Bob McNair interview in the Chronicle

[DX-TEX]

Brian T. SmithVerified account
‏@ChronBrianSmith .@McClain_on_NFL #Texans' McNair on health, honoring Dre, Rick-O'B, Clowney, Nix, playoffs, NRG, Astrodome and more http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/texans/article/Wide-ranging-interview-with-Texans-owner-Bob-6148415.php?t=eafd1705d3d8ff4dd2&cmpid=twitter-premium …

Tweet included so you can get the shared access view.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/texans/article/Wide-ranging-interview-with-Texans-owner-Bob-6148415.php?t=eafd1705d3d8ff4dd2&cmpid=twitter-premium


Some interesting tidbits:

"I've been quite pleased with free agency," McNair said. "We've accomplished what we set out to do. We signed a quarterback and got help in the defensive line. We wanted a free safety with range, more of a centerfielder, and we wanted to add some speed at receiver.

"And we were able to retain Kareem, Derek and Mallett. We did it within the cap, and we didn't sacrifice our future."

McNair is intrigued by the Wilfork signing, not only because of his impact on the defensive line but his influence on talented second-year nose tackle Louis Nix III, who spent his rookie season on injured reserve.

"Vince has been a terrific player," McNair said. "He's not 25 anymore, but we believe he can do the job for us, especially on first and second down.

"He plays hard. He'll be a good influence on Nix and show him what it takes to be a winner. Nix is healthy now. Having Wilfork mentoring him will have an impact on him.

"Nix is going to have to earn a spot. Physically, he's capable of doing that. We want to see the dedication and passion and have it show up on the practice field."

McNair scoffed at reports near the end of the season that he was removing Smith and hiring a new general manager. Smith is in his 10th year of running the personnel side or the organization.

"Rick's doing a good job," McNair said. "He and Bill work well together. I think they're on the same page.

"Rick has the ultimate responsibility for picking players, but he picks players the coaches want. He doesn't pick players the coaches don't want or they'll just sit on the bench."

McNair likes O'Brien's style of coaching, including what he believes are some special characteristics.

"I like the fact that when he sees someone not carrying out their responsibility, he corrects it immediately on the field," McNair said. "He doesn't worry if he's going to offend a (position) coach if he corrects the player. If he sees something that's not being done properly, he's right on it.

"He holds his coaches and players accountable. Sometimes loyalty can make a coach overlook poor performance, and Bill has a clear understanding that everybody has to perform, and it doesn't matter who you are. If you aren't performing, he'll make a change."

Shots fired on that last bolded.

 

[badboy]

Seems like the last bit about loyalty maybe was what OBrien said to McNair. Nix ready and Clowney may be back..that is positive. A draft that is as hopeful as the free agency period is what I'm looking for next.

 

[Texian]

"Rick has the ultimate responsibility for picking players, but he picks players the coaches want. He doesn't pick players the coaches don't want or they'll just sit on the bench."

Bill O'Brien: Rick with that first I want DeVante Parker unless Kevin White or Amari Cooper is still on the board. Make it happen Captain.

Rick Smith: Roger that Bill!

On a personal note, if I had coaches sitting players because they don't agree with the GM's choice, I would be looking for new coaches, Bob.

 

[infantrycak]

On a personal note, if I had coaches sitting players because they don't agree with the GM's choice, I would be looking for new coaches, Bob.

So now GMs control who plays too? When has that ever been the norm?

 

[Texian]

So now GMs control who plays too? When has that ever been the norm?

Pay attention to what Bob is saying.

 

[infantrycak]

Pay attention to what Bob is saying.

I didn't ask about what McNair was saying. I asked about what you were saying.

Check out your quote, it starts with "on a personal note, if I..."

 

[Uncle Rico]

Funny to hear about loyalty when the team shitcanned their coach after a bad season.

 

[TEXANRED]

Funny to hear about loyalty when the team shitcanned their coach after a bad season.

Now that's funny.

 

[Texian]

I didn't ask about what McNair was saying. I asked about what you were saying.

Check out your quote, it starts with "on a personal note, if I..."

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages? Sounds more like a recipe for a lifetime .423 winning percentage?

 

[JB]

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages? Sounds more like a recipe for a lifetime .423 winning percentage?

Did you even read or just cherry pick stuff you could make a snide comment about?

Rick's doing a good job," McNair said. "He and Bill work well together. I think they're on the same page.

To act like any GM would go against what the coaches think is the best type player for their system is incredibly naive or stupid. Which category do you fall in?

 

[infantrycak]

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages? Sounds more like a recipe for a lifetime .423 winning percentage?

Again you are talking about McNair. I am asking you about your statement of what you would do were you king.

The bottom line is regardless of who has final say in the draft - the coach decides who plays and the results get judged.

And a GM forcing actively opposed draft picks on a coach or attempting to dictate playing time would be a piss poor GM.

 

[Texian]

Again you are talking about McNair. I am asking you about your statement of what you would do were you king.

The bottom line is regardless of who has final say in the draft - the coach decides who plays and the results get judged.

And a GM forcing actively opposed draft picks on a coach or attempting to dictate playing time would be a piss poor GM.

If I had a GM who had actual FULL RESPONSIBILTY, as in the mold of Ted Thompson or Ozzie Newsome, then all coaches would know before being hired that the GM has final say on the 53 man roster and it would be in their and the team's best interest to make do with and to do the the best that they can with the players they were given to work with. Coaches would know that the GM sees and plans for a much bigger plan than just the season at hand. Also it would be explained that scouts spend 60-80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, just like the coaches. And like coaches we try and hire the very best scouts available and that the team is going to rely on their expertise to find the best players that fit a 4 year plan not just the season at hand. And just like we rely on coaches to make players become the best that can be, we will rely on scouts to find the those players for the coaches. There is my definition of a GM that has FULL RESPONSIBILITY. As you can see it clearly doesn't agree with Bob's. It seems to work well for Ted and Ozzie and they do have a much better success rate than Bob's .423 winning percentage.

 

[ChampionTexan]

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages? Sounds more like a recipe for a lifetime .423 winning percentage?

You realize the idea of full responsibility as you're defining it would result in a quote from McNair something along the line of the following:

Rick has the ultimate responsibility for picking players, and he picks players he wants regardless of what the coaches might think. If he picks players the coaches don't want then the coaches will just have to figure out what to do with those guys. Since Bill has final say over the 53 man roster, we'll probably end up cutting several of them out of training camp, but at least both guys will have ended up with absolute say as it relates to their specific areas of responsibility!

 

[EllisUnit]

Funny to hear about loyalty when the team shitcanned their coach after a bad season.

Pretty sure you are misunderstanding....

"He holds his coaches and players accountable. Sometimes loyalty can make a coach overlook poor performance, and Bill has a clear understanding that everybody has to perform, and it doesn't matter who you are. If you aren't performing, he'll make a change."

Meaning that Loyalty is a bad thing and can make you blind to ones failures. Not sure i 100% agree, but pretty sure that is what they mean.

 

[JB]

Pretty sure you are misunderstanding....

"He holds his coaches and players accountable. Sometimes loyalty can make a coach overlook poor performance, and Bill has a clear understanding that everybody has to perform, and it doesn't matter who you are. If you aren't performing, he'll make a change."

Meaning that TOO MUCH Loyalty is a bad thing and can make you blind to ones failures. Not sure i 100% agree, but pretty sure that is what they mean.

fify

 

[infantrycak]

If I had a GM who had actual FULL RESPONSIBILTY, as in the mold of Ted Thompson or Ozzie Newsome, then all coaches would know before being hired that the GM has final say on the 53 man roster and it would be in their and the team's best interest to make do with and to do the the best that they can with the players they were given to work with. Coaches would know that the GM sees and plans for a much bigger plan than just the season at hand. Also it would be explained that scouts spend 60-80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, just like the coaches. And like coaches we try and hire the very best scouts available and that the team is going to rely on their expertise to find the best players that fit a 4 year plan not just the season at hand. And just like we rely on coaches to make players become the best that can be, we will rely on scouts to find the those players for the coaches. There is my definition of a GM that has FULL RESPONSIBILITY. As you can see it clearly doesn't agree with Bob's. It seems to work well for Ted and Ozzie and they do have a much better success rate than Bob's .423 winning percentage.

None of which has to do with the GM dictating playing time.

For the remainder see what ChampionTexan said.

Things are much more symbiotic than you like to make them out.

 

[thunderkyss]

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages? Sounds more like a recipe for a lifetime .423 winning percentage?

Remember how you were saying folks with 40 hrs of their week dedicated to what pays the bills that it is understandable that they don't "know" the prospect well & it's reasonable that they rely on others to do the leg work?

Well that's our HC. He's putting in 16 hours a day assessing his teams strengths, weaknesses, & those of his opponents then using that to put together a game plan.

All this happens before the college football season starts & he is still doing it after the college season is over.

So it's hard to believe the HC is specifically selecting players. Makes more sense that he tells the GM what he's looking for then gives feedback to the GM when he gets said player .

I doubt it was one of the coaches who picked KJ over Kyle Wilson. The coaches said they wanted a CB with certain traits & the scouts & GM said Kj fit the bill better than Wilson.

Same with Hopkins over Patterson and Posey over Hilton.

 

[thunderkyss]

If I had a GM who had actual FULL RESPONSIBILTY, as in the mold of Ted Thompson or Ozzie Newsome, then all coaches would know before being hired that the GM has final say on the 53 man roster and it would be in their and the team's best interest to make do with and to do the the best that they can with the players they were given to work with.

You're telling me Harbaugh & McCarthy don't have control of their 53 man roster? I find that hard to believe.

 

[infantrycak]

Remember how you were saying folks with 40 hrs of their week dedicated to what pays the bills that it is understandable that they don't "know" the prospect well & it's reasonable that they rely on others to do the leg work?

Well that's our HC. He's putting in 16 hours a day assessing his teams strengths, weaknesses, & those of his opponents then using that to put together a game plan.

All this happens before the college football season starts & he is still doing it after the college season is over.

So it's hard to believe the HC is specifically selecting players. Makes more sense that he tells the GM what he's looking for then gives feedback to the GM when he gets said player .

I doubt it was one of the coaches who picked KJ over Kyle Wilson. The coaches said they wanted a CB with certain traits & the scouts & GM said Kj fit the bill better than Wilson.

Same with Hopkins over Patterson and Posey over Hilton.

And then the scouts bring their ranking in to the coaches who look thinga over and give their assessments to the GM. That's all pretty standard in every organization. All this haggling over structure is about rare instances where there is a dispute and one side can't convince the other to come around. Only then does who has final say become important.

 

[Texian]

Remember how you were saying folks with 40 hrs of their week dedicated to what pays the bills that it is understandable that they don't "know" the prospect well & it's reasonable that they rely on others to do the leg work?

Well that's our HC. He's putting in 16 hours a day assessing his teams strengths, weaknesses, & those of his opponents then using that to put together a game plan.

All this happens before the college football season starts & he is still doing it after the college season is over.

So it's hard to believe the HC is specifically selecting players. Makes more sense that he tells the GM what he's looking for then gives feedback to the GM when he gets said player .

I doubt it was one of the coaches who picked KJ over Kyle Wilson. The coaches said they wanted a CB with certain traits & the scouts & GM said Kj fit the bill better than Wilson.

Same with Hopkins over Patterson and Posey over Hilton.

You certainly entitled to believe what you want but the decisions you describe were Gary Kubiak and his coaching staff's selections.

16 hours a day planning X and Os, assessing his teams strengths, weaknesses, & those of his opponents then using that to put together a game plan is completely different than scouting and evaluating college players 16 hours a day.

You're telling me Harbaugh & McCarthy don't have control of their 53 man roster? I find that hard to believe.

That's what I'm telling you, basically, when training camp starts Ted and Ozzie tell Mike and John, here are your 80 players, now it's job to go win us a Super Bowl.

 

[Texian]

None of which has to do with the GM dictating playing time.

For the remainder see what ChampionTexan said.

Things are much more symbiotic than you like to make them out.

You can spin this any way you want, that's what you usually do but I have seen this act before. Bob McNair is a rerun of the Rankin Smith and the John Mecom Jr. shows. McNair will always be a hero for bringing back NFL Football to Houston and will always be respected in much the same way Rankin and Mecom are respected in Atlanta and New Orleans. Unfortunately the comparisons don't stop there, their operations, patterns of behavior, winning or should I say losing atmosphere and percentages are all to familiar. Been there, done that. Texans fans shouldn't get there hopes up but instead should expect more of the same. The handwriting is on the wall and it has been there for the last 13 years. You can't argue with the history.

 

[infantrycak]

That's what I'm telling you, basically, when training camp starts Ted and Ozzie tell Mike and John, here are your 80 players, now it's job to go win us a Super Bowl.

TK said 53 not 80.

You can spin this any way you want...blah, blah, blah

Nothing to do with playing time.

 

[Texian]

TK said 53 not 80.

Spin it baby. 53< 80. So if Ted and Ozzie are signing 80 players then they are signing 53 players.

 

[Brisco_County]

"I like the fact that when he sees someone not carrying out their responsibility, he corrects it immediately on the field," McNair said. "He doesn't worry if he's going to offend a (position) coach if he corrects the player. If he sees something that's not being done properly, he's right on it."

I remember Belichick doing this the last time that the Texans under Kubiak played the Patriots. The first quarter began with Foster picking big gains, then Belichick called a time out and lectured the defensive line. They did a good job containing Foster after that.

 

[DX-TEX]

I remember Belichick doing this the last time that the Texans under Kubiak played the Patriots. The first quarter began with Foster picking big gains, then Belichick called a time out and lectured the defensive line. They did a good job containing Foster after that.

You mean Gary's "Gosh by golly guys! Run the scripted plays and we will win!" doesn't actually work?

 

[Texian]

"And we were able to retain Kareem, Derek and Mallett. We did it within the cap, and we didn't sacrifice our future."

Well that didn't take long to mortgage the future with Watt's restructure. Old Man McNair is delusional? Dementia

 

[infantrycak]

Well that didn't take long to mortgage the future with Watt's restructure. Old Man McNair is delusional? Dementia

There's nothing "mortgaging the future" about signing bonuses. Where you convert salary to prorated bonus, yes.

In this particular case they have used over $12 mil in roster bonuses on other contracts this offseason which could have been prorated signing bonuses so the net is the same. Why is a different question but it isn't about mortgaging the future.

 

[Texian]

There's nothing "mortgaging the future" about signing bonuses. Where you convert salary to prorated bonus, yes.

In this particular case they have used over $12 mil in roster bonuses on other contracts this offseason which could have been prorated signing bonuses so the net is the same. Why is a different question but it isn't about mortgaging the future.

Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 56m 56 minutes ago

Texans DE JJ Watt did simple restructure. Converts $10M roster bonus to signing bonus. Creates $8M in space for '15, adds $2M to cap '16-'19

THIS ^^^^^ is mortgagng the future.

 

[michaelm]

There's nothing "mortgaging the future" about signing bonuses. Where you convert salary to prorated bonus, yes.

In this particular case they have used over $12 mil in roster bonuses on other contracts this offseason which could have been prorated signing bonuses so the net is the same. Why is a different question but it isn't about mortgaging the future.

"forget it, he's rolling"

 

[disaacks3]

If McNair is saying his GM has full responsibility but that is only based on what the coaches want, then that is really not full responsibility is it? Double talk, yes? Mixed messages?

The bottom line is regardless of who has final say in the draft - the coach decides who plays and the results get judged.

And a GM forcing actively opposed draft picks on a coach or attempting to dictate playing time would be a piss poor GM.

If I had a GM who had actual FULL RESPONSIBILTY, as in the mold of Ted Thompson or Ozzie Newsome, then all coaches would know before being hired that the GM has final say on the 53 man roster and it would be in their and the team's best interest to make do with and to do the the best that they can with the players they were given to work with.

I read McNair's statement and wondered if that's simply a "new" thing, or it's always been that way. Wade Phillips made it known that he sure as hell didn't have any input on signing a particular defensive dud.

IMHO - McNair chose his words poorly. It's quite easy to read what he said and come to the conclusion of - "Why the heck do the Texans need a GM"? If we're only going to pick the players the coaches want, then let the coach be the GM as well.

There is no way "full responsibility" and "only picking the players the coaches want" can truly intersect. Now if he'd said "only picked players that fit the coaches scheme", that'd be another thing entirely.

Coaches ALWAYS play the guys THEY want to. Their individual criteria for who they WANT to play is where you get the greatest variance. Kubiak always seemed compelled to play high draft picks immediately, even if they were not only "not ready", but were inferior to what we already had at the position.

 

[steelbtexan]

Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 56m 56 minutes ago

Texans DE JJ Watt did simple restructure. Converts $10M roster bonus to signing bonus. Creates $8M in space for '15, adds $2M to cap '16-'19

THIS ^^^^^ is mortgagng the future.

Sad part is I thought Smith had learned from his past mistakes and the restructure wasn't really necessary. The Texans were in good cap shape and would've been in great cap shape in 2016 to be major players in 2016 FA.

This makes no sense to me. Unless the Texans org needs to pocket JJ's cash for whatever reason. I guess after 13 yrs McNair is still learning.

 

[ChampionTexan]

Sad part is I thought Smith had learned from his past mistakes and the restructure wasn't really necessary. The Texans were in good cap shape and would've been in great cap shape in 2016 to be major players in 2016 FA.

This makes no sense to me. Unless the Texans org needs to pocket JJ's cash for whatever reason. I guess after 13 yrs McNair is still learning.

First, it uses $2 Million of the 2016 cap, and I don't view that as the difference between being able to be major players, and not being able to be major players in free agency.

And as far as the restructure not really being necessary, how do you know that? They're either going to use the cap space created (in which case it was necessary), or they're not (in which case it rolls into the 2016 cap amount).

Finally, you stated:

This makes no sense to me. Unless the Texans org needs to pocket JJ's cash for whatever reason.

What does this even mean? What is pocketing, and how does converting a roster bonus to a signing bonus create the possibility for that to happen?

 

[JB]

Sad part is I thought Smith had learned from his past mistakes and the restructure wasn't really necessary. The Texans were in good cap shape and would've been in great cap shape in 2016 to be major players in 2016 FA.

This makes no sense to me. Unless the Texans org needs to pocket JJ's cash for whatever reason. I guess after 13 yrs McNair is still learning.

Adding $2M to future years is not exactly crippling the team cap wise, and it gives them some flexibility now.

Something had to be done so they could sign draft picks, money for IR, etc.

 

[infantrycak]

First, it uses $2 Million of the 2016 cap, and I don't view that as the difference between being able to be major players, and not being able to be major players in free agency.

And as far as the restructure not really being necessary, how do you know that? They're either going to use the cap space created (in which case it was necessary), or they're not (in which case it rolls into the 2016 cap amount).

Finally, you stated:

What does this even mean? What is pocketing, and how does converting a roster bonus to a signing bonus create the possibility for that to happen?

Yup. I don't understand why (other than maybe the reason you gave which seems a bit of a stretch, but...) but this is not mortgaging the future and has no impact on future caps as to be in the same net now through different contracts for the recent signing would have put the same additional cap hits into the future.

 

[Double Barrel]

Funny to hear about loyalty when the team shitcanned their coach after a bad season.

There is no place for the concept of loyalty in the NFL, unless you're talking about the almighty dollar.

Except customers...errr....fans are expected to remain loyal through thick and thin.

What a racket.

 

[Texian]

Sad part is I thought Smith had learned from his past mistakes and the restructure wasn't really necessary. The Texans were in good cap shape and would've been in great cap shape in 2016 to be major players in 2016 FA.

This makes no sense to me. Unless the Texans org needs to pocket JJ's cash for whatever reason. I guess after 13 yrs McNair is still learning.

Rick Smith is only doing what he has been asked to do.

 

[Texian]

Adding $2M to future years is not exactly crippling the team cap wise, and it gives them some flexibility now.

Something had to be done so they could sign draft picks, money for IR, etc.

Given the choice of borrowing $2 million from the 2016 cap, $2 million from the 2017 cap, $2 million from the 2018 cap and $2 million from 2019 cap in order to sign Wilfork, OR not signing Wilfork, not signing Wilfork is the much better smarter option.

 

[infantrycak]

Given the choice of borrowing $2 million from the 2016 cap, $2 million from the 2017 cap, $2 million from the 2018 cap and $2 million from 2019 cap in order to sign Wilfork, OR not signing Wilfork, not signing Wilfork is the much better smarter option.

That was not the trade off. They've just moved cap hit this year from JJ to KJ, Newton, Hoyer, Moore - with a zero net result.

 

[JB]

That was not the trade off. They've just moved cap hit this year from JJ to KJ, Newton, Hoyer, Moore - with a zero net result.

4 for 1... sounds like they did it right

 

[Texian]

That was not the trade off. They've just moved cap hit this year from JJ to KJ, Newton, Hoyer, Moore - with a zero net result.

Let's see they spent $9.5 million signing Wilfork and they restructured Watt for $10 million.

Here is what Bob McNair said about Kareem, Derek and Mallett;

"And we were able to retain Kareem, Derek and Mallett. We did it within the cap, and we didn't sacrifice our future."

 

[JB]

Let's see they spent $9.5 million signing Wilfork and they restructured Watt for $10 million.

Here is what Bob McNair said about Kareem, Derek and Mallett;

And do you think that moving $2M of cap dollars to future years on a player you're sure to keep that long instead of letting it handicap you now is a smarter way to go? Perhaps that's why you're not GM or capologist of a team

 

[infantrycak]

Let's see they spent $9.5 million signing Wilfork and they restructured Watt for $10 million.

Here is what Bob McNair said about Kareem, Derek and Mallett;

Alright Jethro, let's walk through this again.

They by no means had to but put over $12 mil in roster bonuses into the contracts they have signed this offseason including $1 mil on Wilfork. Had they done those as signing bonuses instead this year's cap hit would be a little over $8.25 mil lower.

They had a roster bonus for $10 mil on Watt and converted it to signing bonus moving $8 mil off of this year.

It wasn't about signing Wilfork and it wasn't about mortgaging the future. They kept the cap neutral across the contracts and just moved when and where it is being booked around.

And your attempt to make the numbers look similar on Watt and Wilfork is weak. They shifted $8 mil in cap hit this year and Wilfork has a $3.5 mil cap hit this year.

 

[thunderkyss]

Given the choice of borrowing $2 million from the 2016 cap, $2 million from the 2017 cap, $2 million from the 2018 cap and $2 million from 2019 cap in order to sign Wilfork, OR not signing Wilfork, not signing Wilfork is the much better smarter option.

We're likely to win more games by signing Wilfork... How's that not worth $2M over the course of Jj's contract. The only downfall is if Jj's play falls off, due to notgvngafk or injury. Then it would be harder to ditch him. But if we expect Jj to play out the terms of his contract, why's it not the smarter option?

 

[infantrycak]

We're likely to win more games by signing Wilfork... How's that not worth $2M over the course of Jj's contract. The only downfall is if Jj's play falls off, due to notgvngafk or injury. Then it would be harder to ditch him. But if we expect Jj to play out the terms of his contract, why's it not the smarter option?

Texian believes in cap space more than players.

 

[Texian]

And do you think that moving $2M of cap dollars to future years on a player you're sure to keep that long instead of letting it handicap you now is a smarter way to go? Perhaps that's why you're not GM or capologist of a team

Not moving $2 mil to the future, they're moving $8 mil to the future. No I don't think Wilfork will be here in 2017, 2018, or 2019.

We're likely to win more games by signing Wilfork... How's that not worth $2M over the course of Jj's contract. The only downfall is if Jj's play falls off, due to notgvngafk or injury. Then it would be harder to ditch him. But if we expect Jj to play out the terms of his contract, why's it not the smarter option?

How many more games do you think they will win with Wilfork? I'm not sure they can win 9 in 2015.

Alright Jethro, let's walk through this again.

Is that a personal attack Otis?...consider this a fair warning

 

[thunderkyss]

How many more games do you think they will win with Wilfork? I'm not sure they can win 9 in 2015.

More. I think we're more likely to win all of the games with Wilfork than without him.

Is that a personal attack Otis?...consider this a fair warning

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say as well. Like cak (though I'm not so mean) it doesn't matter to me whether that $10M was to sign Wilfork (which we're not paying him $10M this year in any shape or form) or Newton, Kj, Hoyer, or Mallett. Those guys get the money the same way, whether it's called a roster bonus or a signing bonus. Why not just give them signing bonuses, save the $10M that way instead of restructuring Jj.

They chose to put money into this year's cap roughly equal to the money they just moved from this years cap. Restructuring Jj is considered "mortgaging our future" but had that money been signing bonuses for Newton, Kj, Hoyer, & Mallett..... it wouldn't? Why?

 

[JB]

Not moving $2 mil to the future, they're moving $8 mil to the future. No I don't think Wilfork will be here in 2017, 2018, or 2019.

Yes, I meant $2M a year

 

[Marshall]

That was not the trade off. They've just moved cap hit this year from JJ to KJ, Newton, Hoyer, Moore - with a zero net result.

And it was spread over more year so there was more relief. The cash flow does not change.

 

[Texian]

More. I think we're more likely to win all of the games with Wilfork than without him.





I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say as well. Like cak (though I'm not so mean) it doesn't matter to me whether that $10M was to sign Wilfork (which we're not paying him $10M this year in any shape or form) or Newton, Kj, Hoyer, or Mallett. Those guys get the money the same way, whether it's called a roster bonus or a signing bonus. Why not just give them signing bonuses, save the $10M that way instead of restructuring Jj.

They chose to put money into this year's cap roughly equal to the money they just moved from this years cap. Restructuring Jj is considered "mortgaging our future" but had that money been signing bonuses for Newton, Kj, Hoyer, & Mallett..... it wouldn't? Why?

I was just going off of what McNair said, they were able to sign Kareem, Derek and Mallett without borrowing any money from the future. The only transaction after McNair's comment to have any effect on the salary cap was signing Wilfork. Just following the timeline....

Roster bonuses are paid during the year and allocated to the salary cap year the same year the player makes the roster. (If JJ is on the roster on 3/24 he gets a $10 million roster bonus.) By changing the roster bonuses to a signing bonus you can now amortize the signing bonus over a period of up to a 5 years maximum, depending on the length of the contract. Signing Bonus can be amortized, Roster bonus cannot.

 

[thunderkyss]

I was just going off of what McNair said, they were able to sign Kareem, Derek and Mallett without borrowing any money from the future. The only transaction after McNair's comment to have any effect on the salary cap was signing Wilfork. Just following the timeline....

Roster bonuses are paid during the year and allocated to the salary cap year the same year the player makes the roster. (If JJ is on the roster on 3/24 he gets a $10 million roster bonus.) By changing the roster bonuses to a signing bonus you can now amortize the signing bonus over a period of up to a 5 years maximum, depending on the length of the contract. Signing Bonus can be amortized, Roster bonus cannot.

Without resorting to personal attacks, let me try it this way.

If it was important to the Texans to have an additional $10M in cap space for 2015, why did they structure $12M into new contracts as roster bonuses?