N/S Jaguars released WR Christian Kirk (1 Viewer)

[Taker597]

When you have a ton of space, you absolutely must overpay on a bunch of guys to reach minimal thresholds. You are forced to go on a shopping spree of other team’s players, and the available groceries aren’t always up to par.

It also means you’re a bad team so a lot of the big names you may have wanted don’t want to sign with you.

It’s a cycle.

The same stair analogy could be applied to the opposite end of the spectrum by the way, blaming an accounting system for bad football decisions.

NFL teams don't have to spend 89% of their salary cap. The salary cap floor does not apply to any single season, only to the entire 4 year period. That means that not being in compliance in any single year is not going to be a problem for any team. Only if a team has so chronically underspent that they managed to still be below 89% over the entire four-year period, will they be held accountable.

Even so, there's no additional punishment beyond "spend the extra money." If the team hasn't spent 89% of the salary cap over that period, they'll have to fork over the difference to the NFLPA. That's not ideal, of course, but it's not exactly a huge incentive to just overspend, either.

 

[St. Geezy]

NFL teams don't have to spend 89% of their salary cap. The salary cap floor does not apply to any single season, only to the entire 4 year period. That means that not being in compliance in any single year is not going to be a problem for any team. Only if a team has so chronically underspent that they managed to still be below 89% over the entire four-year period, will they be held accountable.

Even so, there's no additional punishment beyond "spend the extra money." If the team hasn't spent 89% of the salary cap over that period, they'll have to fork over the difference to the NFLPA. That's not ideal, of course, but it's not exactly a huge incentive to just overspend, either.

You say that as if spending 89% of your cap on a rolling 4 year average is some easy feat, especially for a team that hasn’t drafted incredibly well.

I don’t understand why this is worth debating. Teams with tons of cap space tend to overspend all the time and typically overspending in free agency is a trap.

You can find the occasional stud but usually the best free agents are the Baun types, the bargains who you get to see thrive in your environment before paying them the true big bucks.

Watch what happens this off-season. There will be more head scratchers from those teams loaded with space once most of the week 1ers are gone.

I mean, JAX signed a WR without a single 1,000 yard season to his name to a 4-year $72m contract two years ago and are now cutting him. It’s a cautionary tale IMO.

 

[Rouxble]

You say that as if spending 89% of your cap on a rolling 4 year average is some easy feat, especially for a team that hasn’t drafted incredibly well.

I don’t understand why this is worth debating. Teams with tons of cap space tend to overspend all the time and typically overspending in free agency is a trap.

You can find the occasional stud but usually the best free agents are the Baun types, the bargains who you get to see thrive in your environment before paying them the true big bucks.

Watch what happens this off-season. There will be more head scratchers from those teams loaded with space once most of the week 1ers are gone.

I mean, JAX signed a WR without a single 1,000 yard season to his name to a 4-year $72m contract two years ago and are now cutting him. It’s a cautionary tale IMO.

Right now, it's 90% minimums over three year periods, with the current evaluation period being from 2024-2026. The Saints are at 83% as of now (about $35m short in new money).

 

[St. Geezy]

Right now, it's 90% minimums over three year periods, with the current evaluation period being from 2024-2026. The Saints are at 83% as of now (about $35m short in new money).

Thanks for the clarification. Had forgotten the exact numbers and flat out didn’t feel like double-checking Taker’s info.

 

[Rouxble]

Thanks for the clarification. Had forgotten the exact numbers and flat out didn’t feel like double-checking Taker’s info.

I forgot also, but I thought for sure it at least changed to a three year period. I remember articles from a few years back saying the Falcons were going to have to spend in 2023 to meet the minimum for that three year period. They spent $263m in 2023 after only spending $327m combined between 2021-22, getting them to 96%.

In the last three year period from 2021-2023, all teams met the minimum. Chicago was the lowest at 95%, and Buffalo was the highest at 128%. The Saints were 2nd at 122%.

 

[Snakehead]

I wouldn't put a claim, I would wait for him to clear waivers and become a FA. I like him as a replacement for Olave. Olave's ideal role is a slot guy as he's too fragile to play X and too finesse to play Z, so slot is kinda where he would need to play, but then then's he fragile and finesse.

Kirk would be good replacement as a primary slot guy who can play X, Y or Z.

At 5'10" 200lbs, he has 9 7/8" hands and a RBS of 2.85 which are both excellent.

If we keep Olave, maybe he gets more durable and can play the Z. He doesn't need to be going across the middle.