Jump to content

2021 Cap Decrease + Possible Consequences [Cap is set at $182.5M]


Ann
 Share

Recommended Posts

Any cap gurus here? 

Is Beane a cap genius? Can he pull a rabbit out of his hat? How will the Bills navigate these waters? Who are the obvious players not being resigned? Who is being cut?
 

2021 cap space (right now the Bills are in the red) 
Spotrac contracts for the Bills

This article deals with the consequences of less money available to the teams...
 

2021 NFL salary cap conundrum: Three major consequences of projected decrease
 

</snip>
 

Clubs are aware there will be a decrease in the cap number next year due to COVID-19 repercussions, but to what degree? That's still unknown, as there are estimates out there, but no official number from the league. All 32 teams must be below the cap number at the start of the new league year.
 

</snip>
 

1) Using the franchise tag will become more difficult.
2) Teams with less draft capital may be in for longer periods of hardship.
3) A major threat to veteran roster spots.


</snip>
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very curious to see if this leads to some kind of "percentage slotting" instead of actual dollars. 


Like Josh's contract could be 25% of the overall cap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Whatnot78 said:

You'll see a larger number of veteran cuts in order to get under the salary cap...any more probably taking a veteran minimum.


I was looking at the cap hits if some of the vets are cut. Who would you cut?

Lee Smith is gone. Harrison Philips? Tyler Matakevich? I do not know the plans for these guys, and they only equal about $7M all together.  And then there are contracts expiring and/or they might want extended (Feliciano, McKenzie, Milano, and what to do about Josh's contract...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ann said:


I was looking at the cap hits if some of the vets are cut. Who would you cut?

Lee Smith is gone. Harrison Philips? Tyler Matakevich? I do not know the plans for these guys, and they only equal about $7M all together.  And then there are contracts expiring and/or they might want extended (Feliciano, McKenzie, Milano, and what to do about Josh's contract...)

 

 Smith definitely...the other 2 probably.

 

Possibly John Brown...with Davis being the cheaper option

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whatnot78 said:

 Smith definitely...the other 2 probably.

 

Possibly John Brown...with Davis being the cheaper option


Yeah, I was looking at John Brown's contract. Would love to keep him, but he may be too expensive. Which is a darned shame.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brown is jettisoned, Davis IS NOT an adequate replacement.  Brown's ability to blow the top off the defense MUST be replaced.  It's not a coincidence that teams are more easily able to contain the BILLS' passing game when Brown isn't on the field.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

I see Philips is probably gone. He has been a healthy scratch a couple of times  at least this year.  

Maybe...but he's not really expensive and is coming off a pretty significant injury.  I can see him getting another look through training camp next season.  He won't be cut over money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billsandhorns
15 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Maybe...but he's not really expensive and is coming off a pretty significant injury.  I can see him getting another look through training camp next season.  He won't be cut over money.

I can agree with that. It appears to me that once a guy looks like he is falling out of favor. They don't stay around very long.

This year very well be different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

I can agree with that. It appears to me that once a guy looks like he is falling out of favor. They don't stay around very long.

This year very well be different

I don't disagree because there are plenty of examples of guys being jettisoned but his injury and draft status are really the wildcards.  I've never heard anyone say anything negative about Harry, so I doubt he's much of a distraction in the way a guy like say, Spain might have been.

 

An ACL is a tough thing to come back from and even harder if you're a bigger dude.  He may be a "healthy scratch" but it's hard for me to believe that he's 100% of what he was before he was hurt.  It just takes so long to get back from that injury.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billsandhorns
1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

I don't disagree because there are plenty of examples of guys being jettisoned but his injury and draft status are really the wildcards.  I've never heard anyone say anything negative about Harry, so I doubt he's much of a distraction in the way a guy like say, Spain might have been.

 

An ACL is a tough thing to come back from and even harder if you're a bigger dude.  He may be a "healthy scratch" but it's hard for me to believe that he's 100% of what he was before he was hurt.  It just takes so long to get back from that injury.

I agree that the ACL is a tough injury to come back from. I could see him sticking around at least through training camp and probably into next year.  Still on his rookie deal and relatively inexpenive

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diggs will probably restructure by pushing some of his pay forward in a restructuring bonus and take salary away in future years.    Morse will be cut or restructured. Same with Butler.   These are the easy ones, and they could probably free up another $10 million here and there.

 

I still disagree with Spotrac's treatment of Star's dead cap, as they include his '22 salary as guaranteed.  That's not the case, it's only guaranteed for injury.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ComradeKayAdams

Milano, Darryl Williams, and Feliciano are the three big high-priority UFA’s. Fair offers should also be made to Andre Roberts and McKenzie. The rest of the UFA’s are easily replaceable with draft picks and cheaper vets. I would keep all of the RFA’s.

 

Cutting Butler, Jefferson, Lee Smith, and Matakevich saves $17.45-20.45 million in cap space with only $1.35-2.85 million of dead cap (depending on source). All four are quality backups and role players, but it will be an off-season full of tough decisions.

 

I see no sense in cutting any of the starters, including players like Morse and Brown. The franchise’s goal now is to win the Super Bowl, not the Salary Cap Bowl (clever line, right?!). So contract extensions and restructures will need to be reached with a number of starters in order to keep the three aforementioned high-priority UFA’s. The rest of the team’s roster needs (speed RB, tackle depth, quality pass-rushing DE, LB depth, quality big nickel safety, CB depth) may have to be filled predominantly through the draft.

 

Cutting Harrison Phillips makes little sense to me in terms of cap savings ($0.95 million), given his talent and the team’s draft investment in him. Let him at least prove himself through one more preseason.

 

We’ll need to keep a wary eye on a few of those teams with gigantic amounts of cap space (Jets, Jags, WFT, *Patriots, Colts). I don’t know if we should use any of the franchise/transition tags on our three big UFA names, but at least it seems like all three love playing for Buffalo.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I hope the NFL gives teams plenty of lead time to make plans.

 

Cap management seems difficult enough without throwing uncertainty and last-minute (relatively speaking) decisions into the mix.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2020 at 8:46 AM, BuffaloHokie13 said:

1993 and 2010 were uncapped years. I'm sure they could do that again due to the uncertainty if the owners and NFLPA agreed on it.


This might be a good idea as long as they know what the 2022 cap will be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL Ratings Drop Leaves Networks Scrambling to Make Advertisers Whole
TV networks are using ad inventory to make good on their earlier audience commitments
 

A pro football game on a Wednesday afternoon is rare. Advertisers getting a pricing discount for NFL games is also usually unheard of.
 

But it’s happening.
 

TV networks are feeling the strains of disappointing NFL ratings, as they are forced to restructure deals with advertisers to make up for the smaller audience, and their opportunity to make money off remaining games during the lucrative holiday season narrows.
 

NBC made the unusual move of lowering the price it charged advertisers that already had committed to run in a Baltimore Ravens vs. Pittsburgh Steelers game planned for Thanksgiving night after a Covid-19 outbreak on the Ravens forced the game’s postponement to the following Wednesday.
 

Some networks also have considered letting advertisers pay less for commercials during NFL games and other programming than they originally pledged.
 

Meanwhile, a large amount of the remaining commercial time available in games is being given to marketers as compensation for the underperformance so far, leaving little ad time that can be sold in the final quarter of the season. Such so-called make-good commercials are given if a network underdelivers on the audience it promised an advertiser.

</snip>

With nothing else on TV, this is the excuse!?!?! :classic_dry:
 

But this year, NFL ratings have taken a hit as pandemic-related postponements have pushed some games to less desirable times and the coronavirus has sidelined some star players. Unexpected competition from other sports leagues whose seasons were delayed from earlier in the year also has taken a toll on ratings.
 

Last NFL season, not including the playoffs, networks that broadcast the games generated $3.6 billion in TV ad revenue, according to Kantar.

</snip>

Buried: :classic_dry:

Aside from reschedulings and some sidelined stars, the league has faced a backlash from some fans over its social justice efforts, including its embrace of Black Lives Matter. These factors are compounded by the secular decline of traditional TV viewing, in which ratings have been eroded by the uptick in ad-free streaming services.

</snip>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Guidelines