[QUOTE=cpayne5]There is a cap within the cap. He didn't re-word it; he added more detail.[/QUOTE]

There is only one cap. And no seperate cap for signing rookies. Period. Teams have to have cap room to be able to sign rookies. That's why teams project salaries and account for how much it will take to sign rookies and free agents. You can essentially be over the cap at any time during the offseason. That's why there's a deadline for getting under the cap. Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. :oink:

Not to beleaguer the point but...
"The rookie pool is, essentially, a cap within a cap. A team's rookie pool allocation is part of, not an addition to, the league's $75.1 million spending limit."

[url]http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1547910.html[/url]

why we gotta lose lavar? please dont lose smoot and lavar

:coach:
[QUOTE=BossHog]Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. [/QUOTE]

Did you catch FRPLG's post above? Maybe you should read into things a little better the next time you start spouting off inaccuracies. But, no hard feelings right?
:laughing2

[QUOTE=BossHog]There is only one cap. And no seperate cap for signing rookies. Period. Teams have to have cap room to be able to sign rookies. That's why teams project salaries and account for how much it will take to sign rookies and free agents. You can essentially be over the cap at any time during the offseason. That's why there's a deadline for getting under the cap. Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. :oink:[/QUOTE]

Yes and No. The point that everyone is trying to make about rookies is this:

Based on the number and placement of draft picks a team makes, it is assigned a "rookie pool". When signing draftees, teams cannot exceed the "rookie pool" (Thus, some of the mid to low round draftees try to sign early before the top draft picks take it all).

Regardless of the rookie pool, a team must fit all its salaries (including those in the draftees) under their salary cap.

I don't know all the mechanics of the rookie pool - I think teams get an estimate before the draft and then a final after the draft to take into account any trades. Also, I assume that the Rookie Pool is governed by the standard cap rules: Thus a signing bonus will be prorated over the length of the contract (up to seven years) and the salary and prorated SB create the cap number.

It's discussions like this that make me want to stay away until training camp. :frusty:

Common sense says you don't trade elite players, real or percived status, the year after you make a huge financial committment to them.

If you don't like the team as they are constructed, find another team, the targets (Arrington, Portis, Coles, Ramsey, Brunell, Taylor) are here to stay. Love it or leave.

Only a few more months til the draft to spice up some even MORE heated discussions! :)

[QUOTE=Paintrain]It's discussions like this that make me want to stay away until training camp. :frusty:

Common sense says you don't trade elite players, real or percived status, the year after you make a huge financial committment to them.

If you don't like the team as they are constructed, find another team, the targets (Arrington, Portis, Coles, Ramsey, Brunell, Taylor) are here to stay. Love it or leave.[/QUOTE]


I agree Paintrain.....

These past few weeks have been insane. This is why I hate Dan Snyder. He made you all think like this. If JKC still owned this team and Joe Gibbs had come back to coach, do any of you actually believe we would be having any of these conversations? Trade LaVar, Trade Portis, Trade Coles. Are you on crack?

BTW, what makes all of you think that we could get a Herschel Walker type trade anyway? Everyone saw what happened to the Vikes when they did it. Bledsoe had all time numbers and he only garnered a 1st round pick...1! T.O., one of the top 3 receivers in the NFL got traded for a 3rd round pick and an okay player. Why would we get so many picks for LaVar and Portis, again?

if JKC was owner we'd be in salary cap hell because he couldn't buy whatever he wanted. =p

TO was a Free Agent too, jdlea, and shouldn't have even gotten that.

TO wasn't a free agent, remember? He was a 49er

when was the last time we had a 70 reply thread in less than a day? Craziness I tell you...

I haven't been on here that long, but I would say this has been the quickest bunch of replies I've ever seen.

Then again, look how controversial the subject matter is. I like how everyone is quick to put down the thought of trading our core players.

I got tired of reading every single post, but to sum up..it doesn't make any sense to get rid of Lavar Arrington. If he hadn't gotten hurt this year, the issue would have never been discussed. We have our team set with just a couple adjustments on offense. I'm sure the FO knows how to handle the cap situation.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I got tired of reading every single post, but to sum up..it doesn't make any sense to get rid of Lavar Arrington. If he hadn't gotten hurt this year, the issue would have never been discussed. We have our team set with just a couple adjustments on offense. I'm sure the FO knows how to handle the cap situation.[/QUOTE]

Amen. Accept for the FO part, I kinda disagree, but time will tell.