NFL Offseason 2020

[holidaysmore]

Still a league wide belief that RBs aren't worth the long term money because you can find them anywhere for cheap and they only have a short amount of shelf life.

[thekid6]

Just caught Devon Still and his daughter Leah on Sports Center...wonderful story. Hopefully it can be posted later when they have video.

[Deleted User 307]

Per AA, Chiefs have $177 (dollars, not millions, not thousands) of salary cap left.

Obviously a lot of things will be restructured this off season, just enjoying the little sports news we have out there.

https://arrowheadaddict.com/2020/03/30/ ... cap-space/

[pdub]

I think you gotta cut Watkins unfortunately.
You have to be able to sign a corner.

[Deleted User 307]

I think you gotta cut Watkins unfortunately.
You have to be able to sign a corner.

I think the numbers reflect Sammy's 21+ million cap hit. I don't know exactly he has coming, but I bet you can cut that in half and keep Watkins. I doubt he's getting much more than $10 million anywhere next year, and Chiefs and Watkins seem to like each other.

[Deleted User 62]

I think you gotta cut Watkins unfortunately.
You have to be able to sign a corner.

I think the numbers reflect Sammy's 21+ million cap hit. I don't know exactly he has coming, but I bet you can cut that in half and keep Watkins. I doubt he's getting much more than $10 million anywhere next year, and Chiefs and Watkins seem to like each other.

Wasn't there a rumor after the Super Bowl that Sammy wasn't sure if he wanted to play next year?

Edit- I found it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndicatio ... l.amp.html

[Deleted User 307]

I think you gotta cut Watkins unfortunately.
You have to be able to sign a corner.

I think the numbers reflect Sammy's 21+ million cap hit. I don't know exactly he has coming, but I bet you can cut that in half and keep Watkins. I doubt he's getting much more than $10 million anywhere next year, and Chiefs and Watkins seem to like each other.

Wasn't there a rumor after the Super Bowl that Sammy wasn't sure if he wanted to play next year?

He talked about taking a season off, but who knows what that really meant. Sammy is a weird dude. I didn't realize he was only 26.

[Deleted User 62]

I think the numbers reflect Sammy's 21+ million cap hit. I don't know exactly he has coming, but I bet you can cut that in half and keep Watkins. I doubt he's getting much more than $10 million anywhere next year, and Chiefs and Watkins seem to like each other.

Wasn't there a rumor after the Super Bowl that Sammy wasn't sure if he wanted to play next year?

He talked about taking a season off, but who knows what that really meant. Sammy is a weird dude. I didn't realize he was only 26.

Yeah, and it sure seemed like his effort was spotty at times as well.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I know not every player is so fortunate, and nearly every NFL player never becomes wealthy, but I'd be very against myself playing in the NFL past late 20's.

[Deleted User 307]

I know not every player is so fortunate, and nearly every NFL player never becomes wealthy, but I'd be very against myself playing in the NFL past late 20's.

It's easy to say that without seeing 7 zeros in your salary. I would be a, "just one more year, get my $10,000,000, and then I'll call it quits," type person. Just like I can make less money now, and take a job with less pressure, fewer hours, but hard for me to turn down my current salary for a position I would probably enjoy more. Of course, brain damage is less likely to occur in our industry. Liver damage is more likely.

[holidaysmore]

My thought is the longer Breeland and Sammy go unsigned the more likely they are coming back to KC. I thought Breeland had played good enough to secure himself a mid market deal at one of the most important positions in the NFL and you would have thought that someone would have overpaid for Sammy by now, because well, someone always does. Maybe Sammy not signing a deal yet has more to do with a particularly strong WR class and no one wanting any parts of his bloated salary.

We are seeing more guys step away from the game in their 'prime' but most will still tell you that they will and want to play for as long as they can. They genuinely love the game of football and understand the risks.

[pdub]

JUNK!

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/289 ... off-format

7-9 WILD CARD here we come!!!

[PhDhawk]

I'd be surprised if a season gets played...at least in its entirety.

[Deleted User 307]

I'd be surprised if a season gets played...at least in its entirety.

NFL would push its season back a few weeks and/or drop some preseason games. If we don't have things under control in 5-6 months, NFL is the least of our worries.

[Cascadia]

JUNK!

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/289 ... off-format

7-9 WILD CARD here we come!!!

You’re nuts, this is fantastic

[pdub]

It's watering down the regular season.
7-9 looser teams shouldn't be in the postseason.
Bet you want the NCAA tourney to expand to 96 teams.

[Cascadia]

It's watering down the regular season.
7-9 looser teams shouldn't be in the postseason.
Bet you want the NCAA tourney to expand to 96 teams.

No it doesn’t

I’d prefer a 32 team NCAA tournament

[pdub]

How does it not water down the regular season?
It absolutely does.
If we instead changed it from 12 teams to 10 teams, it would make the regular season all that more important.

If you can't win your division, or can't go 11-5, then you don't have an excuse.
You lost 5 ( or more ) games - look to those games to determine why you aren't in the playoffs.
Instead, 8-8 and we're in. Gross.

Additionally, though probably unlikely, a 7 seed, ( maybe 8-8 ) could beat a 2 seed on the worst game of the season for that 2 seed. And now you have an 8-8 team advancing to the next round and eliminating a game between, very likely because of how the 2 seed got there, 2 better teams.

[twocoach]

It's watering down the regular season.
7-9 looser teams shouldn't be in the postseason.
Bet you want the NCAA tourney to expand to 96 teams.

From a different article on ESPN: "If you apply the new format to the fields since the start of the 2002 season, which would cover an additional 36 playoff teams, you find that nine 8-8 teams- and none with a losing record- would have been the #7 seed. Over that same period, however, eight of the nine 10-6 teams that missed the playoffs would have made it under the new format.

Had this format existed last season, the Pittsburgh Steelers (8-8) and the LA Rams (9-7) would have been the #7 seeds. "

So it doesnt appear that the statistics support your assumption.

[pdub]

So nine 8-8 teams, nine 10-6 teams and eighteen 9-7 teams?
So mostly 9-7 teams but some 8-8 teams.
Awesome. 9-7 shouldn't be in the playoffs.
8-8 definitely shouldn't be in the playoffs.