Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

There are teams in the NFL with constant roster turnover, and do they win? that is my question, or statement which ever pertains. Teams with constant roster turn over DO NOT win. Teams with a consistant core of role players (indy,philly,ne,cincy(after a couple of years of building)Jacksonville) I can keep going.

"Teams with constant roster turn over DO NOT win." I am sorry but that statement is just idoitic. Every team, winning or losing has to deal with "constant roster turn over". Let's check the books shall we?

Philly - Wonderful cap space - maintained by constant turnover. They replaced both their CB's last year, made big free agent DL and WR signings, and have been playing ring around the rosie with their LB corp for years. Yet they made it to the SB last year.

Indy - Constantly in "cap hell" due to Peyton's contract (and now Marvin's). Constantly losing decent D starters b/c their offense is too expensive (seems to me they lost a damn good up and coming LB to free agency a couple years ago - Marcus Washington, heard of him? In fact, I think they also lost their starting MLB that year to the Jags). They have added new people - Cory Simon, you know that young DL guy that used to play for Eagles before the birds "managed" their cap by letting him go? For all the roster moves, Indy made it to the conference championship game. On top of that, the turnover has mostly come on the defensive side of the ball which has shown the most improvement.

New England - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? This is aquisition central. They are constantly signing and losing players - Ty Law, their pro bowl guard who signed with Detroit (don't remember the name), David Patten - and who was that old, over the hill, problem child running back they added to their team last year at the cost of a 2nd round draft pick and that help carry them to the S-Bowl? Cory something... Didnt he play, and star, for another team you site as lacking turnover? Perhaps...

Cinci - Marvin came and turned the whole roster over. Then this year and last continued to cut and pare add and subtract in less dramatic fashion - for all the turnover the last couple of years, they seem to be doing alright.

Jacksonville - Gotta admit a little fuzzy on this one but it seems to me they lost a number one WR (McCardell) and paid a big price for a bust DE (Hugh Douglas - also "managed" by the Eagles). And BTW, it's not like this team has been a powerhouse over the last few years - they seem to be winning now despite the turnover from the last couple of years.

I could go on forever. Turnover in the NFL is now a constant - Every team loses players they want to keep. Every team makes decisions as to where to take those losses. It's not that teams with roster turnover don't win, it's that teams who don't make good roster decisions (regardless of the price) as they constantly build and re-build teams lose. Which brings me to ...

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

The cap hell will never hit as long as we keep mortgaging the future. by that I mean restructing, reworking, cutting, dropping what ever. We keep having to cut because of the stupid contracts we sign players too. or the lack of draft picks which dictates free agent signings, or the quality of draft picks dictates the free agent signings

Other than Steven Davis, who of any signifigance has been cut recently? Smoot and Pierce? They weren't cuts - they were given competitive offers and went elsewhere for more money. Thus, following your advice not to overpay - we lost two starters.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

This is my point, when we have a few years of minimul offseason movement, and make progress the following years, then we will be moving in the right direction as a franchise.

You mean like this year? Which was BTW, the second year after Gibbs came in - made a splash and got some quality FA's at a decent price (it seems to me that Gibbs and crew got Washington and Springs rather than overpay for Kearse), took some flyers on injured players before settling down this offseason.

What huge signings did they have this year that cost them players? Moss? That was kinda unexpectedly forced on us by Coles and, even so, appears to be a deal worth it. Brunnell? You got me on that one, but 1) that was Gibbs first foray into the new NFL and 2) I think we like Brunnell now. Overpaid - probably, but injurying our ability to sign needed players? No. Only if we had continued to overpay after Brunnell would it have been a problem.

As to draft picks, I sympathize with you on that one. I agree that we seem to be a bit cavalier about these. At the same time, the only real significant draft choice deal this year was the Campbell deal. If he pans out to be the QB of the future for the next 8-10 years, however, the trade was well worth it. Especially if we do well enough to make it a low first rounder.

IF cap hell strikes, I will do a mea culpa with everybody else. But for now, it seems to me that, on offense, we will have the same starting QB, RB's, Guards and Tackles (but for injury), TE for three years running (including 2006) and likely the same WR's and C two years in a row. On defense, Taylor, Arrington, Washington, Springs, Griffin, Marshall, Wynn (I think both he and Daniels will be back) will be three year starters.

Most of your criticism is about pre-Gibbs tendencies which appeared to be and were criticized as fantasy football GM'ing. It seems to me that Gibbs learned a little from year one to year two. Why don't we give him the same break you appear to be giving Del Rio and M. Lewis?