Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

If the Redskins go after and sign Clements will the team ask Springs to redo his contract or cut him?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[QUOTE=theJBexperience;262305]I'd rather sign Asante Samuel to address our cornerback needs. He's younger and has more picks. I just think he's in the upswing of his career while Clements is on his way down.[/QUOTE]

I like Samuel but I think the problem is that physically he doesn't fit the GWilliams mold for a DB

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

We passed on Dyson because of that too. So, we sign Kenny Wright who does fit the GW bill. And how has that worked out for us? It's stupid to pass on these talented guys because they're not as sure tacklers. They're playmakers who get INTs. We need them especially since we may break the season record for least amount of picks.

Re: Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

[quote=Bill B;262308]If the Redskins go after and sign Clements will the team ask Springs to redo his contract or cut him?[/quote]

From a salary cap standpoint, they have no motivation to cut Shawn Springs. If he's under contract, he'll count $7.3 million in 2007. If they cut him before June 1, he'd count $7.4 million in deadcap. So if they were going to cut Springs, it would be because they didn't think he fit the squad anymore. But they could save cap space by asking him to restructure his deal. He'd still get paid what his contract says, he'd just get it in the form of a lumpsum signing bonus instead of in game checks.

There's no reason to ask him to take a paycut. On the open market he's worth what his contract is scheduled to pay him.

All that aside, I think he's still a valuable player for us. He's still our best corner. If Clements came on board and Springs were healthy, they'd both be starters.

One of the biggest questions the defensive coaches will have to ask themselves is can we play top 10 defense again with Springs and Rogers as our starters, or do we need to get a top guy to pair with Springs? We know that K Wright probably isn't cutting it as a nickel. So the question is do the Skins go after a young CB to play nickel initially and eventually take over for Springs? Or do we need a stud right now because Rogers just won't cut it? I don't know the answer at this point - Rogers has quietly had a much better second half of the season.

Re: Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;262313] I don't know the answer at this point - Rogers has quietly had a much better second half of the season.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's a coincidence that Springs has played much of the second half of the season. I also imagine benching Archuleta factored into helping Rogers

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

Good post Schneed.

I think at this point we need to bring in a starting quality corner for two main reasons: Springs' age and injury concerns, and Rogers shaky career to date.

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of moving Springs to safety.

Even if Springs doesn't move to safety, with how many DBs Williams likes to use, all three would still see plenty of playing time and would be very interchangeable.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;262317]Good post Schneed.

I think at this point we need to bring in a starting quality corner for two main reasons: Springs' age and injury concerns, and Rogers shaky career to date.

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of moving Springs to safety.

Even if Springs doesn't move to safety, with how many DBs Williams likes to use, all three would still see plenty of playing time and would be very interchangeable.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget to factor Pierson into the equation for 2007.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=TAFKAS;262324]Don't forget to factor Pierson into the equation for 2007.[/quote]

True.

Bye-bye Archuleta.

Re: Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

[quote=TAFKAS;262316]I don't think it's a coincidence that Springs has played much of the second half of the season. I also imagine benching Archuleta factored into helping Rogers[/quote]

Yeah this is a good point. The safeties have gotten their act together once Archuleta was benched and Taylor and Fox/Vincent had some time to get on the same page.

You wonder if GW and Jerry Gray were instructing Rogers to give a big cushion early on in the season because they knew with Prioleau out and Archuleta so crappy, they needed Carlos to guard against the deep ball. I certainly never saw GW get all pissed at Rogers on the sideline for giving a huge cushion. That's the great thing about football, it's such a team sport. When one link is weak (ahem, Archuleta) it makes the rest of the links look bad. Would Rogers have needed to give the huge cushion if Ryan Clark were retained? Would Rogers have looked that bad?

Of course that doesn't explain why Rogers would bite on all those double moves earlier in the year. And with Springs out, regardless of cushions, he did show that he can't cover a #1 WR yet. He did need to improve on some things, and I think he has to some extent. Plus the safeties are now playing better.

I can see Matty's point, I don't think we can be completely confident with just him and Springs. We need to bring someone in who can compete at the same level, if not better. Fox and Vincent have done an admirable fill-in job, but what we really need to focus on is improving the SS position. I'll bet Rogers and Springs will both look a ton better with a better SS in the fold with some range and the ability to communicate with ST. So maybe like Matty said, you bring in that new CB and let Springs play SS. That strengthens all the links in the secondary's chain, and all of a sudden they may all look better.

Or maybe you get serious about a SS in the draft, or poaching Michael Lewis from the Eagles.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

I really believe the cushion Rogers has played with is more scheme than it is his personal playing style. It makes sense when you think about it. When he was asked about this in a chat on ES he also said it was the scheme.

Re: Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

[quote=Schneed10;262328]Yeah this is a good point. The safeties have gotten their act together once Archuleta was benched and Taylor and Fox/Vincent had some time to get on the same page.

You wonder if GW and Jerry Gray were instructing Rogers to give a big cushion early on in the season because they knew with Prioleau out and Archuleta so crappy, they needed Carlos to guard against the deep ball. I certainly never saw GW get all pissed at Rogers on the sideline for giving a huge cushion. That's the great thing about football, it's such a team sport. When one link is weak (ahem, Archuleta) it makes the rest of the links look bad. Would Rogers have needed to give the huge cushion if Ryan Clark were retained? Would Rogers have looked that bad?

Of course that doesn't explain why Rogers would bite on all those double moves earlier in the year. And with Springs out, regardless of cushions, he did show that he can't cover a #1 WR yet. He did need to improve on some things, and I think he has to some extent. Plus the safeties are now playing better.

I can see Matty's point, I don't think we can be completely confident with just him and Springs. We need to bring someone in who can compete at the same level, if not better. Fox and Vincent have done an admirable fill-in job, but what we really need to focus on is improving the SS position. I'll bet Rogers and Springs will both look a ton better with a better SS in the fold with some range and the ability to communicate with ST. So maybe like Matty said, you bring in that new CB and let Springs play SS. That strengthens all the links in the secondary's chain, and all of a sudden they may all look better.

Or maybe you get serious about a SS in the draft, or poaching Michael Lewis from the Eagles.[/quote]


A move like getting Lewis reminds me of the Giants getting Pierce - making our backfeild better while dealing a blow to one of division rivals. Although how much is Lewis going to cost?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

The one thing we can't do regarding the secondary is stand pat.

Springs is getting old and has been banged up, Rogers is still developing but nothing is certain, and forget about guys like Wright he's not even that great of a nickel.

At safety I really don't think Fox is the next Clark, and Vincent is in the same boat as Springs. Prioleau is coming off a significant injury, but at least it happened early so he [I]should[/I] be able to return strong. As for Archuleta, do we even need to bother discussing it anymore? Dude is gone.

Re: Will Springs have to rework contract if Clements is signed?
 

[quote=Bill B;262330]A move like getting Lewis reminds me of the Giants getting Pierce - making our backfeild better while dealing a blow to one of division rivals. Although how much is Lewis going to cost?[/quote]

Well Archuleta's deal kind of blew the whole safety scale out of whack. He was given the biggest deal in history to a safety, but he was obviously a huge mistake.

I can see teams making the argument that Archuleta's contract should be thrown out the window in terms of setting precedent. I can also see agents making the argument that every safety in the NFL is better than Adam Archuleta, so they should get more than him.

I don't see every safety getting huge raises because of Archuleta, but there's sure to be some inflation. I'd think Lewis would be worth something like a $8 million signing bonus, maybe $25 million over 5 years. Affordable if we wanted him.

But that's the thing, I threw out his name on wild speculation only. I've got no idea if his skill set translates well to a GW defense. Who knows if the Skins want him.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

The rest of the league will probably ignore Archuleta's deal and conduct business as usual. They'll just brush it off as another wacky Snyder deal, one that was way outside the norm.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

That's what I'm thinking. If I'm a safety and I go up to my agent and say, "Look at the contract Archuleta got paid, THAT'S the cash I want!" the agent would probably laugh him out of his office...unless he was talking about playing for the Skins.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

Yeah there's a Snyder scale and an everyone else scale.

Funny thing is we never have to blow up the team due to salary cap problems. Wonder if there's a reason for that? Hmmmm... could it be Snyder's cap managers know what they're doing?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;262337]The rest of the league will probably ignore Archuleta's deal and conduct business as usual. They'll just brush it off as another wacky Snyder deal, one that was way outside the norm.[/quote]

Why is Synder involved in the contract negotiations of our players anyways? Why can't he take the approach JKC took and let Gibbs do the talking since Gibbs is the team Prez?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=Schneed10;262342]Yeah there's a Snyder scale and an everyone else scale.

Funny thing is we never have to blow up the team due to salary cap problems. Wonder if there's a reason for that? Hmmmm... could it be Snyder's cap managers know what they're doing?[/quote]

Right. It's quite appealing for players to look at the bottom line figures we give them that we put off year after year. Until the league changes the rules on restructuring, you can rest easy the Skins will be fine with the salary cap.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=Bill B;262344]Why is Synder involved in the contract negotiations of our players anyways? Why can't he take the approach JKC took and let Gibbs do the talking since Gibbs is the team Prez?[/quote]

HA. How much contract negotiation experience do you think Gibbs has?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;262346]HA. How much contract negotiation experience do you think Gibbs has?[/quote]

Not sure - I know we used to have Joe Mendes who was the lone conservative voice and cap specialist back in 03 in the FO but he was let go for Vinny Cerrato.

I am wondering if Synder gave out huge bonuses when he owned the communication company before the Skins - I would have loved to collect some of those checks.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=Bill B;262344]Why is Synder involved in the contract negotiations of our players anyways? Why can't he take the approach JKC took and let Gibbs do the talking since Gibbs is the team Prez?[/quote]

Gibbs used to lobby to Bobby Beathard and JKC to sign any player he liked to whatever it took to sign him. This was no problem because the salary cap wasn't an issue back then. Besides, it's Snyder's money, and salesmanship is what he does best.

Gibbs likes to try to distance himself from the actual back and forth contract negotiations. When you tell someone I'll give you x, but I won't pay as much as y, you're basically telling them they're not worth y. That's not a message you want to come across from your head coach, the player may not be willing to go the extra mile for that coach. Gibbs leaves that to Snyder, and sticks to the podium saying "I'm so proud of this group" and "these guys fight their guts out."

He's doing that on purpose, he needs them to want to play hard for him. If he's negotiating, it makes that hard.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;262345]Right. It's quite appealing for players to look at the bottom line figures we give them that we put off year after year. Until the league changes the rules on restructuring, you can rest easy the Skins will be fine with the salary cap.[/quote]

One follow up question - I heard that one of the reasons Larry Hughes went to the Cavs is because Lebron assured him he would get a contract with Nike if he signed on - couldn't Synder pull somehting off like this with all his media connections to circumvent the cap?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

I would think it's easier in the NBA because you have five players on offense at once, rather than eleven. It would be pretty hard to hype someone like Nate Clements to a major clothing label than it would be for someone like Bron Bron. There are bigger individual "stars" in the NBA.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

yeah, it would look awful funny if clements signed, and within a week or two, also signed with one of snyders other interests. but the fine would only be draft picks, so what the hell?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=theJBexperience;262305]I'd rather sign Asante Samuel to address our cornerback needs. He's younger and has more picks. I just think he's in the upswing of his career while Clements is on his way down.[/quote]

Anyone can be a corner for the Pats. (see Troy Brown) I am not convinced that Samuel is a big time corner.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

The War Room had Clements the top rated free agent a score of 9.0.

They discuss his up coming free agency and the fact that Buffalo can't franchise him again b/c of the contract stipulations he got the Bills to agree to earlier this year when he signed his contract.

The article also goes on to say that Buffalo probably won't be able to afford him in a biding war.

[url=http://warroom.sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20061221/815694.html]SportingNews.com - Pro Football War Room[/url]

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=mheisig;261943]He's 27, been in the league 6 years. 6-0, 209, and I hear he likes long walks on the beach, candlelit dinners and cuddling.

Speaking from personal experience?

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=Citizens for 81;262587]The War Room had Clements the top rated free agent a score of 9.0.

They discuss his up coming free agency and the fact that Buffalo can't franchise him again b/c of the contract stipulations he got the Bills to agree to earlier this year when he signed his contract.

The article also goes on to say that Buffalo probably won't be able to afford him in a biding war.

[URL="http://warroom.sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20061221/815694.html"]SportingNews.com - Pro Football War Room[/URL][/quote]


Clements has got a smart agent in Todd France - maybe Lavar should have gone with him instead of the Poston and he would not have been out 6.5 million like he claims.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;262345]Right. It's quite appealing for players to look at the bottom line figures we give them that we put off year after year. Until the league changes the rules on restructuring, you can rest easy the Skins will be fine with the salary cap.[/QUOTE]

Actually, with the new CBA, there will be a slight change to signing bonuses that may affect the Skins. Instead of being prorated over seven years, bonuses will only be prorated over 4 years (I think - either that or five). This hurts teams with cash (i.e. the Skins) because it makes it more difficult to restructure out of end-of-contract salaries and causing those big bonuses to have a bigger effect each year.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

:mad:

Dammit.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;262625]Actually, with the new CBA, there will be a slight change to signing bonuses that may affect the Skins. Instead of being prorated over seven years, bonuses will only be prorated over 4 years (I think - either that or five). This hurts teams with cash (i.e. the Skins) because it makes it more difficult to restructure out of end-of-contract salaries and causing those big bonuses to have a bigger effect each year.[/quote]

Damn that sounds awfully anti-Snyderish by the league and players.

Re: ESPN: Nate Clements in Redskins' plans?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;262625]Actually, with the new CBA, there will be a slight change to signing bonuses that may affect the Skins. Instead of being prorated over seven years, bonuses will only be prorated over 4 years (I think - either that or five). This hurts teams with cash (i.e. the Skins) because it makes it more difficult to restructure out of end-of-contract salaries and causing those big bonuses to have a bigger effect each year.[/quote]

Well at least the cap will keep going up due to the massive tv contracts.

2006-2011*CBS ($622.5 million/yr)FOX ($712.5 million/yr)ESPN ($1.1 billion/yr)NBC ($650 million/yr)$3.1 billion/yr

as you can see that Sunday night football game on NBC is bringing in an extra $650 in revenue so that in turn helps push the cap up.