The case to release Ryan Kalil, JStew, and CJ

[therealmjl]

8 hours ago, PantherNation123 said:

Really confused why people think this.  Adams was consistently torched this year in coverage, just about on par with Coleman.  Adams at this point is a serviceable backup, but he should be paid next to nothing IMO

Well, he actually is paid next to nothing.

https://overthecap.com/position/safety/

You're not going to get better by cutting the lone bright spot in our secondary and turning around paying someone else similar money who may or may not even be an upgrade.

 Keeping him around as a backup/role player is ideal, which would also imply he isn’t going anywhere.

 

[CPF4LIFE]

26 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

You're fan perspective doesn't agree with most GM's.

I guarantee those GMs are probably not fielding winning teams either.

[MHS831]

8 hours ago, weyco2000 said:

It would be dumb to...

A) Pay any center 10 million per year.

B) Pay an aging and injury prone player at any position 10 million per.

C) Let your Pro Bowl LG walk because some other guy deserves his big payday.

D) Keep players for any reason other than performance and worth. 

This may indeed be his last year, but it won’t be in Carolina.

I would like to fix this:

E) All  of the above

C is the best answer, and D should add the words "expected future" performance--Marty treated contracts like trophies in the past...Contracts are not rewards, they are agreements based on future

[MHS831]

7 hours ago, Icege said:

CJ needs to go. JStew and RKalil should have contracts renegotiated.

I really don't give a poo what JStew made the last 2 years. That's irrelevant. What's relevant now is how much he'll cost going forward and I don't think he's worth $5M, but I also don't think that we have the money to go shopping for a new guy to pound the rock behind suspect OL blocking when we still have to pay Norwell and find Lotulelei's replacement.

I'd rather go into next season with JStew/CMC, cut CAP, and draft a rookie that can take a year to learn the playbook. JStew is excellent at picking up the blitz and didn't do awful when the OL was blocking so that he was not getting hit immediately after taking the handoff.

Kalil is important, but seeing how much time he missed this past season due to a neck injury that he's been coy about so that it not be targeted by opposing defenders, it doesn't make sense for him to get $10M only to likely miss time. Especially if we're able to draft Billy Price or James Daniels. 

Yeah, I agree in part.  However, redoing deals for less money than is guaranteed is hard without adding a year.  Is that something you would do?

Stewart is going to average around 3.2 yards per carry at best if you compare him to other RBs throughout time at the same age.  A rookie doing that would be cut.

I am of the mindset that Stew has to go, but he did flash at times.  If you think of 2017 and subtract 10%, then it is hard to justify giving him a roster spot.  I see both sides.

Like your comments about Ryan.  I agree. Using his money on Norwell is a no brainer.  There 6 strong C in the draft and several G's who can / could play C effectively.

[SCO96]

10 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'll go a step further. Think of starting RBs in terms of their rookie contract. Let someone else pay him huge money on his next deal. Draft another one.

I see your point from a GM's perspective. But, I can also understand why a lot of players hold out (especially RB's) for better contracts. 

In a make believe world where you were a GM and I were a RB aware of views toward the position, I'd go into the job knowing that you'll probably toss me to the curb as soon as my rookie deal is done. I'd try sign the shortest possible contract (hopefully no more than 3 years) and hope I wouldn't receive the restricted free agent tag for a 4th season so I could test the market

If you took me in the 1st round you'd have me over a barrel because of the 4 year deals with the 5th year option. To make matters worse you could even keep for a 6th (and possibly) 7th year using the franchise tag. In the scenario I just laid out I would take comfort in knowing that I did make a lot of money during the 5-7 years you had me because I was a 1st round draft choice. On the flip side, I know that any chance I had for another big deal is over because my prime years are pretty much done because I'd be pushing 30. At best I'd probably be looking at 3yr deal max and decide to hang it up.

Like the players and front office guys always say "It's a business and I have to look out for what's best for me".

I'm glad I only have to play GM on Madden and not in real life.  

 

 

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

I see your point from a GM's perspective. But, I can also understand why a lot of players hold out (especially RB's) for better contracts. 

In a make believe world where you were a GM and I were a RB aware of views toward the position, I'd go into the job knowing that you'll probably toss me to the curb as soon as my rookie deal is done. I'd try sign the shortest possible contract (hopefully no more than 3 years) and hope I wouldn't receive the restricted free agent tag for a 4th season so I could test the market

If you took me in the 1st round you'd have me over a barrel because of the 4 year deals with the 5th year option. To make matters worse you could even keep for a 6th (and possibly) 7th year using the franchise tag. In the scenario I just laid out I would take comfort in knowing that I did make a lot of money during the 5-7 years you had me because I was a 1st round draft choice. On the flip side, I know that any chance I had for another big deal is practically over because my prime years are pretty much over because I'd be pushing 30. At best I'd probably be looking at 3yr deal max and decide to hang it up.

Like the players and front office guys always say "It's a business and I have to look out for what's best for me".

I'm glad I only have to play GM on Madden and not in real life.  

 

 

Interesting, but you are basically presenting the perspective of the player vs. the GM, and they are rarely in agreement.  What this made me think about is the wisdom of drafting a RB in the first round.  You get 5 years at a discount when the RB is in his prime and you then let him walk or franchise him (if he is great) for another season.  Six years where you are only paying market value for 1?  However, many teams pay the second contract based on past productivity when it is clearly demonstrated through statistical research that the player starts a steep decline at age 27.  You only can be hit so much.

So a player plays as a rookie at 21 and when he is 27, he is released.

This chart makes GMs look like idiots for giving out lucrative, second contracts.  According to this chart, Stewart will be functioning below a rookie would.

[MHS831]

In the event you are interested about the research involving Centers, and read this understanding that most do not have a lingering neck injury.  Now this is interesting because Centers seem to play at a high level for a much longer period of time.  However, at about Kalil's age, they cliff dive:

You should also note that a Center at age 36 is still outperforming second year players.

[Yaboychris28]

Lets not get rid of all of our good lineman just to save a few dollars. We're most likely going to lose Norwell anyways

[SCO96]

5 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

In the event you are interested about the research involving Centers, and read this understanding that most do not have a lingering neck injury.  Now this is interesting because Centers seem to play at a high level for a much longer period of time.  However, at about Kalil's age, they cliff dive:

 

Can you put up the aging curve for other O-line positions? Or if you can't, would you let me know where you got this data?  This is interesting. 

[grimesgoat]

8 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Interesting, but you are basically presenting the perspective of the player vs. the GM, and they are rarely in agreement.  What this made me think about is the wisdom of drafting a RB in the first round.  You get 5 years at a discount when the RB is in his prime and you then let him walk or franchise him (if he is great) for another season.  Six years where you are only paying market value for 1?  However, many teams pay the second contract based on past productivity when it is clearly demonstrated through statistical research that the player starts a steep decline at age 27.  You only can be hit so much.

So a player plays as a rookie at 21 and when he is 27, he is released.

This chart makes GMs look like idiots for giving out lucrative, second contracts.  According to this chart, Stewart will be functioning below a rookie would.

What is the Y-Axis?

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

Can you put up the aging curve for other O-line positions? Or if you can't, would you let me know where you got this data? It's' interesting stuff.

I meant to share the link--sorry.  http://socalledfantasyexperts.com/aging-curve-nfl-offensive-players-every-single-position

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, grimesgoat said:

What is the Y-Axis?

Don't know, other than it peaks at zero and that is the apex of productivity.  http://socalledfantasyexperts.com/aging-curve-nfl-offensive-players-every-single-position

[SCO96]

10 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Interesting, but you are basically presenting the perspective of the player vs. the GM, and they are rarely in agreement.  What this made me think about is the wisdom of drafting a RB in the first round.  You get 5 years at a discount when the RB is in his prime and you then let him walk or franchise him (if he is great) for another season.  Six years where you are only paying market value for 1?  However, many teams pay the second contract based on past productivity when it is clearly demonstrated through statistical research that the player starts a steep decline at age 27.  You only can be hit so much.

So a player plays as a rookie at 21 and when he is 27, he is released.

This chart makes GMs look like idiots for giving out lucrative, second contracts.  According to this chart, Stewart will be functioning below a rookie would.

Several years ago there was a football site called Cold Hard Football Facts .com. I think they eventually merged with SB nation so I doubt you can find any of their old articles. Most of them were very well written and researched.

They had an interesting take on the peak /decline of running backs. Although most running backs to experience steep declines in production between the ages of 28-30 like you've pointed out, it isn't necessarily due to the numerical age. Their data showed that after a certain number of carries (and hits) the performance falls off. I wish I could find the article, but I think it said the decline starts around the 2,200 carry mark even for the best backs. A back that carries the ball 300 times per season will hit that mark between his 7th and 8th seasons, which lines up perfectly with your data.

RB's who averaged around 250 carries per year were able to play and be productive in their early 30's. Tiki Barber had a 1,600 yd season around age 31, but for most of his career he shared carries with other backs. The article pointed out that Jim Brown never had 300 carry season so probably could have played at a very high level for 3 more seasons when he retired at 29. Earl Campbell on the other hand peaked after 6 seasons because the Oilers ran him into the ground.

The one freak of nature on the list was John Riggins. He's the only HoFamer who rushed for more yards in his 30's than he did in his 20's.

[grimesgoat]

20 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Don't know, other than it peaks at zero and that is the apex of productivity.  http://socalledfantasyexperts.com/aging-curve-nfl-offensive-players-every-single-position

Thanks.  Good stuff.

Its always risky to apply average data to individuals.  According to the tackle chart - Matt Kalil is entering his prime whereas A Whitworth, who is 36, should perform like a 2nd year guy.  We all know, that didn't work out exactly right last year.

I can see it having some value in team building/ contract construction / drafting strategy etc. - but not very useful in deciding whether to cut a guy.