The Bernie bits

**RamWraith** · #1 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

BernieM wrote:
Polley has played better since Marmie switched him to the TE side, but I wouldn't be tempted to overpay him to stay here.

This team needs to spend FA money on a legit middle linebacker to reinforce the run defense. They can move Thomas outside to replace Polley if need be, and Chillar has potential.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
I believe Little will be here.
The Rams are planning on it.
They'll stick by him if they need to (pending outcome of his legal issues).

I agree with you; I can see why they liked Hargrove.

Cheers,
Bernie

On Bob Stoops:
BernieM wrote:
That's a tough one to answer. I really don't know. I'd think his stock has dropped a little, but he's done such an excellent overall job at OU...I don't see why NFL teams would scratch him off their list (if he's on it) because of a couple of bad bowl games.

I wonder, though....will OU fans turn on him?

In a related comment, if I had to hire a college coach to coach an NFL team, I'd pick Iowa's Kirk Ferentz. He'll be a terrific NFL head coach if and when he wants the opportunity.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
I was almost as confused as the folks at Rams Park last offseason.

Though no one ever told me they planned to acquire Henson -- Martz did express enthusiasm for Henson, however -- there was definitely a pro-Warner movement underway, for two reasons:

1. Financial. He already was on the books and by cutting him the team would have to take a cap hit.

2. Martz soured on Bulger after the Carolina playoff loss, explaining his decision to kick the FG at the end of regulation by telling Rams execs that he didn't trust Bulger and feared an INT.

What changed?

1. Warner's sermon at the church in Houston the day before the Super Bowl.

2. After reviewing tapes and calming down, Martz realized that Bulger had played well overall, and that it would be hasty and foolish to give up on him, because he'd finally come to the point where he (bulger) could mentally master the offense.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
I haven't asked about the cap (sorry) ... but the Rams will take a bigger "Warner" hit in 2005 ... and if Faulk retires, that will be another big hit (I don't think he will retire but I don't know).

Jim Thomas told me that, other than those two things, it isn't so bad.

I wish I knew more. I apologize. I have always been weak on salary-cap issues.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
From Jim Henzler of STATS Inc:

Worst Turnover Differential For Postseason Teams, Since 1933

Team Opp Diff

2004 Rams 39 15 -24

1977 Vikings 46 28 -18

1987 Bears 42 24 -18

1983 Raiders 50 35 -15

1984 Raiders 49 34 -15

1971 ***** 29 15 -14

2004 Packers 29 15 -14

1979 Cowboys 34 23 -11

1990 Saints 39 28 -11

1998 Packers 34 23 -11

Worst Point Differential For Postseason Teams, Since 1933

Team Opp Diff

2004 Rams 319 392 -73

1989 Steelers 265 326 -61

1998 Cardinals 325 378 -53

1978 Falcons 240 290 -50

1989 Oilers 365 412 -47

1982 Browns 140 182 -42

1994 Bears 271 307 -36

1982 Cardinals 135 170 -35

1983 Broncos 302 327 -25

1986 Jets 364 386 -22

Cheers,
B

On Bryce Fisher:
BernieM wrote:
Haven't heard much talk out there, either way.
He's really emerged, as you said. He's going to make a lot of money.
I'm sure someone will overpay.

He was just named NFC Defensive Player of the Month....

--B

On Bulger vs. Warner
BernieM wrote:
The Giants had a shaky offensive line. So did the Rams.
The Giants had Tiki Barber. The Rams did not have a running back who produced consistently. The Rams have better WRs, but the Giants have good receivers. The Giants have a superior tight end.

Cheers,
Bernie

**HUbison** · #2 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Quote:

On Bryce Fisher: BernieM wrote: Haven't heard much talk out there, either way. He's really emerged, as you said. He's going to make a lot of money. I'm sure someone will overpay.

Did I miss something? Is Fisher a FA after this year?

**RamWraith** · #3 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Yes

and unrestricted

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

Did I miss something? Is Fisher a FA after this year?

**HUbison** · #4 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamWraith

Yes

and unrestricted

I hope we can get him signed for a decent price. With our luck, he'll go the way of Wistrom and get paid somewhere 3x's what he's worth.

**AvengerRam** · #5 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Last year, he was a RFA, but nobody signed him to an offer sheet, so the Rams just signed him to a one year deal. I guess nobody anticipated how well he would develop.

*sbramfan* · #6 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

I hate Free Agency.

I don't know how many times I can suggest it, but there needs to be a scenario where any FA player on your team will count less towards the cap than the team that tries to acquire them.

Just as with the Veteran thing where you can pay a guy $1 million (or whatever) and it only counts $750,000 vs. the cap.

I would say it could work something like this:

Restricted Free Agent's salary:
80% applies to the cap.

(Any player you drafted should always count 80% towards the cap).

Unrestricted Free Agent:
85% applies to the cap.

So if the Rams offered a guy like Bryce Fisher a 10 million dollar contract, it would only count 8.5 million towards the cap, allowing them a "SLIGHT" edge in trying to retain a player they've invested in.

And the 75% could have helped in keeping guys like Dre Bly, Az Hakim, or Grant Wistrom.

The 17 Million dollar contract Az got would have only cost the Rams about 14 million in cap room.

You would still be able to steal a guy away by over-paying, but it would help teams retain players they've invested in. Plus, the player will get the same money either way, so as an Unrestricted Free Agent, he could still leave if he wanted out.

**txramsfan** · #7 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Kind of like the Larry Bird rule in the NBA?

**HUbison** · #8 (**permalink**) -07-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbramfan

I hate Free Agency.

I don't know how many times I can suggest it, but there needs to be a scenario where any FA player on your team will count less towards the cap than the team that tries to acquire them.

Just as with the Veteran thing where you can pay a guy $1 million (or whatever) and it only counts $750,000 vs. the cap.

I would say it could work something like this:

Restricted Free Agent's salary:
80% applies to the cap.

(Any player you drafted should always count 80% towards the cap).

Unrestricted Free Agent:
85% applies to the cap.

So if the Rams offered a guy like Bryce Fisher a 10 million dollar contract, it would only count 8.5 million towards the cap, allowing them a "SLIGHT" edge in trying to retain a player they've invested in.

And the 75% could have helped in keeping guys like Dre Bly, Az Hakim, or Grant Wistrom.

The 17 Million dollar contract Az got would have only cost the Rams about 14 million in cap room.

You would still be able to steal a guy away by over-paying, but it would help teams retain players they've invested in. Plus, the player will get the same money either way, so as an Unrestricted Free Agent, he could still leave if he wanted out.

While I agree that this would be a wonderful rule, and I would love to see it...this league's affinity for parity would never allow it.