football outsiders has us sub .500

[Mitchrapp]

Yep. If the game was in KC I'd predict loss but it's not so I think they'll win. KC isn't very good.

 

[LKP]

Philadelphia home, Green Bay home and KC in London are wins.

12-4 hughes not 9-7.

 

[brewer229]

We needed a second try to beat horrible Atlanta team in London last year, it's tough to count this as an automatic win. Better than playing at Arrowhead, but still a tough one.

You can run through this schedule and get as high as 13-3 and as low as 4 - 12. Guess that's why they play the games...

 

[tsmith7559]

Football Outsiders picked 4 of the 6 NFC playoff teams wrong last year and had the Lions winning 7

 

[biggunsbob]

Hopefully this will be our year and we make a deep run in the playoffs..

 

[tonyballs]

ManRam and his $3M was brought into start, Swanson will compete but day one Manny is penciled in at the starting C spot, basically this was a way to move on from Dom and his ankle stomping ways without moving on from Dom.

I know this isn't the depth thread but please explain our depth based on actual statistical play and not complete hope and hearsay. This team has more question marks than a game of Mario Bros.

Doesn't work like that. I think I read somewhere that if ManRam starts, he's set to make 3M. If he's a backup, it goes down to 1.5M. He was brought here to push Swanson and be a backup Guard or Center.

How does this team have a bunch of question marks again? Every position is in stone except for C and RT. What's the issue with that?

 

[inkfreq]

Doesn't work like that. I think I read somewhere that if ManRam starts, he's set to make 3M. If he's a backup, it goes down to 1.5M. He was brought here to push Swanson and be a backup Guard or Center.

How does this team have a bunch of question marks again? Every position is in stone except for C and RT. What's the issue with that?

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2013/09/14/ramirez-contract-details-500000-signing-bonus/21619/

Base salary of $1.4MM. Playing time incentives can take him up to $3MM. So yes, you're correct, if he doesn't start, and quite a bit, he won't make the $3MM.

Looks like he has to start all 16 games to make the $1.6MM in incentives. My guess is it's a standard clause that kicks in at 8 starts. If he makes 8 starts, he'll get another 800K in salary, and another 100K for each start beyond 8.

That's pretty standard.

 

[tsmith7559]

If he doesn't reach the incentive clause that money is added back in to the 16' cap

 

[inkfreq]

If he doesn't reach the incentive clause that money is added back in to the 16' cap

Correct, assuming the incentive is based on game played or started... which I would assume it is for an offensive lineman.

There are two types of incentives in a contract, "Likely to be earned" and "Unlikely to be earned", and it's all based on the previous seasons stats.

So if a WR has an incentive that pays him if he reaches 1,000 yards receiving, and last season he had 1,200, his incentive would be Likely to be Earned, and would count against this year's cap. If he fails to reach it, it gets carried over to next year as a savings.

If the same WR had a clause that paid him a bonus at 1,200 yards and he only got 1,000 yards, it would be an "Unlikely to be earned" bonus, and would only account against next year's cap if it's reached.

So Ramirez started all 16 games for Denver last season. Assuming his $1.6MM bonus is based on playing time, it would be a "Likely to be earned" bonus, and counts for $3MM against the cap this season regardless. If he doesn't meet it, we would get $1.6MM in savings against the cap in 2016.

So, very good point on when it accrues Tsmith.

 

[tsmith7559]

His has been designated as likely to be earned, saw it on a lions reporters blog

 

[inkfreq]

His has been designated as likely to be earned, saw it on a lions reporters blog

Pretty much had to be. I am not sure there is any incentive for an O-Lineman other than games played or games started, and he started all 16 last season.

Pretty hard to be "unlikely" if you started all 16.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

Correct, assuming the incentive is based on game played or started... which I would assume it is for an offensive lineman.

There are two types of incentives in a contract, "Likely to be earned" and "Unlikely to be earned", and it's all based on the previous seasons stats.

So if a WR has an incentive that pays him if he reaches 1,000 yards receiving, and last season he had 1,200, his incentive would be Likely to be Earned, and would count against this year's cap. If he fails to reach it, it gets carried over to next year as a savings.

If the same WR had a clause that paid him a bonus at 1,200 yards and he only got 1,000 yards, it would be an "Unlikely to be earned" bonus, and would only account against next year's cap if it's reached.

So Ramirez started all 16 games for Denver last season. Assuming his $1.6MM bonus is based on playing time, it would be a "Likely to be earned" bonus, and counts for $3MM against the cap this season regardless. If he doesn't meet it, we would get $1.6MM in savings against the cap in 2016.

So, very good point on when it accrues Tsmith.

So if I'm looking at this like a GM....we roll Swanson out there for at least one start in '15 and get another $1.6M towards 2016's cap?

 

[inkfreq]

So if I'm looking at this like a GM....we roll Swanson out there for at least one start in '15 and get another $1.6M towards 2016's cap?

Probably not.

A normal contract would start accruing potential bonuses with 8 games started. With each additional game, you would accrue more.

So odds are at 8 games, he's due $800K.

At 10 games he's due a million.

At 16 games the full $1.6MM is due.

A GM is going to want the best guy on the field, even if you save nothing against the cap next year. Always better to win, than save money.

 

[cheeno]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...ll-what-2014s-numbers-can-tell-us-about-2015/

Barnwell has us regressing to around .500 as well. Also predicts a drop off in GB. What his statistical models never seem to be able to predict though is that good QBs win and win consistently. He always predicts Indy to suck.

 

[inkfreq]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...ll-what-2014s-numbers-can-tell-us-about-2015/

Barnwell has us regressing to around .500 as well. Also predicts a drop off in GB. What his statistical models never seem to be able to predict though is that good QBs win and win consistently. He always predicts Indy to suck.

Yeah, I read this. The problem this article has, like too many just like it, is it's based on the Pythagorean Theorem, which is about the least accurate way to make any sports prediction.

It's all based on point differential from last season, and is never able to adjust for improvements or regressions on either side of the ball, or just pure anomalies.

For example... Calvin Johnson being tackled six times inside the one yard line in a season? PT math will never be able to account for that, or in how it affects the outcome of close games.

It never takes into account impact players brought in during the draft or free agency, or the impact free agents that retire or move on to another team.

As far as that math is concerned, our defense will produce exactly like it did this year, because that formula doesn't know we lost Suh, Fairley, and Mosley in the middle.

Any adjustments you can make to the theorem are pure speculation (they should allow more touchdowns, they should score more on special teams, etc...) and at that point you're not working with math anymore, you're doing no better than any fan in their living room... guessing wildly.