Sims vs. Steinbach

Turo

Turo

Raiders Tank 24/7
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
4,804
Browns have signed OT Eric Steinbach to seven-year contract worth $49.5 million with $17 million guaranteed.
Click to expand...

His cap number is probably well under the $6.5M we're paying Sims this year, and not much more than that for the next few years. Can anyone tell me why the hell WE didn't sign this contract? This seems like the first huge blunder of our offseason to me.
 
Well, it's a safe bet that the 17 mill in guarantees would have been a big turn-off for us.

Sims has a high cap number, but his salary isn't bad. No real reason to hate on the guy, IMO.
 
Simple. Sims' contract has very little guaranteed money (somewhere around $3m in roster bonuses). If Steinbach blew is knee tomorrow pulling a Griese and tripping over his dog, thus ending his career, he'd accelerate all $17 million of guaranteed money against this year's salary cap.

To be sure, Sims and Steinbach are in different leagues in terms of ability, but that's your explanation. Everyday can't be a fantasy draft on Madden 2007.
 
If we go with the gutless chop-blocking scheme, then Sims will be fine at LT. He is athletic enough, as are Boothe, Gallery, McQ and Grove, to get into position to cut defensive players.

Assuming the Raider O-Line buys into the scheme, chop-blocking doesn't command any skill or phsyicallity from the players. Just a complete lack of ethics and quickness.

Sims was always good at getting to the right spot. He wasn't always effective when he got there.
 
Raider Nation said:
Simple. Sims' contract has very little guaranteed money (somewhere around $3m in roster bonuses). If Steinbach blew is knee tomorrow pulling a Griese and tripping over his dog, thus ending his career, he'd accelerate all $17 million of guaranteed money against this year's salary cap.

To be sure, Sims and Steinbach are in different leagues in terms of ability, but that's your explanation. Everyday can't be a fantasy draft on Madden 2007.
Click to expand...

First, I'm pretty sure there's some kind of cap-relief for career-ending injuries. But, that's a fairly strange argument-against in the first place. Why sign ANY highly regarded player, if anyone could blow out a knee tomorrow and screw their team? That is what injury-settlement insurance is for.

17M in guaranteed money equates to a little under $3M a year in cap hit. The other 32M in salary is paid in a backloaded contract.. ESPECIALLY in a 7-year deal.. the player and team pretty much are of the understanding that they'll never see years 6/7 of the contract. The only thing it guarantees is that the player will be able to renegotiate and see another payday, and/or the team can release them without much damage done.

Thus, if the guy is making a base salary of $1M or so the first year, his cap number is somewhere in the ballpark of $4M... for a guy who is leaps and bounds ahead of Sims in terms of talent.

The only reason this deal doesn't make sense is if the Raiders are cash-flow poor and don't have the jack to pay upfront money. In terms of simple capology and talent.. keeping Sims at 6.5M and passing on Steinbach at $4-5M is absolutely moronic.
 
Ghost To The Post said:
If we go with the gutless chop-blocking scheme, then Sims will be fine at LT. He is athletic enough, as are Boothe, Gallery, McQ and Grove, to get into position to cut defensive players.

Assuming the Raider O-Line buys into the scheme, chop-blocking doesn't command any skill or phsyicallity from the players. Just a complete lack of ethics and quickness.

Sims was always good at getting to the right spot. He wasn't always effective when he got there.
Click to expand...

Have to agree. While effective.. I've thought this style of blocking scheme was fairly chicken shit and scummy for some time and I'm not entirely happy we're going to be employing it.
 
Turo said:
First, I'm pretty sure there's some kind of cap-relief for career-ending injuries. But, that's a fairly strange argument-against in the first place. Why sign ANY highly regarded player, if anyone could blow out a knee tomorrow and screw their team? That is what injury-settlement insurance is for.

17M in guaranteed money equates to a little under $3M a year in cap hit. The other 32M in salary is paid in a backloaded contract.. ESPECIALLY in a 7-year deal.. the player and team pretty much are of the understanding that they'll never see years 6/7 of the contract. The only thing it guarantees is that the player will be able to renegotiate and see another payday, and/or the team can release them without much damage done.

Thus, if the guy is making a base salary of $1M or so the first year, his cap number is somewhere in the ballpark of $4M... for a guy who is leaps and bounds ahead of Sims in terms of talent.

The only reason this deal doesn't make sense is if the Raiders are cash-flow poor and don't have the jack to pay upfront money. In terms of simple capology and talent.. keeping Sims at 6.5M and passing on Steinbach at $4-5M is absolutely moronic.
Click to expand...


Yes, perhaps it is a backloaded contract. But all that means is when it's time to restructure Steinbach converts that some of that backloaded money into more guaranteed cash. Look, I'm not saying Oakland shouldn't have signed him, but I am playing devil's advocate in terms of the reasons for not ponying it up. You make it sound like all Oakland had to do was match the offer and Steinbach was theirs, it's not that simple.

$17 million guaranteed is just that, guaranteed. Can you remember the last player Oakland ever "guaranteed" that much money to? The guy that comes the closest is Robert Gallery, and that was the $13 million he got guaranteed from his contract as #2 overall. That certainly hasn't worked out too well.

Furthermore, you're comparing an LT's salary (which is what Sims contract was negotiated at) with an OG's salary. Which are in two different ballparks. Average to slight above average LT's make what very good LG's make. That's just the market.

And if Steinbach's base salary is only $1m the first year, I'll eat my shoes. Not on a this contract. Even if it's backloaded, which we both suspect it is, his base salary the last 2 years should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6--$8m/yr. I'm guessing (and we all are since the breakdown of the deal hasn't been released) that his salary the first year is somewhere around $2.5m, the 2nd year about the same, then the 3rd year being $3.5 and up from there.
 
Turo said:
The only reason this deal doesn't make sense is if the Raiders are cash-flow poor and don't have the jack to pay upfront money. In terms of simple capology and talent.. keeping Sims at 6.5M and passing on Steinbach at $4-5M is absolutely moronic.
Click to expand...

When you take into account the amount of guaranteed money that Davis is going to cough up to take Russell with the #1 pick in the draft, I wouldn't expect a small market team like the Raiders to go after a single top level FA.

Plus (if my understanding of Sims' contract is correct) the Raiders almost had to keep Sims b/c of the cap hit they'd take in releasing him.... There's a lot of baggage (capwise) on this team from Moss to Sims to even Sapp. That's the penalty this organization is going to pay until they can do a better job of drafting, developing, and retaining players. What we're seeing on defense is a step in the right direction.
 
Turo said:
Have to agree. While effective.. I've thought this style of blocking scheme was fairly chicken shit and scummy for some time and I'm not entirely happy we're going to be employing it.
Click to expand...

Well, if we decide to start using the cut blocking that the Broncos have gotten away with for years, then it will be quickly added to the rulebooks or found in an obscure rule somewhere.
 
YodasBeast said:
Well, if we decide to start using the cut blocking that the Broncos have gotten away with for years, then it will be quickly added to the rulebooks or found in an obscure rule somewhere.
Click to expand...

You can take that to the bank.
 
The Zone scheme is NOT about cut blocking. Sorry to burst that bubble. There's rarely more than 1 guy doing the cutting, and that's not in every play either. But most importantly, there are few cut blocks in pass protection, those tend to be in quick routes where you want to bring the DE's hands down, and everyone does that (or they risk getting it tipped).

Denver, using the same scheme used MORE cut blocking than the scheme calls for, and they made an art of cutting the knees AND remaining in a rulebook gray area (so THEY say). I don't see Sims being a MORE effective pass blocker than he ever has been. The key to improving our pass blocking will be getting the ball out of the QB's hands faster. After Art's scheme these guys will enjoy a quick passing game, and might prove to be surprisingly effective at it. After Art asked them to block for 5 seconds, 2.6 will seem like a cakewalk, and they'll get boatloads of confidence.
 
Rupert, the scheme that Cable ran in Atlanta had considerable cut blocking. I remember both the Panthers and Saints complaining about it.

Great for cut back running as when the D-Lineman gets ahead of the O-Linemans body the O-Lineman can drop into the back of the D-Linemans legs and remove him from the play. It is more about attacking weakness (unprotected legs) than manning up and controlling your man face to face.

Edit: Rupert you are correct in that Zone Blocking does not neccessarily involve cut blocking. Dallas had an O-Line that ran the system very well for years without resorting to cut blocking along the line of scrimmage. They also had some tremendous individuals on those teams.

The type of cut blocking that teams complain about isn't typically in conjunction with pass blocking. I agree that Sims will be exposed in pass blocking, especially if he is paired with an inexperienced guard (Boothe) and does not recieve outside help against speed rushers.
 
Last edited:
I hope this discussion continues. Could be interesting. Carry on gentleman.
 
Ghost To The Post said:



Edit: Rupert you are correct in that Zone Blocking does not neccessarily involve cut blocking. Dallas had an O-Line that ran the system very well for years without resorting to cut blocking along the line of scrimmage. They also had some tremendous individuals on those teams.
Click to expand...


The Ravens didn't cut as well... neither did we under Jim Colletto a couple of years back... IMO, what gets people pissy with the Gibbs version of area/zone blocking is that they are taught to cut the backside persuit on running plays... Going low on guys on the move and unaware is bush to me, but unfortunately within the rules... We're going to have to see several high profile guys get put out of commision ala Jamal Williams before the league amends the rule... JMO though...
 
Last edited:
hawaiianboy said:
The Ravens didn't cut as well... neither did we under Jim Colletto a couple of years back... IMO, what gets people pissy with the Gibbs version of area/zone blocking is that they are taught to cut the backside persuit on running plays... Going low on guys on the move and unaware is bush to me, but unfortunately within the rules... We're going to have to see several high profile guys get put out of commision ala Jamal Williams before the league amends the rule... JMO though...
Click to expand...

Im gonna be real sad if we start cut blocking all of our AFC rivals ;)
 
I always was very vocal about how good Gallery was as a RT that year.

He gave up 3 sacks the whole season, and 2 were to Julius Peppers. (One of Peppers was a bogus call where he was the last guy to touch the QB or some bull shit)
 
Gallery reminds me of Jon Jansen when he is at RT. Thats not a bad thing. With what lineman are being paid these days it might be a great move to put him where he has played the best and worry about LT. Rather than LT and RT!
 
I still haven't seen a break down of Sims' restructure so I have no idea right now how pissed off I should be...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top