Depot Dave Cap Update (2/12)

I think Dave Bryan's OCD level analysis of the Steelers cap space is the best there is on the internet.
https://steelersdepot.com/2026/02/steelers-2026-salary-cap-snapshot-preview-heading-into-offseason/

Looks like he's saying we currently have about $19MM to play with after offseason obligations like signing rookies and getting to 51 contracts (filled in with minimum stuff if not enough contracts).

Also lists things like potential cuts and restructures to free up money. And a list of current dead money.

I started trying to follow cap stuff maybe 5-ish years ago. And I think it really helps to have some level of understanding about this because it really does drive decisions.

Especially on a team like the Steelers that has organizational objections to the massive cap manipulations that teams like Philly does (which will bit them in the ass hard in a couple years).

FWIW, I'm glad that we avoid stuff like that currently when we aren't really competitive for a SB. For example, I think it showed excellent restraint to avoid restructuring Watt at all on his previous contract. Doing so could have freed up some cap space in the seasons where he was under contract, but pushed a bunch of money into the medium term (which is the present now). And it's very obvious that we weren't just one player away. So selling the future (now the present) to lose the WC round by less, or maybe even eek out a victory only to get slaughtered in the division round would have been a bad call IMO.

It's different for Philly because they feel like their window is now. But I do think they've capped their window to the next 3 years or so. Which maybe suggests they don't really believe in the long term viability of Hurts.

I did think there was an argument for Buffalo to sell out the future last year. Doing that would make last year (or maybe a couple years) have a better chance at a SB. But it would also have hurt them in the medium term by dumping a bunch of dead money into seasons where Allen is still really good.

 

The restraint with Watt would have been refusing to give a player in decline that massive contract.

 

Re: not restructuring. I was talking about how we avoided doing a restructure through his 2nd contract (when he should have had multiple DPOY awards).

Re: Contract 3, I don't disagree with you. I think it was a business decision more than a football one. If we didn't extend Watt (or trade him), then I think it would really underscore the lie of Rooney saying "our goal is to compete for the SB every year". And it also seems very clear that the mission statement for the team is to compete for the playoffs every year and ideally not play any meaningless regular season games. Do not sacrifice the present for the medium term.

You can't trade away the face of the franchise (and the only potentially elite player on the team) and then turn around and say "we don't rebuild, we reload".

I do wish that we at least would have "won" the contract negotiations on any major point (e.g., AAV, structure, guaranteed money, contract length, etc). But I think Watt won on ever facet of the deal. It's funny because it's the exact opposite of Cam's last extension.

I think it's because at the end of the day Cam is loyal to the team (to a fault). I think Watt (who has a super-star brother to learn the "game" from) understands that the money is the primary thing.

 

That makes sense. Overpaying an aging, fading player for optics, however, was really stupid.

Anyone who claims they didn't have the money for Darnold is wrong. They had it. They ended up giving it to Watt instead.

 

I believe he is double counting the Draft picks.
The $281,533 is for the top 51 players under contract plus Dead Cap money.
The $5,800 Draft class expense cost is to add drafted players to the roster; so every drafted player added to the roster should bring down the cost of the 51 under contract, as they are releasing 1 player from their top 51 to make room for the drafted player.

 

This may be the case.

But I think the "add ins" to get to the top 51 are at the NFL minimum.

I think draft picks (especially early ones) make more than the minimum....I guess they can't make less since it wouldn't be the minimum then?

He's super OCD about the cap though. Keeps his own numbers through the season and sounds like he gets super-anxious when his number is different than the periodically posted numbers from the NFL / PA.

Edited to add: I think this explaination is correct. If we look at the 1st year values of contracts for 2026, you get to $5MM with our first two picks.

So, I think that the draft class value is actually:
[(draft class cost) - (salary displacement)]

Not 100% sure, but I think so.

 

That is what I was wondering after I looked at the $5.8 million for all of our 12 draft picks, if the minimum is $885,000
The $5.8 probably just covers the amount over $885K

 

Thanks Thor!

I agree with all you're saying here. And I wasn't aware of how the PPE accounting differs for extensions vs. not.

I'd be in favor of extending all of these guys (at approximately market rate).

But if I was Herbig, I'd probably want to play out my contract and hit UFA. Because I'd think I was good enough to be a starter. I can't remember if we lost Chad Brown for the same reason, or just because we didn't have the money.

And I am a bit worried about what's going to happen to Washington's usage next year. I think he should remain out TE1 (as he grew into this year under Smith) because he's just such a matchup nightmare. But I could see a more pass focused offensive system wanting PF to be the TE1. Last year, it wouldn't have mattered too much if we didn't (IMO) dramatically overplay Smith...but I'd guess we'll play more 11 and less 12 (or 13) under MM. So giving Washington an inflation adjusted version of PF's contract (something like 11th highest paid TE at the time of signing) might make less sense if he's only going to play in multiple TE sets. Note: I really like Washington and think he really should remain our TE1.