What's Mario's Value...

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

But, I cannot support overpaying him to keep him here at the expense of other areas of the team.

I understand the rest of your post & I respect your opinion. However, the purpose of this thread is to define what "over-paying" really is.

Mario will or will not get signed & we'll have a discussion, either the Texans over-payed or the Texans didn't offer a "fair" deal.

Then we can have the discussion about whether the decision hurt the team in terms of cap space, or whatever.

[welsh texan]

Originally Posted by DocBar

I went with $10-15M/yr because that's just what "elite" passrushers command. I'm one of the kooks that doesn't think MW is particularly elite, though. I think he's above average at his position, but inconsistent to the point that he disappears for entire games.
To point out a fallacy in some thinking (looking at you Welsh), the reason you don't go for broke for one season, on one (IMO injury prone) player is that football is a team sport and it's a very rare talent that can get a team to a SB all by himself. Luck plays a large part in winning the SB, just ask the Giants. Teams also want to consistently be in the hunt for the SB. Lots and lots of teams have been 1 or 2 year wonders that burn out quickly, due to cap hell. The truly elite teams in the NFL routinely let players who are considered "elite" walk or be traded so that they can stay relevant in the hunt for the SB and improve the overall team. You don't see Pittsburgh or NE getting themselves in this situation too often. Pittsburgh is there right now, and all indications are that they let Wallace walk to prevent the same situation next season. The Texans are in the same boat. Who do you want them to emulate? I vote the Steelers and Patriots. Perennial playoff tems and SB contenders.
Think of this the next time one of those Dirct TV commercials come on. Don;t end up in a ditch.

I see your point DB, but I don't think spending $12m per for Mario is 'going for broke' for one season. I wasn't advocating putting ourselves in cap hell in 12 months time, but there are ways and means of structuring both his and other contracts so that the big hit to the cap comes once the cap has increased.

I'm sure the Texans know more than I do about where the numbers are likely to fall, but I've seen as much as a $180mm cap rumoured in 2 or 3 years time. At that point, you pay out roster bonuses to your larger contract players and bring down their cap hits across the rest of the contract.

Just imagine Mario signs for 6 years @ $72mm, but recieves a $12mm roster bonus in 2014, his cap hit could then be as low as ~$8 mill for the first two years while money is a little tight.

Now, I'm not that bothered either way whether they keep Mario or not, I think the definately should if they can, but will understand if they don't, my liberty white 90 jersey is getting a little worse for wear now anyway so it aint gonna be like when my dad sent me D. Davis in 2005 followed by Carr in 2006 (ouch!) I jest.

But some of you guys, such as tex and dale talk as if it would be utterly crazy to resign this guy, or that theres no way of doing it and not being in cap hell, but really, when the cap rises, $12mill per isn't going to look like franchise pay anyway, now is a good time to be paying these key players cos in 6 years time their contracts are going to look really club-friendly.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Let's think about this. The Steelers gave James Harrison the biggest LB contract in history at the time. Then just 3 years later signed Woodley to an even larger contract. So let's put an end to this "Steelers don't pay elite players."

Then, which elite players have these teams "let go" that continued on as "elite" players? Randy Moss? I think the correct characterization of these organizations, is that they are more correct than not about knowing when to hold'em & when to fold'em.

Let us put this to bed. Both players were superior to MW and are superior to MW. Paying players isn't bad. Over paying players is. End of argument. Why not mention the supposed "elite players" the Steelers let "get away? Avoid Llloyd? Kevin Greene? Both better than MW. Mike Wallace? Better at his position than MW at his. I can do this all day long.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by DocBar

Let us put this to bed. Both players were superior to MW and are superior to MW. Paying players isn't bad. Over paying players is. End of argument. Why not mention the supposed "elite players" the Steelers let "get away? Avoid Llloyd? Kevin Greene? Both better than MW. Mike Wallace? Better at his position than MW at his. I can do this all day long.

I didn't mention the players, because I couldn't think of any.... Kevin Greene, I remember. But I don't think that was about the Steelers not wanting to pay him, I thought it had to do with the rules for the expansion team (Panthers).

I definitely do not think Mike Wallace is better at his position than Mario is at his. You're going by what you see Wallace do with Big Ben throwing him the ball. I guarantee you, Mike Wallace will be a different WR with Schaub throwing him the ball.

Not that I think Ben is better than Matt..... only different. Ben has a bigger arm & he'll rather overthrow his receiver, to take advantage of Wallace's speed, than underthrow him..... negating Wallace's only advantage.

Ben can also scramble, buy time, cause a defenses to break down, then use that big arm to find his receiver anywhere (hyperbole) on the field.

At the same time, you put Mario on a team that is capable of racking up 44 sacks, then he's going to look like a much different player.

[whitewater]

Mario is much more valuable to another team than to us, now that we discovered Brooks Reed.

By the way, what is the characteristic called Rep. power: and a number that appears below your name, and how do you acquire these points?

[noxiousdog]

Originally Posted by DocBar

Let us put this to bed. Both players were superior to MW and are superior to MW. Paying players isn't bad. Over paying players is. End of argument. Why not mention the supposed "elite players" the Steelers let "get away? Avoid Llloyd? Kevin Greene? Both better than MW. Mike Wallace? Better at his position than MW at his. I can do this all day long.

How in the world could you believe that James Harrison is or was ever better than Mario Williams? Lloyd is a joke (One 10 sack season in his career).

Harrison wasn't even a full time player until he was 29 years old!

Lamar Woodley's best sack season is worse than Mario's best. His 2nd best is worse than Mario's second best.

Let's even assume that it shows up in 'intangibles that you can't find on a stat sheet.' What percentage of Steelers games do you watch?


That being said, Kevin Greene was a badass every where he went.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Is BullNation4Life being a homer? Maybe, but let's look at the facts.

He is using stats.... objective performance indicators to support his position. You & dalemurphy are using a subjective measure to support yours. A subjective measure that is shared by a minority of posters on this board. A subjective measure that I have not heard or seen by anyone in the media (industry if you will) other than Lance Zierline.

Antonio Smith does not share your subjective opinion, Wade Phillips does not share your subjective opinion, Connor Barwin does not share your subjective opinion, Warren Sapp does not share your subjective opinion, Michael Strahan does not share your objective opinion, Deacon Jones (arguably the best pass rusher of all time) does not share your subjective opinion.... but BullNation4Life is being a homer?

Back to the objective stats.... in 5 of 6 years, Mario Williams has led this team in sacks, hurries, knock downs... despite being injured.... despite being "outplayed" by Mr. Effort (Antonio Smith).

In his sixth season, Mario Williams led the Texans in sacks through 5 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 6 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 8 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 9 weeks. Mario Williams led the team in sacks through 12 weeks. All, but what, 15 minutes?, Mario was on the bench.

On the bench. & we're only talking 5 sacks.

But BulletNation4Life is being the Homer?

One more thing. Mario Williams played (used loosely) the previous 6 seasons for $9M/yr. Led the team in Sacks through most of that time. Two double digit years. Very few people have more sacks over the same time period. Two Probowl Appearances...... & it's not like he started because the "real" starter backed out.. & you want him to take a pay-cut?

You think that is "fair" that is what he's "worth"

I think BullNation4Life used the correctly & though BullNation4Life may be a homer, it's not because of his opinion on this subject.

excellent post!
msr

[dalemurphy]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Is BullNation4Life being a homer? Maybe, but let's look at the facts.

He is using stats.... objective performance indicators to support his position. You & dalemurphy are using a subjective measure to support yours. A subjective measure that is shared by a minority of posters on this board. A subjective measure that I have not heard or seen by anyone in the media (industry if you will) other than Lance Zierline.


One more thing. Mario Williams played (used loosely) the previous 6 seasons for $9M/yr. Led the team in Sacks through most of that time. Two double digit years. Very few people have more sacks over the same time period. Two Probowl Appearances...... & it's not like he started because the "real" starter backed out.. & you want him to take a pay-cut?

You think that is "fair" that is what he's "worth"

Value is subjective. However, I'm offering plenty of objective evidence. Here's a refresher on some of it:

1. Texans defense without Mario 255 ypg in 2011; with Mario: 325 yds per game.
2. Consecutive years on the Injured Reserve: 2
3. Consecutve years with less than 10 sacks: 3
4. cost to Texans per sack last year: $3.5 million

I can't think of a worse way to do business than to make decisions on what is "fair" for a player who has already earned $50 milliion. By the way, was it "fair" that the Texans were required, by NFL rule, to pay Mario $9 million per year when he had done nothing to earn it?

[Trail.Blazr]

Originally Posted by dalemurphy

Value is subjective. However, I'm offering plenty of objective evidence. Here's a refresher on some of it:

1. Texans defense without Mario 255 ypg in 2011; with Mario: 325 yds per game.
2. Consecutive years on the Injured Reserve: 2
3. Consecutve years with less than 10 sacks: 3
4. cost to Texans per sack last year: $3.5 million

I can't think of a worse way to do business than to make decisions on what is "fair" for a player who has already been paid $50 milliion. By the way, was it "fair" that the Texans were required, by NFL rule, to pay Mario $9 million per year when he had done nothing to earn it?

MSR. but let me fix that for you....

Mario is by far one of my favorite players on the team, but it's due more to the fact that I went all in on him when he was drafted based on his potential and hype. Over the years, there's been a shift for me, in that I'm no longer sold on going all in. I want to, but cant. No denying he has "it". Where I fall off is that he doesn't appear to bring "it" all the time. Leading the team on any given year isn't enough... that's been a low bar from the get go. He was brought in to be the SACK machine for this franchise.. no two ways about it, his job was to get to the QB. In 6 season's he's hit double digit numbers twice, and never flirted with 20. Anyone can offer up what ever excuse they want as to why, but in 6 seasons, excuses are all you get. Not one single fan I know wouldn't LOVE to see #90 put together a season that would leave NO doubt that he's a worthy overall #1 pick type of guy. That's what I would go all in for. But so far that hasn't happened, so "it" is what "it" is. Offer the guy a "good" contract. If he doesn't take it and goes elsewhere, so be "it".

[welsh texan]

Its too easy for people to use the way he got hurt this season against him, when, he was a big mis-match at the OLB position and finally looked capable of dominating games whilst he was still in learning mode.

I think the discovery of Brooks Reed only makes Mario better, he comes out and rests on some plays and comes back in fresh, I think thats a recipe for 20 sacks per year.

That makes him valuable to the team.

I also think Mario still makes those around him better, we saw a drop off in stats when Mario went down until the guys adjusted to him not being there.

Mario was demanding triple coverage, they were taking Tight Ends and Running Backs out of receiving routes because they were so scared of Mario, thats worth a boatload of cash, even if you have really good replacements around him, he is still a great option to have.

JMO

[HJam72]

Originally Posted by ckhouston

As close as we can talk him into a 10M a year base, but incentive laden.

I'm fine with incentive-laden.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by dalemurphy

Value is subjective. However, I'm offering plenty of objective evidence. Here's a refresher on some of it:

1. Texans defense without Mario 255 ypg in 2011; with Mario: 325 yds per game.
2. Consecutive years on the Injured Reserve: 2
3. Consecutve years with less than 10 sacks: 3
4. cost to Texans per sack last year: $3.5 million

#1 has already been discussed several times yet you refuse to aknowledge the the many factors that played a role in the improvement of the defense over the course of the year. Completely showing your bias there as that viewpoint is so out of whack it doesn't make any sense.

#2,3, & 4 are the same thing...Injuries. That's actually a reasonable concern but there are other factors involved with that as well.

[drs23]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Is BullNation4Life being a homer? Maybe, but let's look at the facts.

He is using stats.... objective performance indicators to support his position. You & dalemurphy are using a subjective measure to support yours. A subjective measure that is shared by a minority of posters on this board. A subjective measure that I have not heard or seen by anyone in the media (industry if you will) other than Lance Zierline.

Antonio Smith does not share your subjective opinion, Wade Phillips does not share your subjective opinion, Connor Barwin does not share your subjective opinion, Warren Sapp does not share your subjective opinion, Michael Strahan does not share your objective opinion, Deacon Jones (arguably the best pass rusher of all time) does not share your subjective opinion.... but BullNation4Life is being a homer?

Back to the objective stats.... in 5 of 6 years, Mario Williams has led this team in sacks, hurries, knock downs... despite being injured.... despite being "outplayed" by Mr. Effort (Antonio Smith).

In his sixth season, Mario Williams led the Texans in sacks through 5 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 6 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 8 weeks. He led the team in sacks through 9 weeks. Mario Williams led the team in sacks through 12 weeks. All, but what, 15 minutes?, Mario was on the bench.

On the bench. & we're only talking 5 sacks.

But BulletNation4Life is being the Homer?

One more thing. Mario Williams played (used loosely) the previous 6 seasons for $9M/yr. Led the team in Sacks through most of that time. Two double digit years. Very few people have more sacks over the same time period. Two Probowl Appearances...... & it's not like he started because the "real" starter backed out.. & you want him to take a pay-cut?

You think that is "fair" that is what he's "worth"

I think BullNation4Life used the correctly & though BullNation4Life may be a homer, it's not because of his opinion on this subject.

Clearly written, persuasive and on point. Good post. I'm in.

MSR

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I understand the rest of your post & I respect your opinion. However, the purpose of this thread is to define what "over-paying" really is.

Mario will or will not get signed & we'll have a discussion, either the Texans over-payed or the Texans didn't offer a "fair" deal.

Then we can have the discussion about whether the decision hurt the team in terms of cap space, or whatever.

Well, obviously the term "overpaying" is subjective. My take is that any figure that hurts us on the cap and does not allow us to maximize our roster to the full benefit of the team would be considered overpaying him.

But, what that exact number is something we cannot pin down without access to contract details that are traditionally out of our sight.

I think paying him what the market will probably offer him would be clearly overpaying him, though.

I hope he offers us the so-called 'hometown discount', but like I said, that part is up to Mario and what he wants in his career. I cannot hold it against him if he does go for maximum salary. It's just business.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by noxiousdog

How in the world could you believe that James Harrison is or was ever better than Mario Williams? Lloyd is a joke (One 10 sack season in his career).

Harrison wasn't even a full time player until he was 29 years old!

Lamar Woodley's best sack season is worse than Mario's best. His 2nd best is worse than Mario's second best.

Let's even assume that it shows up in 'intangibles that you can't find on a stat sheet.' What percentage of Steelers games do you watch?


That being said, Kevin Greene was a badass every where he went.

Where did I mention Woodley or Harrison? If you think Lloyd was a joke, you must be fairly young or didn't pay much attention to football in the late '80's and early 90's. Lloyd was a helluva linebacker. So he wasn't used as a passrusher, big deal. I guess you think Urlacher is a joke because he only has 41.5 sacks in 12 years.
The message I was trying to get across wasn't specifically directed towards passrushers. It was about players who are considered elite being let go to keep from overpaying them.
I lament your inability to read.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I didn't mention the players, because I couldn't think of any.... Kevin Greene, I remember. But I don't think that was about the Steelers not wanting to pay him, I thought it had to do with the rules for the expansion team (Panthers).

I definitely do not think Mike Wallace is better at his position than Mario is at his. You're going by what you see Wallace do with Big Ben throwing him the ball. I guarantee you, Mike Wallace will be a different WR with Schaub throwing him the ball.

Not that I think Ben is better than Matt..... only different. Ben has a bigger arm & he'll rather overthrow his receiver, to take advantage of Wallace's speed, than underthrow him..... negating Wallace's only advantage.

Ben can also scramble, buy time, cause a defenses to break down, then use that big arm to find his receiver anywhere (hyperbole) on the field.

At the same time, you put Mario on a team that is capable of racking up 44 sacks, then he's going to look like a much different player.

I conceded the Wallace argument to you in this thread or the other one. I simply don't know enough about Wallaces game to speak with any confidence.
As to the bolded, you must assume that Mario is going to stay healthy. Why is it that Jared Allen can pull off 22 sacks while on a team that sucked? They rarely, if ever, played with a big lead this past season. Do you think it's maybe because Allen goes all out every single snap and Mario doesn't?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

I think paying him what the market will probably offer him would be clearly overpaying him, though.

I agree with this. Once he hits FA, it'll start a bidding war. We can't compete with the desperate teams with tons of cash, like Tampa Bay, or Chicago when they landed Peppers.

Such is the cost of FA

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by DocBar

I conceded the Wallace argument to you in this thread or the other one. I simply don't know enough about Wallaces game to speak with any confidence.
As to the bolded, you must assume that Mario is going to stay healthy. Why is it that Jared Allen can pull off 22 sacks while on a team that sucked? They rarely, if ever, played with a big lead this past season. Do you think it's maybe because Allen goes all out every single snap and Mario doesn't?

Maybe. It also could be that your definition of "a team that sucked" doesn't fit this discussion. The Minnesota Vikings led the league in sacks (tied with Philadelphia). Jared had plenty of help from his team mates...

There were two players on the team with more than 5 sacks. Jared Allen counted for 40% of the team's sacks. Which is impressive & along the same lines as what Mario has done here.

Look, Jared Allen counted 0 sacks against Oakland, Atlanta, & New Orleans. Do you think he didn't give any effort in those games? Of course not, his team ran up against a better team & that's just the way it goes some times.

Do you think Jared Allen would have racked up 22 sacks if Brian Robison (8 sacks) & Kevin Williams (5 sacks) missed the season for one reason or another?

Let's look at it this way. In the games that Mario Williams played, Antonio Smith had 4 sacks. That's 4 games, 1 sack per game. In the games that Mario Williams did not play, Antonio Smith had 2.5 sacks (I'm giving the half a sack during the Oakland game, because I don't know if that happened before/after Mario got hurt).... 0.21 sacks per game.

It can't be proven that Mario was the difference. But it is a reasonable assumption that Antonio would have had more sacks had Mario continued to play next to him. If we've got a team of guys getting to the QB, they'll make Mario's job easier, just like Mario will make their jobs easier.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Maybe. It also could be that your definition of "a team that sucked" doesn't fit this discussion. The Minnesota Vikings led the league in sacks (tied with Philadelphia). Jared had plenty of help from his team mates...

There were two players on the team with more than 5 sacks. Jared Allen counted for 40% of the team's sacks. Which is impressive & along the same lines as what Mario has done here.

Look, Jared Allen counted 0 sacks against Oakland, Atlanta, & New Orleans. Do you think he didn't give any effort in those games? Of course not, his team ran up against a better team & that's just the way it goes some times.

Do you think Jared Allen would have racked up 22 sacks if Brian Robison (8 sacks) & Kevin Williams (5 sacks) missed the season for one reason or another?

Let's look at it this way. In the games that Mario Williams played, Antonio Smith had 4 sacks. That's 4 games, 1 sack per game. In the games that Mario Williams did not play, Antonio Smith had 2.5 sacks (I'm giving the half a sack during the Oakland game, because I don't know if that happened before/after Mario got hurt).... 0.21 sacks per game.

It can't be proven that Mario was the difference. But it is a reasonable assumption that Antonio would have had more sacks had Mario continued to play next to him. If we've got a team of guys getting to the QB, they'll make Mario's job easier, just like Mario will make their jobs easier.

[noxiousdog]

Originally Posted by DocBar

Where did I mention Woodley or Harrison? If you think Lloyd was a joke, you must be fairly young or didn't pay much attention to football in the late '80's and early 90's. Lloyd was a helluva linebacker. So he wasn't used as a passrusher, big deal. I guess you think Urlacher is a joke because he only has 41.5 sacks in 12 years.
The message I was trying to get across wasn't specifically directed towards passrushers. It was about players who are considered elite being let go to keep from overpaying them.
I lament your inability to read.

By 'joke' I meant in the context of this conversation. Lloyd was pretty good for 3 years when there weren't many dominating linebackers, and likely was a product of the system.

Urlacher has had 90+ tackles in 7 seasons, with 3 more at 79+.

And by 'let go' you mean after an injury ruined him, cause he was not good his last two years in Pittsburgh.