Current Salary Cap Status
by MysterD on Jun 30, 2007 12:47 AM CDT
Email
PrintJason Cole of Yahoo! Sports has a good article out on salary cap status of teams.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...
As you can see our beloved Cowboys have 13.8 million.
Although teams have to account for unsigned draft picks (no first- or second-round picks have signed), that won't have an overwhelming impact on cap space. The average rookie cap for each team is only $4.27 million this season.
Likewise, teams generally average about $4 million in incentives and other bonus payments earned during a season.
With that in mind, it'll leave the cowboys with about 5.3mill to play with.
Hopefully they make wiser decisions in resigning their own(Bradie James,Roy Williams come to mind).
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
57 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Signing James and Williams was wise
While both of these players didn't have the best of seasons in 2006, I attribute a lot of that to Parcell's coaching as he failed to put both of these guys in position to make plays or hide their weaknesses.
James and Williams both are extremely talented players and will excel in Phillips 34. Jones was wise to lock them both up for a long time as they will both be key players to a much improved defense this season.
Damn! its amazing how it's now that he is ...
gone Parcells is the reason for everybody's failure to excel at their job! I do think he did limit some aspects of team, but, Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. Just frigging make a play!
by Badknees on Jun 30, 2007 9:58 AM CDT reply actions
Thank you.
I've never seen some fans work so hard to place blame anywhere but on the players. You know, the guys that actually are on the field making plays. Some of these very same fans were praising Parcells deep into the season, but when things didn't work out, they grab any excuse, not matter how simplistic.
by Dave Halprin on Jun 30, 2007 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
you guys will see
first hand how important coaching is in this league when Williams and James are terrorizing teams in the box where they should be. Just because these guys can't cover really well doesn't mean they're not great players.
I praised Parcells for a lot of things and deservedly so, but X's and O's were certainly not one of them.
I have always contended that the players
failed in the responsibilities that Parcells gave them.
But when they fail over and over again, maybe its time to tweak something. Like taking Bradie James out of coverage in passing downs.
You also have to accept that Parcells made some mistakes. He didn't do everything perfect.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jun 30, 2007 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying its all Parcell's fault at all
of course the players have to take some responsibility, but to make comments that signing James and Williams to long term contracts was not a good move is just ridiculous, as if they're not really good players.
Any player cannot be sucessful unless they are put in a position by the coaching staff to succeed. Thats all I was saying. There are very few players that can truly be effective in any scheme or system, those players are very rare.
Williams and James are average at best
Neither Roy Williams nor Brady James are extremely talented players. The are nice players. It is even too much of a reach to call them very good players. What they really are is one-trick ponies. They are good at one facet of their position, and terrible at the other. Extremely talented players excel at all facets of the game. Ed Reed is an extremely talented safety – doesn’t matter whether he supports the run or plays the pass. He is great. The league is filled with players who are really good at part of their job, but very average in other parts. Offensive coordinators are paid to exploit these players’ weaknesses. When a defensive player is extremely talented, offensive coordinator design a game play to get away from them. It speaks volumes that by the end of the year, the game plan of every Cowboy opponent was ‘get Roy Williams and Bradie James in pass coverage and exploit the hell out of them’. There is no way that a player should be described as great or extremely talented when the opponent’s game plan is to go right at them. The is no scheme out there that allows for a safety to avoid coverage responsibilities. Roy Williams will be exposed again and again next year if he continues to play safety. The Cowboys might be able to hide Bradie James’ very significant pass coverage limitations, but my gut tells me otherwise. We already know that the three down linemen and the two outside linebackers are going to rush the passer on every play. Are they also going to be joined by the inside linebacker and the safety? We are going to rush at least seven guys on every passing down? Isn’t going to happen, and Williams and James are going to be exposed again and be forced to leave the field on obvious passing plays.
by Cowboy Louie on Jun 30, 2007 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think
either are average, but I would've waited to give James and extension. I just didn't see enough last season to warrant a given him a contract extension. I think this season will be the telling tale whether we rushed into signing James to a long term deal.
by Cowboys81 on Jul 1, 2007 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions
That contract was given
by Badknees on Jul 2, 2007 7:30 AM CDT up reply actions
The problem with parcells...
is that he had an immensley talented Giants team in the 80s, won a couple of super bowls and then everyone couldn't get over telling him how great he was. After the Giants, each team he went to did worse than the previous and if you look at how the NFL has changed since the 80s, you can see how Parcells got trapped by his own greatness and refused to adapt to the current style of play.
That's a bit revisionist
The "immensley talented Giants team in the 80s" won 3 games in 1983, and made the postseason the following three years, winning the SB by 1986. Go Lionel Manuel!
The Patriots won 2 games the year before Parcells showed up, and he had them in the playoffs by '94 and the Super Bowl by '96.
The Jets won one game in 1996 -- Parcells won 9 games his first year with them, and then made the postseason the following year.
The Cowboys in 2002 had just suffered a disaster under Campo of three straight 5 win seasons. Out of nowhere Parcells wills them to 10 wins and the postseason.
So over the course of his career Bill Parcells proved that he could go from team W to team X to team Y to team Z and maintain a winning tradition, despite constantly inheriting at best mediocre teams, at worst god awful teams. That tells me a lot more about him as a coach than it would had he simply retired after his NYG stretch, because I wouldn't have been able to isolate his success to a singularly outstanding roster -- Bill Parcells has won a lot of games with a lot of different players in a lot of different situations. Somewhere along that trip, to his enormous credit, he revived a desparately bad Dallas Cowboys franchise from 5-11 doldrums to optimism. His reward is that those same fans who owe him enormous gratitude can instead rewrite his coaching history, dubbing one of the most demonstrably successful coaches, who did it under numerous and drastically changing circumstances, as some maladaptive scrub.
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
If only...
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Skin Patrol
Nobody on this blog thinks Parcells was a bad coach, quite the opposite. As like you said, he turned around a bad Cowboy team devoid of talent to a playoff team with as much talent as any team in the league. For that he certainly deserves much praise.
The problem a lot of bloggers have on this site regarding Parcells is his stubborn refusal to change when it became clear as day that changes definitely needed to be made with his style of defense. He's old school and eventually, the X's and O's of the game passed him by.
I don't think "passed him by"
is the way I would look at it. I am not sure that it's not more a case of today's players being unable to play his system. I think there has been a certain regression in knowledge of the game and discipline in players that made it more difficult. Much is probably due to free agency (new team every year, starting over again with teaching), frequent coaching changes, and salary cap (favors younger, cheaper, less experienced players).
It may be splitting hairs, but to say it otherwise implies that he had fallen behind, when in fact I think the game has fallen behind him.
its all sematics dunkman
either way you say it, Parcells coaching style is no longer condusive to today's NFL. It once was, but not anymore.
In today's league, you have to adapt to certain kinds of players and schemes, but Parcells was always trying to plug square pegs in round holes and it finally caught up to him.
I won't argue that
the team wasn't as effective as one would have expected at the end of the season. I simply wanted to make the point that Parcells hadn't lost a "coaching step", but rather didn't find himself with all the tools he needed. I think Gibbs is going through the same thing.
And I think he was exhausted by the time he got the team close to where he wanted it.
When did Bill Parcells fail
in "today's NFL"? He won more games in 2006's NFL than he did in 1995 and 1987.
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
What evidence is there of this?
Because he only won 9 games and made the postseason in a very competitive division (that fielded 3 playoff teams)?
If I were Bill Parcells, I would look back to my success over the course of 3 decades, including extremely recent success, and conclude quite reasonably that my system worked just fine. 2006 was a successful year for the Dallas Cowboys. When you say that he needed to change his system, I'd retort why? It worked. It produced wins. It did so in New York twice, in New England, and finally in Dallas.
If a 9-7 season is evidence of having been "passed by" then the list of coaches that do not meet Terry's stringent standards is indeed a long one, that happens to include current HC Wade Phillips.
My whole point wasn't that you guys were calling Parcells a bad coach (which some were intimating, even if you didn't personally) but rather that you guys are twisting yourselves up like pretzels trying to explain away a Hall of Fame worthy career into a merely a man who was "passed by", that somehow forgot about the Xs and Os.
That's not who Bill Parcells was, at any point in his career. Certainly not in 2006. He was and remains an outstanding coach regardless of how we try to rationalize his impressive and prolonged success. If it's "the Giants were just really talented" (which they weren't when he took over) then New England, the Jets, and Dallas need explaining. If it's "the game passed him by" then your 2006 season needs explaining.
Some coaches have careers that transend criticism. Wade Phillips isn't one of them. Bill Parcells is. And that's why I'm shocked to see Cowboys fans (who should love Parcells far more than yours truly) and players debase him unnecessarily.
When Wade Phillips takes this team one step farther than Bill Parcells did, I'll consider rethinking my position (though even then, he will have done it with Parcells' players). Until then I'm not about to presume that the Cowboys are better off without The Tuna.
As likely as not, Wade Phillips, as he did in Denver, could leave a good team worse off than he inherited it. And that, once again, is a key difference between Phillips and Parcells -- about the former we cannot say that every team he coached was better in the long run as a result of him coaching. About the latter? Every single team he ever coached in his entire career was better off the day he left than the day he showed up.
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
his system didn't work
because if it did, the Cowboys would have actually won the division and went much further in the playoffs than one and out.
9-7 is not good for a team as talented as the Dallas Cowboys were in 2006. Our roster is loaded with pro bowl caliber players and I quailfy sneaking in the playoffs and losing the first game in the lame NFC pretty much failure with that kind of talent.
Was 9-7 really..
not good for a team as talented as we were in 2006? I tend to agree with Parcells when he said a few years back, you are what you are.
You want to know how talented we were? 9-7 talented. If not, we would have finished 13-3 or 5-10 again.
We should make the day Parcells was hired a "Cowboys holiday" forever. He turned this franchise from a joke on the field, into something that we call 9-7 a disappointment.
Or are you forgetting it's been a decade since we've won a playoff game?
not true
coaching is just as important to winning football games as having talented players, you gotta have both, not just one or the other.
I'm a Parcells fan and feel he did a tremendous job resurrecting the franchise, but the coaching staff last season just flat out didn't do a good job.
I could care less how long its been since they won a playoff game, that means nothing to me. The Cowboys in 2006 were a team talented enough to win at 10 or 11 games, no question. To me, they underachieved.
9-7 is 9-7
Sorry.
And it's not all on Parcells. Our players failed to live up to the task as well.
WOULD WE PLEASE QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR PLAYERS UNDERPERFORMING!?!?
The defense underperformed. The offense toward the end underperformed.
Sure maybe Parcells could have tweaked something here or there, but the bottom line is...we could bring back Vince Lombardi and if the players don't make plays, you lose games.
We were 9-7 talented.
the bottom line
is that the coaching staff failed to put the players in positions to succeed. You can say the players underperformed but to me, thats the reason, not that they not good enough, because they are.
You don't put Roy Williams in deep coverage the majority of plays, you don't have your most talented and gifted pass rusher dropping into coverage half of the time. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Its not as simple as you're making it out to be. If it was, anyone could coach in the NFL.
Isn't it at least possible...
that the personnel on the Dallas Cowboys are less talented than you give them credit for? I certainly think the Redskins have more talent than their 5-11 record would indicate, though am willing to grant that I could be wrong.
In my opinion, fans tend to overrate their own players.
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Well that settles it
by Skin Patrol @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Hate to say it
But I agree with a Skins fan.
Terry is just too big of a homer to admit to anything else.
The fact is, no matter how good your coach is...the players can still blow it for them.
If Watkins didn't make those mistakes, we could have beaten Philly (let me guess, didn't put him in position to succeed by blitzing and leaving him alone, I say gave him a chance to prove himself and he failed miserably)
If Bledsoe doesn't take that shot to the chest, Tom Brady would be dating some grocery store clerk somewhere, and not Giesele.
If Terry Glenn doesn't fumble that pass against Seattle, the bobble never happens.
If T.O. doesn't drop that bomb against Washington, we win that game.
If Bledsoe doesn't throw that bad pass against the Giants, he might still be our quarterback (although I'm sure you priase that Parcells decision, but then will add some nonsense about how it came too late)
If Roy can adjust to a ball in midair, he can bat down a few of the bombs that he misplayed in a few of our losses (wasn't it the 2nd Philly game?)
If Spears/Canty could just beat someone 1v1 for once in their lives, we get more pressure.
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle...
whatever mhuff
this debate will obviously be decided by the success or failure of the defense this season.
You're right
However, not really. Cause some will say "Wade Phillips FINALLY succeeded because of the players Parcells left for him" while others will say "see what a real coach can do with these players"
Um
Because it's kinda contradictory?
You're giving credit to a guy for basically riding the coattails of the guy there before him. Yet you're saying the guy there before him was a POS coach?
Uhh...
no, what I'm saying
is that Parcells should be given the credit for acquiring the talent and Phillips would be given the credit for putting them in positions to succeed. I don't know how that is contradictory.
I don't see how you can give credit to Parcells
for acquiring talent, he is neither the GM, Jerry, or the head of scouting, Jeff Ireland. He did have role in acquiring talent but it was not a bigger role than the aforementioned.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 3, 2007 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Parcells had the final decision
in almost every personnel decision, including the drafting of players. Jones and Ireland might have talked him out of some selections, but don't kid yourself, Parcells ran the show, no doubt about it.
Where are you getting this info from?
But please tell me where you are getting this info from because this is the first I have heard of this?
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 3, 2007 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions
various articles
from reporters who received inside information from the war room. And as I recall from Parcells press conference, Jerry announced Parcells would have control over the personnel decisions regarding the team, otherwise, why would he have hired him in the first place? He realized Parcells could rebuild his team but in order for that to happen, it had to give him control of player personnnel.
One of the biggest reasons Jerry hired a guy like Phillips is because he can reclaim some of that control he gave up to Parcells over the last 4 years.
Yeah but Jerry always had the final say so
Case and point T.O. Parcells didn't want him here but Jerry had the final say so. Same thing with the whole Ware/Spears deal.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 3, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
not true
Parcells could have nixed the T.O. deal if he really wanted to, both Parcells and Jones are on record saying this.
Regarding the Spears/Ware deal, Jones had to take Parcells out to dinner the night before the draft to convince him Ware was the better pick. If Jones really had the final say, no convincing would be neccessary, he would have just told Parcells Ware is our guy. From what I read, it didn't happen that way.
Both of these cases prove Parcells really had the final say and all personnel decisions had to be approved by him. Jones might have had to do some arm twisting and pleading, but in the end, Parcells called the shots.
Actually you are thinking about the Newman
thing. Thats where he took Parcells out to dinner. And he probably did that just to be nice, Jerry would have picked Newman no matter what. With Ware is it was a game time decision and Jerry told Parcells to wait to the 28th pick.
With T.O. Parcells came out recently saying that he wasn't on board with the decision.
Parcells had a significant amount of influence in the decision making, but nearly as much as you are making it out to be.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 3, 2007 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Parcells always claimed
that all decisions were made by the organization as a whole, but I don't believe for a minute that if Parcells didn't agree with a personnel matter, Jones would veto Parcells.
Sure Parcells is saying now he wasn't on board with bringing in T.O., but why didn't he tell Jones that? Jones is on record as saying Parcells never objected.
Regarding Ware/Spears, both Jones and Parcells wanted both players, it was just a matter at which slot we would take them. Jones convinced Parcells that Ware wouldn't be available at 22, but that Spears might.
And I think you're right about the dinner date being about the Newman pick, but Jones doesn't do anything to be nice. This scenario proves my point, if Jones really had final say in all personnel decisions, he would have just told Parcells Newman will be the pick and thats that.
Oh yeah that would be really smart to just blow
off an ego like Bill Parcells, and just pick Newman. As owner/GM Jerry has to be more diplomatic than that.
And you have to be able to read between the lines better Terry. Jerry is much more diplomatic and political than Parcells, he would rather avoid controversy about T.O. And why would Parcells make up a lie like that.
Jerry would never ever give up the power of vetoe. Sure he let Parcells have more influence in the personnel decisions than all the previous coaches, but Parcells was never the big kahoona, it was always Jerry.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 3, 2007 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions
well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
on this one as only Parcells and Jones know who really called the shots.
Funny stuff
I agree with you Skin Patrol, fans always overrate their own players, because we infuse our hopes for the team in them. And because we kept most of our roster intact from last year, some fans can't bear the thought that some of those players might not be the most talented football players because we are counting on them this year. So it's just easier to say Parcells scheme was out-of-date, when in fact it was in-date all the way up to the Saints game, when it suddenly got old, I guess.
Unfortunately
I was not over here for last season. I joined in the offseason.
Grizz, was Parcells the next leader of the free world before the Saints game, and then the scum at the bottom of the pond in the games that followed?
On the RanchReport, he went from the curer of AIDS to someone you wouldn't relieve yourself on to put him out if he was on fire.
I wouldn't say it was that bad over here
We had some guys who didn't like Parcells all along, and some who thought he was doing OK, but not great. I don't think Parcells was 100% in the clear either, there were times and things he did that I just didn't get. But overall, I think he pointed us in the right direction and might have succeeded in getting us back to the top if he stayed. Having Zimmer as a 3-4 coordinator was probably a mistake, and one you can blame on Parcells and Jerry. I also have stated that I thought they could've shaken things up even more at the end, but they didn't.
Water under the bridge now, maybe Wade can get the whole thing working, we'll see.
I mostly agreed with that sentiment until
WP came in. At least with Parcells he made the trains run on time, I'll give him that, and I didn't know who Jerry was going to bring in. But Parcells wasn't a good coach with us, he couldn't take us to the next level. I am hoping WP can.
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Couldn't agree more
With the water under the bridge statement. Just wish everyone else, specifically the players, would feel the same way.
I actually thought Parcells was a bad coach
while he was in Dallas.
But I was very much fond of his sayings. And there is one that I really like that I think applies to this whole talent discussion, and it is "you are what you are"
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Bad?
is a bit rough I think. Maybe 'too conservative'?
A bad coach doesnt turn us around like that and take us to the playoffs twice.
I think that had more to do with Jerry getting
Jeff Ireland
by Burt D @ Blogging The Boys on Jul 2, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions
My thoughts exactly
I believe 'too conservative' is the exact way I would describe coach parcells. I think he was a great coach who did a lot to build up our franchise, but in the end drove me crazy with his conservatism.
Although, I am sure I would be praising him if it had taken us all the way, it drove me crazy even while we were in the midst of our winning ways.
He played the odds
and that works best when you can control your variables. There were just too many uncontrolled variables with his coaching staff and inexperienced players over the last several years.
Can't speak for Terry
But who can?!
My take is not the same. Parcells remained the same coach he had been for 30 years. But he did not meet the standard he himself had set over that HOF career. No doubt Dallas was better off. But there should also be no doubt Parcells himself was disappointed that he did not have more success.
It's not a matter, in my mind anyway, of not being able to coach today, but rather that his system relied on coaches and players to thoroughly understand what he was trying to accomplish, and translat that in game play. I'm sure you saw enough late season Dallas games to see confused, almost amateurish play on defense. My pet theory has been articulated enough here, but suffice it say coaching was as much a factor as any other.
In the end I also wanted Parcells to stay. My thought was that it was going to take him longer to win playoff games in Dalals because he needed additional time to get everyone on the same page, from coordinators to water boys. In the end, he decided he didn't have the energy for another two or three years of it.
Had he been able to carry at least one or two key coordinator with him from NY or NE, I believe his legacy leaving would have been as good as his other coaching stints. But being the great coach he was, he mentored them all onto greater successes...
I agree
I'm not defending Parcell's saying that he had ZERO blame.
I just hate this common theme among Cowboy fans, where they blame him for the failure of some players. It seems the players have no accountability for why we didn't go 13-3.
I bitched alot last year to my wife about how conservative we were on offense and defense. I thought it was probably time for a change, even though I wouldn't have been heartbroken if he came back.
I just don't want to see all the blame put on the guy that resurrected our franchise from the depths of mediocrity.
ding ding ding! We have a winner
"His reward is that those same fans who owe him enormous gratitude can instead rewrite his coaching history, dubbing one of the most demonstrably successful coaches, who did it under numerous and drastically changing circumstances, as some maladaptive scrub."
Maladaptive scrub was of course the clincher. Well done.
Lots of good points..
..and although I am the one who said that Parcells had a great Giants team and has gone downhill since, I agree that he did a great job of leaving us with players. Not a HOF job or we might have Stephen Jackson instead of JJ but we are wayyy better than when he came. The problem is that he is such a great coach and those of us left throwing up in our mouths after the Dave Campo era certainly expected a few playoff wins en route to our next Super Bowl with Parcells leading the parade. The fact that a heartbreaking first round loss was the best we could do was a huge underachievement both from a coaching standpoint and a GM standpoint since those players who didn't get it done were all hand picked and coached by BP. So now we grumble a little at Parcells lack of expected success and pin our hopes on Phillips.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
