NFL Teams That Overspent in 1st Week of Free Agency

[oaklandhater]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...of-free-agency

1.jets
2.Eagles
3.Dolphins
4.Seahawks

[Direckshun]

Jags, no ****ing question.

[Willie Lanier]

Glad we're not it the top 4, but still bleacher report is worthless

[Amnorix]

Dolphins. That Suh contract will haunt them.

Not sure about the Jets. they had mega-tons of cap room. The Revis deal is expensive, but structured well. As long as he is healthy for the first three years, that deal wont' kill them.

Cromartie seems like an overpay, but we'll see. They will certainly have a pretty ferocious defense for a while. Idzik left them tons of cap room, and now they've used alot of it.

[Red Dawg]

All a matter of opinion. Parker and Maclin are not worth the price for other teams but for us they are.

[donkhater]

Meh,

Contracts like Parker's are easily criticized, but those who criticize don't typically have the information that Dorsey has.

1. What's the strategy for the long-term contractual make-up of the team?
2. Which contracts just aren't going to be feasible moving forward?
3. What's the plan in the defensive backfield w/o Eric Berry?
4. What do the college drafts look like in the next couple seasons?
5. Do we think Parker is an ascending/versatile player?

Taking everything into account and a belief that Parker may do even better (he vastly improved last season IMO), in a couple years, his contract may seem a bargain, or, at least, not as questionable to some.

[Mr. Laz]

"Suh’s cap hit for 2015 will be incredibly manageable. He’s slated to count just over $6 million this season, but that cost will balloon beyond $28 million in 2016, which currently stands to be the largest cap hit of any player in the entire NFL for that year."



wow

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Meh,

Contracts like Parker's are easily criticized, but those who criticize don't typically have the information that Dorsey has.

1. What's the strategy for the long-term contractual make-up of the team?
2. Which contracts just aren't going to be feasible moving forward?
3. What's the plan in the defensive backfield w/o Eric Berry?
4. What do the college drafts look like in the next couple seasons?
5. Do we think Parker is an ascending/versatile player?

Taking everything into account and a belief that Parker may do even better (he vastly improved last season IMO), in a couple years, his contract may seem a bargain, or, at least, not as questionable to some.

spoken like a true homer

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

spoken like a true homer

It makes sense to me. Parker is pretty cheap years one and 2. He becomes more expensive in year 3 but also reasonably cheap to cut.

So basically, you give him a 2 year tryout. If he does well, you pay him his year 3 raise. If he doesn't do well, cut him and absorb the 3m dead cap. Meanwhile, you've given yourself 2 years to draft a guy who can challenge him for that starting spot in 3 years.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by oaklandhater

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...of-free-agency

1.jets
2.Eagles
3.Dolphins
4.Seahawks

I guess I'm missing something. I don't see the Seahawks listed in the article other than where is says they wanted to keep Maxwell but the Eagles threw stupid money at him.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

spoken like a true homer

Maybe, but there are a variety of factors that play into it that fans don't consider, IMO.

What are the alternatives? Parker has pretty good coverage skills for a safety; shows versatility. He already knows the defense and can react rather than think. Does the coaching staff view him as an ascending player?

If his contract is acceptable in years 1 and 2, then whatever he is scheduled to earn in year 3 may ultimately be acceptable as well if:

1. The salary cap increases and salaries inflate even more.
2. He improves

Is he a great player? No. Is a good player with upside and versatility? yes. Maintaining cohesion with a good young player is worth a little more IMO. If he was older, the deal wouldn't have been made.