"Only" $36 million in salary cap space in 2013?

Jets: -$19.4M

 

You could argue that Shanahan has that formula. I mean how many JAGs has he turned into 1,000 yard rushers.

 

OMG that's so awesome

 

http://www.nyjetscap.com/Dolphins/dolphins2013.php

If you look at this site they ahve it figured to be around 91million as our cap amount currently but that is with Jake on the books. Take him off and looking at a 120million dollar cap and we are 42 Million under. But re-signing Jake just basically turns it back to the same number based on what CK has assumed. Having 30mil in cap sapce isn't terrible and gives us the options to keep which ones fit and which ones don't. May open some holes but thats the way it is.

 

Oh and cutting guys like Richie, Bess, Dmitri Patterson and Carpenter would give us another 13 million quick.

 

I'd rather keep Bess and Incognito... cut Marshall, Patterson, and Carpenter, which frees up 12 mil. That could give us around 60 mil in cap space.

 

Why would we cut Patterson? He is our best corner.

 

He's an expensive nickel cornerback and not our best cornerback... there is no reason to have him on the roster if Marshall is our nickel cornerback.

He can be cut and not hurt us with any dead cap... Marshall cannot.

 

I was saying that with assumption that Marshall will move to safety as Aqua mentioned.

 

I don't think any of those players are likely to be cut. Incognito I would have pegged, but I think he saved himself with a quite good second half of the season where he played quite well vs. some quality opposition.

 

I don't think this team regards either player as Nickel corners.

 

If they think either should start as a boundary CB then I'd disagree with them then.

 

Ah my bad.

 

Interesting thing is we are in that 4 team pool amounting to 62% of the usable cap space in the entire league.

IE, we can be buyers if we choose to do so

Guys always get waived in the offseason, literally, the team does evals and guys are waived, we will see some guys leaving via that route as well, we just don't really know who they will be.

 

No worries. Now quit screwing around and get those rosters ready and put up the selection thread......

 

I suspect Marshall steps in for SSmith unless he is tagged.

Think of it this way, Marshall and Smith are redundant, why move Marshall to SS when Clemons would man it for a fraction of the FA cost? Tagging Smith raises the bill 8 million (compared to his Rook contract $$$), if they choose not to, and I don't think they will they would naturally count on Marshall replacing SSmith at 5 million per yr.

Or they could let Clemons and Smith walk, and count on Wilson to play SS or a draft choice cheaper Fa etc.

 

Agreed on.y pointed these players out as they take a lot of heat. Richie for 5 mil I think we could replace easily. Bess I would keep. Patterson not sure about small sample size for that price tag. What he showed pretty good. Carp I also think we could replace for a cheaper replacement may be wrong but I might be willing to risk it. Plus I'm hoping the kicker next is only doing knockoffs and xp lol.

 

I wonder what the average for the top 3 corners for a team is?

I wouldn't mind if we were over average.

I don't think Smith is the type of cb they like but he is the only person we have to cover bigs.

I think even if we let Clemons walk we are fine in the secondary

Smith
Marshall
Patterson
Carroll
McCann

With Jones, Wilson and Culver back at safety
Sweirenger(sp) would sure round our defensive backs nicely

 

CB1 is around 8M, CB2 is around 5M, CB3 is around 3.8M. Give or take.

 

I haven't seen anything that shows a connection between team rushing proficiency and meaningful impact on the outcome of a game. Nothing like the impact of net passing YPA, passer rating, and turnover ratio, at least. And this was a good year for rushers at both RB and QB, but there's still no win-correlated impact that I've seen.

I don't think we should measure players by how often they touch the ball, but by what they do when they touch the ball.

 

Thank you
I was talking of a cumulative average

Say we give Smith 7/yr and I think Marshall and Patterson are each at 5/yr

That puts us at 17/yr
I imagine the jets, eagles, falcons have higher off the top of my head

 

Reshad Jones is the SS.

 

Im all for advanced metrics but any stat that says running the ball well doesn't help win games is silly.

 

In that scenario, who would you go after at CB?

 

It's not about what a stat says or doesn't say. It's about the lack of correlation between rushing proficiency and winning.

 

I get that. I just don't understand how anyone can seriously refute that running the ball effectively helps score points and win games. It's not as important as it was 30 yrs ago but it's still an integral part of having a successful offense.

 

I dont think the GM bases his info off of the local media.... he had a better idea than anyone but the capologist when he supposedly said those things.

It still seems to me, that most fans are aware of the fact that we'll have money to spend........... but the majority doesn't even know why. Big Contracts are expiring and if you want these guys back.... theres goes all that money. The idea is that we spend the money in different ares and let whomever can be replaced for cheaper walk.

 

Are you implying that the GM knows more than the beat writers? How dare u.

 

Bump.

The JEST are in the lowest levels of cap hell and have to let high priced people go.
It helps me to remember this when the Dolphins are just a tad below mediocre.
Nothing like the suffering of those you despise to give you perspective.

 

The league has changed drastically since 2000.

Between 1970 (the merger) and 2000 only 4 teams won the Super Bowl not finishing in the top 10 in rushing yards per game. Since 2000 to 2011 there have been 7 teams that did not finish in the top 10 in rushing yards per game, 5 of those teams finished ranked 23 or lower and the Giants won last year ranked dead last (32).

It gets even worse with YPC...9 teams have finished outside of the top 10 in YPC since 2000, 6 teams 23rd or worse and the Giants were dead last (32) last year.

This ain't our daddies NFL anymore.

Outside of where a team ranks in points scored/points given up/points differential the statistic that is most significant to winning the Super Bowl since the merger (1970) is QB rating. The average winning Super Bowl QB averages being 6.24 in QB rating. That is even greater than where a team ranks in turnover differential which is 7.17.

 

I always love how everyone singles out individual positions and their impact on winning. It's a team game. QBs are obviously the most important cog in the machine (see Green Bay and New England) but good running game just makes the job of the QB and receivers that much easier, A formula that works well for San Fran and Seattle. Just like a good pass rush, just like a great set of WRs, just like great special teams. It all adds up to increasing the chances of scoring and winning games. Only a handful of teams have elite QBs that can carry a team on a weekly basis

 

Not saying a running game can't help a team. But it is hard to deny the game has changed and teams that win the Super Bowl aren't typically built around a strong running game anymore.

Only two teams (SF and Sea) are left in the playoffs that were top 10 in ypc. However, 7 of the 8 playoffs teams finished in the top 10 in QB rating. Only Baltimore at 16 is out of the top 10. This is a QB league. Unless a team has a top 10 QB then they have a problem at QB imo. Not that a team with a great defense and running game can't win the Super Bowl, but winning the Super Bowl without elite QB play is the rare exception.

It is the teams with elite QBs that win the Super Bowls, not the teams with elite run games nowadays...Brady 3, Roethlisberger, 2, E. Manning 2, Rodgers, Brees, P. Manning.

Brad Johnson also won a Super Bowl with TB, but it wasn't b/c of the run game. Johnson ranked 6th in QB rating in 02, while the run game was 27th in ypg and 26th in ypc.

 

Doesn't Bart Scott and Calvin pace excite you??..lol jetsale.

 

This is an instance of you wanting to believe something regardless of accuracy, IMO. At best, the run calibrates the pass. But even that isn't for sure.

By the way, no one is saying not to run the ball. The point is to not expect to win or lose a game based on relative success of rushing. You shouldn't expect to win if the run game is doing well, and you shouldn't expect to lose if the run game stinks.

 

Agreed. It's just my beliefs, not a fancy study based analysis.

IMO it's all intertwined. Running the ball makes it easier to pass and vice versa. It's not so much how many yds you gain via the rush as having the threat of the run to keep defenses honest. One dimensional teams can be stopped by good defenses, and gave a slim margin for error, in the playoffs especially. Again, JMO.