Originally Posted by infantrycak
Neil Rackers wasn't in the league in 2012. He'd have taken vet min.
From spotrac it appears Shane Graham's contract with the Texans was a qualifying contract of 940k salary, 20k signing and 45 k other bonus for $1.005 mil. 50% of which is $502,500.
Bullock's cap hit this season is $449,527. The difference is inconsequential.
It was a bad pick but not one forced by the cap.
Let me walk you through this, Rackers had signed a 2 yr $4.1 million contract in 2010. Saying he would sign for Vet min is an assumption. He was after all he was Top 5 in FGs. The Texans had restructured 3 contracts in 2011 and prior to the 2012 draft they had released Winston, Vickers, Lienart, traded Ryans just to get under the cap. So yes prior to the 2012 draft the Texans didn't have the money to sign Rackers at $2 million or another Vet at a $1 million. So yes drafting a place kicker in the 5th Rd was a salary cap decision. ABSOULTELY. NO DOUBT! Bullock disappoints in OTAs so they have to bring in Graham, but before they can do that they had to release Jacoby Jones, oops that's another Mil they weren't counting on. The Texans as accustomed restructure more contracts in Aug 2012 in order to get the 53 man roster & 8 player practice squad under the salary cap.
If $600K is inconsequential then with another measly inconsequential $600K the Texans could've signed a Top 5 PK. When you don't have enough money to buy a box of #2 pencils then $600K isn't inconsequential. It is this mindset and logic that when $600K is inconsequential, that is what causes and creates salary cap problems. When $600K stops becoming inconsequential is when you stop having salary cap problems. When you start managing the $600k as consequential the salary cap stops becoming a problem. Sometimes when you're forced to make decisions dictated by the salary cap it comes back to bite you in the butt and this time it did, again.