decent hands. Do you remember the Colts game last year, where he was kick ass in both returning kicks and catching a bomb or two???

    Its ok. I don't care if people exclude him, because its tough to remember the 3rd or 4th stringer on any team, but I feel like I have to remind you guys how good he actually is.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns. of Virginia
    Posts
    2,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AJPerg[/i]@May 1 2004, 02:31 PM
    [b] Thank you, RS, for your insight.

    One thing though;

    Why, when anyone mentions the Jets WR Corps, they never EVER mention the very talented Jonathan Carter???? Ya gotta love this kid, possibly the fastest player on the Jets (herm said something like that) and he has decent hands. Do you remember the Colts game last year, where he was kick ass in both returning kicks and catching a bomb or two???

    Its ok. I don't care if people exclude him, because its tough to remember the 3rd or 4th stringer on any team, but I feel like I have to remind you guys how good he actually is. [/b][/quote]
    carter's roster spot could be in some jeopardy. unlikely we'll cut a 4th round pick, so Cotchery is likely our number 4. carter, therefore, may be competing for #5...the fact that he returns kicks should assure him a spot on the roster, but who knows....if someone else steps up, he could be caught in a numbers game.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by pope+May 1 2004, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (pope @ May 1 2004, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--gaffneycatch[/i]@May 1 2004, 02:08 PM
    [b] nice post RS. my only question has to do with the Barrett contract. not than i&#39;m really eager to re-open this can of worms (i know you&#39;ve posted extensively on this in the past), but i was under the impression that much of your criticism of that contract had to do with a misunderstanding over the signing bonus. once it became clear (is it clear? i think so...) that it was a 24 million rather than 31 million dollar contract (i&#39;m not sure those are the right numbers, but i think so -- and they include the 7 million bonus), doesn&#39;t Barrett&#39;s contract line up with other young, average to above average corners? [/b][/quote]
    If Barrett busts the Jets have an out after one year at minimal cost, once again RS looks at very little when it comes to facts. [/b][/quote]
    That is completely false.

    This (wrong) perception comes from a half baked newsday article which suggested that Barrett has a one year "trial" period.

    [quote][b]One of Barrett&#39;s Dallas-based agents said he signed a six-year contract worth nearly &#036;21 million, which includes a &#036;4.5 million signing bonus and a &#036;1 million roster bonus after each of the first two seasons. [/b][/quote]

    While the 1 million dollar roster bonus after the 2nd season hasn&#39;t been reported by every news outlet, the rest of the contract is universally reported identically

    4.5 mil SB. Six years. 1 mil Roster bonus after the first season.

    This means that to cut Barrett next year would cost 3.75 million dollars. That is not minimal cost by any reasonable definition.

    Go ahead and google it. You will not find one credible report or news outlet-- [b]not one[/b]-- saying that Barrett&#39;s SB is other than 4.5 million dollars.

    The belief that Barrett did not receive a 4.5 million dollar SB is basically a collective JI delusion.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Miami will be good, but i dont see them as having a good offseason. WE both know the Jets and Patriots had the best offseason.

    Miami got older and lost a lot of O Line.

    They&#39;ll be 9-7 forever.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    52,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by nyjet80[/i]@May 1 2004, 03:05 AM
    [b] Nice, well thought out post. It&#39;s not often I enjoy reading what Patriot fans have to say so when I see something Pro-Jets I have to really inhale it B) .

    [/b][/quote]

    Actually, I have to agree with my esteemed colleague on this one.

    Bradway and the entire FO have done a very solid job this off-season and especially with the draft.

    For those Bradway bashers, keep in mind that he has been behind the eight-ball for several years now with the salary cap situation.

    All in all, I have always said I would give credit where credit is due, and on the surface, it looks like he has made some solid moves.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    It actually pains me to say this but I am in agreement with Pope. **boot and rally**

    IMHO the only thing Bradway screwed up was not tendering Coles for a first and a third. Dealing with the mess that Par&#036;ells left is not an easy task and he still has some pills to swallow (CuMart and VT).

    He has done a decent job, I agree with RS&#39;s take on Barrett. That seems to be a little rich, but if hehits it will be a good signing.

    RayRay - The Patriots are not as old as you think. The offense is fairly young with only Brown, Andruzzi and Fauria being on the wrong side of 30. Brown will have to deal with the emmergence of Givens, (the Patriots leading receiver in the playoffs) and Fauria has 2 1st round ahead of him. The defense is a little older. However, the Dl has 8 of 9 players 4 years and under in the league. The LBers have a nice blend of vets (Phifer-14, Johnson-9, Bruschi-8, Vrabel-7), youth (Colvin-5) and young players ready for the next level Chatham and Banta-Cain. The DBs are the same, we have vets (Law, Poole and Harrison) teaming with Wilson and Samuel and vets O-T-I-S and Burris to come off th bench.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Orlando from NYC (1998) Las Vegas from Orlando Fl (june 2007)
    Posts
    17,566
    Post Thanks / Like
    :ph34r: It&#39;s not beer tlking..it someone that knoes football talking..I don&#39;t care who u are a fan of....Bradway did a great job.....as for your Chowds....you guys seem to get it done year in and year out.....much props to that....after looking at the Bills and fish...I honestly feel that my Jets are the team that gonna challenge your Patriots in the AFC East.

  9. #29
    TomShane
    Guest
    Take it easy, guys. We go 7-9 and Bradway will go right back to be the retarded step-brother of Lucifer.

    The guy had a solid draft, but remember this thread if Barrett blows and DRob can&#39;t find the QB.



    <devil&#39;s advocate post :lol: >

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Orlando from NYC (1998) Las Vegas from Orlando Fl (june 2007)
    Posts
    17,566
    Post Thanks / Like
    :ph34r: after all the negativity this offseason (and much of it deserved) I feel real optimistic right about now...yeh we don&#39;t know whats gonna happen in 2004 but this is flat out just a better team than last year...focus on that....Barrett was not a starter for nothing....let them play before placing judgement.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by PFSIKH[/i]@May 1 2004, 05:51 PM
    [b] It actually pains me to say this but I am in agreement with Pope. **boot and rally**

    IMHO the only thing Bradway screwed up was not tendering Coles for a first and a third. Dealing with the mess that Par&#036;ells left is not an easy task and he still has some pills to swallow (CuMart and VT) [/b][/quote]
    PFSIKH, I&#39;m on the Bradway bandwagon as well ... heck of a job this off-season ... but the Martin deal was of his own doing

    Martin&#39;s contract was about due to expire, with Jordan already in the fold, but TB opted to re-sign Martin to another mega-deal

    Now you can argue one way or another on the wisdom of re-signing Martin {I didn&#39;t like the idea, and said so at the time} ... but this one was TB&#39;s call

    Hey, you live and learn ... I&#39;m one who really shy&#39;s away from re-signing vets who are close to the downside to long-term/mega extensions ... prefer to save those deals for the young studs ... but I&#39;ll admit this one was a tough call for TB cause the CM was still at his peak and the faithful would have given him hell if CM walked

    I would have taken the heat ... but that&#39;s just me ... not everyone would take that kinda PR whack

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    At this point, anyone calling the Pats old doesn&#39;t know what they&#39;re talking about.

    The Pats could easilly field a starting offense with everyone under 30, and in fact as long as Dillon stays 29, they will do so consistantly.

    On defense, the DL is younger than the Jets DL overall, the LB corps is fairly old, but 1) there are some nice young guys such as Colvin and TBC and 2) BB *wants* a veteran LB corps.

    The secondary right now is balanced between youth and age.

  13. #33
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour+May 1 2004, 03:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (RichardSeymour @ May 1 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[quote]Originally posted by -pope@May 1 2004, 02:15 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by -gaffneycatch@May 1 2004, 02:08 PM
    [b] nice post RS. my only question has to do with the Barrett contract. not than i&#39;m really eager to re-open this can of worms (i know you&#39;ve posted extensively on this in the past), but i was under the impression that much of your criticism of that contract had to do with a misunderstanding over the signing bonus. once it became clear (is it clear? i think so...) that it was a 24 million rather than 31 million dollar contract (i&#39;m not sure those are the right numbers, but i think so -- and they include the 7 million bonus), doesn&#39;t Barrett&#39;s contract line up with other young, average to above average corners? [/b][/quote]
    If Barrett busts the Jets have an out after one year at minimal cost, once again RS looks at very little when it comes to facts. [/b][/quote]
    That is completely false.

    This (wrong) perception comes from a half baked newsday article which suggested that Barrett has a one year "trial" period.

    [quote][b]One of Barrett&#39;s Dallas-based agents said he signed a six-year contract worth nearly &#036;21 million, which includes a &#036;4.5 million signing bonus and a &#036;1 million roster bonus after each of the first two seasons. [/b][/quote]

    While the 1 million dollar roster bonus after the 2nd season hasn&#39;t been reported by every news outlet, the rest of the contract is universally reported identically

    4.5 mil SB. Six years. 1 mil Roster bonus after the first season.

    This means that to cut Barrett next year would cost 3.75 million dollars. That is not minimal cost by any reasonable definition.

    Go ahead and google it. You will not find one credible report or news outlet-- [b]not one[/b]-- saying that Barrett&#39;s SB is other than 4.5 million dollars.

    The belief that Barrett did not receive a 4.5 million dollar SB is basically a collective JI delusion.[/b][/quote]
    Based on what I know, you have the details right, but you are missing the crux of the issue. The Jets can avoid next year&#39;s roster bonus and take the entire salary off the books. They would then pay the remaining cap bill (roughly 3.75 mil) at that point. Still, you avoid the roster bonus and all the future salary. The Jets took a calculated 4.5 million dollar gamble.
    <!--QuoteBegin--RichardSeymour[/i]@May 1 2004, 03:44 PM
    [b]This means that to cut Barrett next year would cost 3.75 million dollars. That is not minimal cost by any reasonable definition.[/b][/quote]
    Reasonable, as you see it. The Jets have spent that money no matter what. They would just accelerate it. From a budgetary perspective, you are way off, in that you are not factoring in the money they save by dumping his salary.

    He makes roughly 3 mil (a shade less I think) per year in salary. He is due a roster bonus of 1 mil on top of that. He also has a yearly signing bonus hit of .75 mil.

    [b]His total cap hit for 2005 if he is kept is roughly 4.75M.[/b]

    [b]If you cut him, you keep the roster bonus and the salary and pay the remaining bonus money, which adds up to the 3.75M you spoke of.[/b]

    The Jets would certainly be admitting a mistake by doing this, but they would also be opening up a small sum on the 2005 salary budget. They need every saved buck in order to fill that vacated roster spot, but it is far from a crippling blow.

    [color=green][b]That - is an out.[/b][/color]

    Lastly, donít forget that you have also removed that salary from all future yearly budgets, which is a long term positive, relative to your current long-term budget.

    If your point is that the Jets took a 4.5 million dollar risk by signing David Barret, then you&#39;d be right. Heck, you can even throw in this years salary, which he will certainly be paid. But going forward, it&#39;s all about the yearly budget, and as I&#39;ve shown you, the Jets have solid options in that regard.

  14. #34
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TomShane[/i]@May 1 2004, 07:20 PM
    [b] Take it easy, guys. We go 7-9 and Bradway will go right back to be the retarded step-brother of Lucifer.

    The guy had a solid draft, but remember this thread if Barrett blows and DRob can&#39;t find the QB.



    <devil&#39;s advocate post :lol: > [/b][/quote]
    Agreed.

    (but he did have a good draft)

    :P

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jet Zep.... most of what you say is true for any player.

    Obviously you cut a player, you take a dead money hit, but you also save some in unpaid salary.

    If the Jets release Strait in &#39;05 and take an accompanying 3.75 mil cap hit which they could have avoided completely by not signing Strait, it&#39;s not a small sum, and it&#39;s NOT a smart contract.

    If Strait&#39;s contract is a one year audition it&#39;s a freaking expensive one.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    And might I add that this whole debate feels like a battle on quicksand. First it was claimed that there would be zero dead money to cut Barrett, then that part of the 4.5 mil SB was a roster bonus.... now it&#39;s being claimed that a 3.75 mil dead money hit is no big deal.

    you&#39;re trying to argue that because the cost to keep Barrett (for one year) approximates the cost to cut him, the overall effect wouldn&#39;t be that bad.... that&#39;s a pollyannaish way of looking at it. in the event that Barrett is cut the simple fact will be that the Jets are taking a 3.75 million dollar cap hit for an absent player, a hit that could have easilly been avoided.

    3.75 million dollars is NOT small cap money. Not at all. Willie McGinest will have a 3.6 million dollar cap hit for the Patriots next year: that figure represents the 4th highest cap hit on the team. 3.5 million is a larger cap hit than the Patriots will incur for Richard Seymour AND Matt Light next year.

    It&#39;s a lot of money, and the spin that a certain group of JIers has tried to put on the Barrett contract is flat out wrong.

  17. #37
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour[/i]@May 1 2004, 09:40 PM
    [b]And might I add that this whole debate feels like a battle on quicksand. First it was claimed that there would be zero dead money to cut Barrett, then that part of the 4.5 mil SB was a roster bonus.... now it&#39;s being claimed that a 3.75 mil dead money hit is no big deal.

    you&#39;re trying to argue that because the cost to keep Barrett (for one year) approximates the cost to cut him, the overall effect wouldn&#39;t be that bad.... that&#39;s a pollyannaish way of looking at it. in the event that Barrett is cut the simple fact will be that the Jets are taking a 3.75 million dollar cap hit for an absent player, a hit that could have easilly been avoided.

    3.75 million dollars is NOT small cap money. Not at all. Willie McGinest will have a 3.6 million dollar cap hit for the Patriots next year: that figure represents the 4th highest cap hit on the team. 3.5 million is a larger cap hit than the Patriots will incur for Richard Seymour AND Matt Light next year.

    It&#39;s a lot of money, and the spin that a certain group of JIers has tried to put on the Barrett contract is flat out wrong.[/b][/quote] The penalty on the yearly budget is less than zero, and you are done with it.

    There are much worse contracts out there with much higher risk. I [b]never said[/b] that they got a great deal in signing Barrett, but they can get out of the deal next year and be done with it without it being a problem. In fact, by absorbing that cap-hit, you solve a long-term problem, again [b]without screwing up your 2005 budget[/b].

    Is it possible that they gave a b-minus contract to a c level player? Sure.

    [b]As I said before[/b], it would be an [b]admission of a mistake[/b] if they cut him. There&#39;s always cost in a failed venture. But in this case, the cost is not out of this world, it&#39;s been budgeted. Cutting him next year does not put them in a bind. You seemed to be painting a more Testaverde-like picture, where they actually lose budget space by cutting the player. In this case, there is actually a marginal gain.

    BTW, there is a solid chance that this guy ends up sticking. He&#39;s got the tools and &#39;tude to be a solid NFL corner. If he can be a plus-corner for the next five years, then it&#39;s a very good deal.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    (bangs head against wall)

  19. #39
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Look behind you
    Posts
    21,199
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RichardSeymour[/i]@May 1 2004, 10:00 PM
    [b] (bangs head against wall) [/b][/quote]
    :lol:

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    you&#39;re arguing that cutting a guy after one year is no problem because the 3.75 mil dead money hit is the equivilant of the ~3 mil budgeted for his salary....

    Would it be OK if the numbers were 5 mil each? 8 mil? 10 mil?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us