CrimsonCrew wrote:thesack12 wrote:CrimsonCrew wrote:
My understanding is that that bonus counts against the cap already because it's considered a likely-to-be-earned bonus based on Darnold's last season. So it would come off the cap. We have a lot of cap to roll over, but we also have a lot of dead money stacking up in the years ahead thanks to several restructures.
Obviously if Purdy gets hurt it's a disaster, but taking three weeks off seems somewhat excessive. If it was my call, I'd give him some plays to stay sharp. Though not having Trent would be a consideration.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/sam-darnold-25098/Again, I don't know if that is the accurate language or the correct figures but its the only place I've seen a breakdown of the specifics of Darnold's incentives.
It shows only $1.2 mil in total counts against the cap due to being likely to be earned. With only $300k per regular season win where he plays 25% of the snaps, I really don't see an issue here. If anything his cap hit is going to be lowered because he's going to trigger less than the $1.2 mil in total incentives.
I get we always need to be mindful of the cap, but in this particular situation I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. As I mentioned in the previous post if it becomes absolutely critical to create that small of a number of cap space it would be quite easy to do so.
Yeah, I can't find the term that I thought was in there, so I could very well be wrong. If it's $300K for 25% of snaps and a win, it's not really worth the risk. I thought we were looking at more like $1.5 million, and that starts making a difference.
Assuming that lower figure, ultimately I think you make the best decision for your team on this one. I'm still not entirely sold on that being sitting Purdy, but it would be a nightmare if he got hurt in a meaningless game, so I can understand it. And we've seen this OL really struggle without Trent. Not to mention it's a pretty beaten-up unit in general.
Yeah the rest vs rust debate is always a compelling one. In my opinion, it should be evaluated on an individual by individual basis. All these guys are currently at varying levels of health, shape, development, importance to the team, situational status of their overall position group, need for live reps, etc.
For example Trent Williams will play today, who is of course a Critically important piece of the team who also plays a premium position and there is basically no viable depth behind him. Still, he himself said that he prefers to play and his body actually feels worse when he has extended time off. He said he felt terrible coming back from couple game injury layoff earlier in the season.
As for Purdy specifically, I can see some value in giving him a couple of drives to get the live reps. Afterall, he is still a very young player. Still, IMO the injury risk is just far too much. If Purdy goes down with a serious injury, the season would basically be over. Also, I don't know how much Purdy would actually gain facing what is looking to be a watered down Rams defense that will probably be running a lot of vanilla schemes.
If something doesn't go as planned in the rest vs rust equation, the coaching staff is going to get criticized either way. If a guy gets hurt, coach will get ragged on for not sitting that guy. If a guy comes out of the gate flat in the divisional round, coach will get ragged on for not playing a guy to keep him sharp.
For me, I'll risk the rust over potentially injury every time. In a rust type situation, the possibility exists to weather the storm early and hope guys find their groove as the game progresses. Where as if a guy gets hurt, there is no hope of having him round into form because he won't even be in uniform. In other words, rust is a short term thing that can be worked through, whereas injuries are completely non-workable.
