Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

I can't recall a year under the Danny that we had this many re-signings. I was wondering if anyone would know how we compare to the rest of the nfl in no. of players re-signed or already under contract.

Off the top of my head, Offense:

WR: Moss - restructure in 07
WR: ARE - under contract since 06
WR: Thrash- extension in 07
WR: Loyd - under contract 06
TE: Cooley - under contract 04
TE: Yoder - extensdion in 07
RT: Jansen - extension in 07
RT(LG?) Wade - " " "
RG: Thomas - " " "
C: Rabach - under contract
LG: ?
LT: Samuels - resigned in 05?
OL: Pucillo - extension in 07
RB: Portis - restructure in 07
RB: Betts - extension in 06
QB: Campbell - under contract 05
QB: Brunell - restructure 07
QB: Collins - under contract 06

On offense that's a total of 7 extension/re-signings and 3 restructures. I may have missed some of the other bench players. This seems pretty good to me, I'd like to know what the league-wide rate is for re-signing players.

On D, I can't think of anybody we re-signed other than Boschetti, and to my knowledge we haven't restructured anybody on D either.

This points to an imbalance between the two sides of the ball, but I'm sure there will be some changes in this regard before the season. I certainly hope that this isn't contributing to chemisty issues on the team.

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at, Freddy. Resigning and restructuring doesn't mean a whole lot when you purposely structure all of your contracts to require some tinkering after the first three years (as the Skins do).

Probably the best way to look at team continuity is the number of returning starters. In that case, we've only got one spot out of the 11 on offense that is turning over - Dockery. We're even extremely stable amongst the backups. That certainly speaks to your point.

I think it bodes well for us on offense in 2007. Defense remains a question of course...

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

[quote=Schneed10;297448]I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at, Freddy. Resigning and restructuring doesn't mean a whole lot when you purposely structure all of your contracts to require some tinkering after the first three years (as the Skins do).

Probably the best way to look at team continuity is the number of returning starters. In that case, we've only got one spot out of the 11 on offense that is turning over - Dockery. We're even extremely stable amongst the backups. That certainly speaks to your point.

I think it bodes well for us on offense in 2007. Defense remains a question of course...[/quote]

Trying to show that this is the most continuity we've shown in Snyder's tenure. I appreciate your point about the restructures, as it pushes cap space forward, but the extensions are essentially re-signings.

e.g. there was more to Jansen's contract than just a simple restructure. Even if the team only expects him to be here 2-3 more years, they made a greater commitment to him by doing that deal & it gives the team the opportunity to restructure in the future if need be. Additionally, we re-signed guys that were free agents, Wade, Pucillo, Yoder. Re-upping James Thrash, the #4 wr, really shows a commitment to keeping the team in tact.

Now, if we can sort out the mess on defense...

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

I don't think the Skins are concerned about keeping continuity with an aging defense that ranked in the bottom of the league.

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

This is a point guys like me and Grim have been trying to make all off-season. Usually it falls on deaf ears and the response is "Why'd we let Pierce go?"

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;297664]This is a point guys like me and Grim have been trying to make all off-season. Usually it falls on deaf ears and the response is "Why'd we let Pierce go?"[/quote]

Waiting for the sarcastic guy in the crows who responds "why'd we let Pierce go? hahhaa j/p"...

Man I hate that guy.

I mean, not ThatGuy... but you know.. the phrase---

nevermind.

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;297664]This is a point guys like me and Grim have been trying to make all off-season. Usually it falls on deaf ears and the response is "Why'd we let Pierce go?"[/quote]

Consider this a by-product of all those comments, certainly several on the site have rightly stated that this has been a different offseason, for the better. I was just trying to show that in a quanitative manner.

I'm also feeling that it leads to more wins!!!

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

speaking of thatguy, where the heck has he been?

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

[quote=dmek25;297688]speaking of thatguy, where the heck has he been?[/quote]He said he was moving into a new place and would be out of commision for awhile. He appointed me interim draft economics geek in his absence.

Actually, he didn't, but I'm happy to take questions from tha gallery anyway :cheers

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

Smoot,

The front office essentially admitted that it was wrong to let Pierce go when they signed Fletcher.

That being said the defense has already improved at linebacker and cornerback. Now that statement is false if Washington is not able to return to form and if the let go of Springs.

I hope the stock up on D-linemen with the draft because that is the only weakness on the team, in my opinion.

I am also surprised that they don't sign someone like Ian Scott. If he is still out there, he can't cost too much.

Re: Skins Offense a league leader in re-signings?
 

I'm not sure what's up with Scott. From what I hear only Minnesota and Atlanta are interested. And their interest is mild at best