More Kalil on Matsko (via Observer's Rodrigue)

[top dawg]

I personally covet the articles that give you a peek into the insight of coaches and players, particularly the ones that we always seem to just hear about but are behind the scenes.

While apparently "rolling back" his comment about how Matsko demanded excellence as opposed to his coaches in Minny, Kalil may have shed light on why Matsko really is deserving of the respect as a top O-line coach in the NFL, and Rodrigue explains it nicely:

It starts with the little details, hammered home by run-game coordinator John Matsko, who is known for honing in on the minutae of a lineman’s game. The two have been working together all spring and into training camp on Kalil’s footwork and hand placement.

Kalil caused a bit of a stir on social media last week, when he said Matsko was “the first guy I’ve played for that kind of demands excellence from his offensive line room.”

He clarified his comment a bit on Wednesday night, saying that specifically the attention to detail Matsko pays to his technique is not something he has had in a coach “in a long time.”

The line, which gave up just one sack on Wednesday (a product of second-and-third team action), will watch film Thursday, and Matsko will nitpick.

“Something we might miss or not think is a big deal, he hones in on,” said Kalil. “Regardless of whether we thought we had a good game or not, he’s going to find something to correct for us, for the better. He cares about us and he just wants us to be perfect.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article166483672.html#storylink=cpy

Now, as some of you know, I was perhaps a little too forward with my skepticism about Kalil's skills ability to protect Cam's blind side based upon his initial work against Mario Addison [Thanks, @Jeremy Igo! :)] and his career work in general, but he may have more potential than anticipated. At least he kept Clowney at bay for a couple of series. 

Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Dave Gettleman overpaid from a practical standpoint, and took a huge risk considering Kalil's injury history, but with Matsko coaching him, maybe potential injuries are the only real concern. Perhaps Kalil and Amini Silatolu (and maybe even Taylor Moton) can help us to achieve what Oher and Remmers couldn't.  The jury is still out, but rest assured that our O-line seems to be in great hands with Matsko.

[CarolinaSamurai]

Well he has turned terrible linemen into serviceable players. Can you imagine remmers not coached by matsko? Probably sitting at home.

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, top dawg said:

I personally covet the articles that give you a peek into the insight of coaches and players, particularly the ones that we always seem to just hear about but are behind the scenes.

While apparently "rolling back" his comment about how Matsko demanded excellence as opposed to his coaches in Minny, Kalil may have shed light on why Matsko really is deserving of the respect as a top O-line coach in the NFL, and Rodrigue explains it nicely:

It starts with the little details, hammered home by run-game coordinator John Matsko, who is known for honing in on the minutae of a lineman’s game. The two have been working together all spring and into training camp on Kalil’s footwork and hand placement.

Kalil caused a bit of a stir on social media last week, when he said Matsko was “the first guy I’ve played for that kind of demands excellence from his offensive line room.”

He clarified his comment a bit on Wednesday night, saying that specifically the attention to detail Matsko pays to his technique is not something he has had in a coach “in a long time.”

The line, which gave up just one sack on Wednesday (a product of second-and-third team action), will watch film Thursday, and Matsko will nitpick.

“Something we might miss or not think is a big deal, he hones in on,” said Kalil. “Regardless of whether we thought we had a good game or not, he’s going to find something to correct for us, for the better. He cares about us and he just wants us to be perfect.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article166483672.html#storylink=cpy

Now, as some of you know, I was perhaps a little too forward with my skepticism about Kalil's skills ability to protect Cam's blind side based upon his initial work against Mario Addison [Thanks, @Jeremy Igo! :)] and his career work in general, but he may have more potential than anticipated. At least he kept Clowney at bay for a couple of series. 

Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Dave Gettleman overpaid from a practical standpoint, and took a huge risk considering Kalil's injury history, but with Matsko coaching him, maybe potential injuries are the only real concern. Perhaps Kalil and Amini Silatolu (and maybe even Taylor Moton) can help us to achieve what Oher and Remmers couldn't.  The jury is still out, but rest assured that our O-line seems to be in great hands with Matsko.

Here is the thing that most seem to keep missing. 

Of ALL of the free agent LTs available, he had the best combination of age, and the highest ceiling (talent and ability). 

If your a GM, and you believe in your coaches (which you should), then Kalil was the right decision, knowing that your coaches are going to get the best from the player. 

As far as how rich his contract is, it's right in line with top paid left tackles. He's not going to come at a discount because of 1 year of injury, and the other being an off year. Also keep in mind. Minnesota was trying.to get him back. I'm sure we weren't the only teams interested. That prevents his value from dropping to. The analysts can say we paid to much all they want to, they aren't gms or agents.

[tiger7_88]

2 hours ago, top dawg said:

Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Dave Gettleman overpaid from a practical standpoint

https://overthecap.com/player/matt-kalil/1793

After year 3 of the contract, the Panthers will have paid Kalil $33 million ($11M per year for 3 years).  If he plays merely "good", is $11M per year "overpaid from a practical standpoint" for a "good" LT in the NFL?

If he does not perform to standards, however, as the contract is structured Kalil can be a post-June 1st cut after year 2 and save $1M on the salary cap.

If, however, he plays BETTER than "good" (lets say he plays "really good"), the Panthers will owe Kalil only $22.5M in the final 2 years of his contract.  

How is this a bad deal "from a practical standpoint"?

[top dawg]

36 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

https://overthecap.com/player/matt-kalil/1793

After year 3 of the contract, the Panthers will have paid Kalil $33 million ($11M per year for 3 years).  If he plays merely "good", is $11M per year "overpaid from a practical standpoint" for a "good" LT in the NFL?

If he does not perform to standards, however, as the contract is structured Kalil can be a post-June 1st cut after year 2 and save $1M on the salary cap.

If, however, he plays BETTER than "good" (lets say he plays "really good"), the Panthers will owe Kalil only $22.5M in the final 2 years of his contract.  

How is this a bad deal "from a practical standpoint"?

People can talk numbers and IF he plays like this, or IF he plays like that, then the contract is worth it. 

You can really say that about anyone on any contract.

The goal of the contract, in my opinion anyway, is to keep a player's contract within the scope of the market while paying a price that is commensurate with their past production in addition to future expected production.  The only way to do that is by judging their entire body of work, while taking things like age and injury into account. 

It is easily argued that considering all the factors that I just mentioned, that Kalil was overpaid. People keep giving excuses as to why he was paid like a top LT on the market, but his career body of work is not commensurate with a contract of that level. It's just not. He's almost a top 10(11) paid LT in the NFL. That's crazy, and I don't care if it's only for a set two years. We will never know, but I think we could have gotten him a whole helluva lot cheaper. I'm talking Oher cheap. Look at the contract numbers, career stats, and grades.

There really is no justification based upon tangibles as to why Gettleman paid Kalil so high. It's a big gamble, and one I don't think that we had to take. Even at half the price per year, Kalil would be being paid pretty well for a tackle with his history of injury and body of work. People keep talking like it's OK to overpay because he was the youngest best option on the market, but that doesn't mean you pay Kalil that. You could have easily let him keep walking, pay someone else, even if they are older, and address the situation with a more solid and permanent solution within the next couple of years, thereby taking less risk---taking the "gamble" out of the equation as well as possible. Sure there may have been intangibles to consider that may help justify gambling, but in my opinion, Gettleman did not have to do it. I'd have called Kalil's bluff, offered him a shorter prove-it deal, and if he proved it, then I may have paid him like a top LT in the league. At the very least, I would have told him to shop around to see what others were willing to offer him before I opened up the Brinks truck.  

We didn't get a deal with Kalil, and we should have. I don't care what anyone says. We didn't get a deal. And all the extrapolation about it possibly being a deal or market value based upon rising salaries in the future doesn't move me because all players sign according to today's value. Today, Kalil is a top paid LT in the league, so he got an excellent deal. No way Minny or likely any team was touching that with a ten foot pole. It wasn't really competitive. It was handsome, but his career work has been a little ugly.

[Jon Snow]

You never pay for past production.   You can use that to determine future value but past value has already been realized.  That's what got Hurney fired.

[t96]

59 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

https://overthecap.com/player/matt-kalil/1793

After year 3 of the contract, the Panthers will have paid Kalil $33 million ($11M per year for 3 years).  If he plays merely "good", is $11M per year "overpaid from a practical standpoint" for a "good" LT in the NFL?

If he does not perform to standards, however, as the contract is structured Kalil can be a post-June 1st cut after year 2 and save $1M on the salary cap.

If, however, he plays BETTER than "good" (lets say he plays "really good"), the Panthers will owe Kalil only $22.5M in the final 2 years of his contract.  

How is this a bad deal "from a practical standpoint"?

If he's merely good I think $11M/year is too much, but such is the market in today's NFL. I have hopes of him being great. Glad if he's not we will have an easy out of this experiment. Ultimately was in no ways a bad deal but a bit more than I'd have liked to have spent, and probably more than DG would've spent if JR weren't nudging him to spent as many had reported at the time.

[top dawg]

4 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

You never pay for past production.   You can use that to determine future value but past value has already be realized.  That's what got Hurney fired.

Past production has already been paid for, but you must look at their past production and other factors to come up with an expectation for future production, especially for someone who is coming off a rookie contract or in the middle of his career.

[top dawg]

Hurney was fired because he was overpaying. Past production was but one factor.

[Jon Snow]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Past production has already been paid for, but you must look at their past production and other factors to come up with an expectation for future production, especially for someone who is coming off a rookie contract or in the middle of his career.

Isn't that what I just said?   It applies to both rookies and vets but to different degrees.  Bottom line is you only pay for future value.

[LinvilleGorge]

If you go #2 overall in the draft, you don't lack for potential.

[top dawg]

5 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Isn't that what I just said?   It applies to both rookies and vets but to different degrees.  Bottom line is you only pay for future value.

Well that's actually what  I said also. I never said that you simply pay for past production.

[pantherclaw]

44 minutes ago, top dawg said:

People can talk numbers and IF he plays like this, or IF he plays like that, then the contract is worth it. 

You can really say that about anyone on any contract.

The goal of the contract, in my opinion anyway, is to keep a player's contract within the scope of the market while paying a price that is commensurate with their past production in addition to future expected production.  The only way to do that is by judging their entire body of work, while taking things like age and injury into account. 

It is easily argued that considering all the factors that I just mentioned, that Kalil was overpaid. People keep giving excuses as to why he was paid like a top LT on the market, but his career body of work is not commensurate with a contract of that level. It's just not. He's almost a top 10(11) paid LT in the NFL. That's crazy, and I don't care if it's only for a set two years. We will never know, but I think we could have gotten him a whole helluva lot cheaper. I'm talking Oher cheap. Look at the contract numbers, career stats, and grades.

There really is no justification based upon tangibles as to why Gettleman paid Kalil so high. It's a big gamble, and one I don't think that we had to take. Even at half the price per year, Kalil would be being paid pretty well for a tackle with his history of injury and body of work. People keep talking like it's OK to overpay because he was the youngest best option on the market, but that doesn't mean you pay Kalil that. You could have easily let him keep walking, pay someone else, even if they are older, and address the situation with a more solid and permanent solution within the next couple of years, thereby taking less risk---taking the "gamble" out of the equation as well as possible. Sure there may have been intangibles to consider that may help justify gambling, but in my opinion, Gettleman did not have to do it. I'd have called Kalil's bluff, offered him a shorter prove-it deal, and if he proved it, then I may have paid him like a top LT in the league. At the very least, I would have told him to shop around to see what others were willing to offer him before I opened up the Brinks truck.  

We didn't get a deal with Kalil, and we should have. I don't care what anyone says. We didn't get a deal. And all the extrapolation about it possibly being a deal or market value based upon rising salaries in the future doesn't move me because all players sign according to today's value. Today, Kalil is a top paid LT in the league, so he got an excellent deal. No way Minny or likely any team was touching that with a ten foot pole. It wasn't really competitive. It was handsome, but his career work has been a little ugly.

His rookie year, was a probowl season. 

I don't care if you think the pro bowl is a joke (it is), that is a damn good rookie season for a LT. 

Are you willing to tell me you never expect a player to get bacl to that type of play? That he wouldn't get better as a vet? 

You can talk all you want to about injury, and his down year, if just shows you ignore common basic knowledge.

If cam had a lost year this season due to injury,  you telling me, he wouldn't be worth a top contract?

I understand what you're saying, but the NFL don't work like that.

[panthers55]

3 hours ago, CarolinaSamurai said:

Well he has turned terrible linemen into serviceable players. Can you imagine remmers not coached by matsko? Probably sitting at home.

This.

Matso took a raw UDFA like Norwell who had the right mentality and Turner who was a third rounder and turned them into one of the better guard combos in the league. He took Oher and turned him around in 1 year and looks to be doing the same thing with Kalil. He might be called the hogmollie whisperer.