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

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

"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 ...



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.



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?

You dont get what I am saying. In regards to you statements, I will respond.

Philly, they draft core players and pick up the 1 or 2 free agents that put them over the top. Not every year, once in a while. Example : Donovan, westbrook, trotter, douglas, corey simon, another DT which slips my mind, both corners, which are not there now, dawkins, all drafted, 3 straight NFC championships. then Free agent pick up of TO and Kerse, reselt : Superbowl. so 2 free agent pickups, key players drafted.
Indy, Peyton, edge, harrison, wayne, pollard(not there now) clark, oline,mostly drafted, D : Doss, most recently drafted, corners, and Corey Simon picked up via Free agency, result : defense playing good, 12-0. Again, mainly key players drafted, 1 or 2 free agent pickups.

New England. Do we even have to go to this one. Everyone drafted, won a superbowl, got Corey dillon, won another two. (Ideal organization, draft players late that have an impact, spend WISELY, build a team of continuity and famaliarity)

Cincy, all key players are draft picks, Palmer, Johnson, TJ, Henry, Rudy. He picked up a few key players on D, but mostly they are all young and drafted, result, 9-3, going to playoffs.

Jacksonville - Key players drafted, few pick ups.


Not to overpay players : Brunell 35 yr old QB, 43 million + 3rd rounder(is that not too much?) 30 yr old CB in springs, 10 million signing bonus(is that not too much?) Trading of a 2nd pick + Bailey for Portis, too much given up!. Walt Harris, making almost 3 million a year, too much. I am not saying these players are not playing well and that I dont want them on the team. Just stating we overpaid them. Also, gave up a 3rd and a 1st for a QB # 3 on the depth chart. when you think about it between Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell we have 4 picks, 3 number 1's and a number 3 tied up in those players, not to mention the money we gave to Brunell.

Regarding this years draft. I think we should have taken a DE with the first pick, and got a quality CB in the 2nd. I am not going to complain about Rogers, I think he will be quality. Though Spears and Ware will now be eating us alive twice a year with the cowboys.

If we about building for the future, then why do we trade picks away for a 35 year old QB to be our starter. Why do you yank your started 1 quarter into the season. Why do you waiste another 1st round pick on another QB. Future building is not in the organization. I give Marvin and Del Rio credit and the owner credit for knowing it was going to be a few years of rebuilding with these young guys, then we will start winning when they grow and learn together. We have not done that since Danny bought the team. If we had done that from the get go with Lavar, Samuels, Jansen, we could have won something by now instead of spending money on guys that arenot here now and guys that probably wont be here in a year or two.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

New England. Do we even have to go to this one. Everyone drafted, won a superbowl, got Corey dillon, won another two. (Ideal organization, draft players late that have an impact, spend WISELY, build a team of continuity and famaliarity)

Cincy, all key players are draft picks, Palmer, Johnson, TJ, Henry, Rudy. He picked up a few key players on D, but mostly they are all young and drafted, result, 9-3, going to playoffs.

Regarding this years draft. I think we should have taken a DE with the first pick, and got a quality CB in the 2nd.

Your wrong on some of these things... New england won ONE bowl after dillon, and cincy has 18, EIGHTEEN new non-drafted players over the last two years... there are about 8 people on that team that were there in 2002, so i don't know where you're getting your facts from, but they're obviously wrong. Everyone in NE is NOT drafted, TONS were FA pickups (look at all the DBs they've used this year, guess what? most weren't drafted)

and once again, WE DID NOT HAVE A 2nd ROUND PICK. we could not have picked up a DE and then a CB, we'd have to have picked up one as a FA... which kinda kills your arguement.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

You dont get what I am saying.

Other than the apparent disavowal of your earlier statement that "Teams with constant roster turn over DO NOT win", I get what you're saying. I just disagree with your conclusions and think the facts you use to back them up are outdated, selective in nature, contradictory and disengenous. Further, you simply ignored my questions concerning the practical effects of the disasters you proclaim.

As to the various teams and their keys to winning - Which is it:

1. Teams with constant roster turnover DON'T win.

or

2. Teams that cut ties with players when appropriate i.e. due to age or their cost in relation to the team's salary structure/cap (applicable to each and every team you mentioned), yearly aquire necessary players through FA, regardless of price (i.e. Kearse, TO, Corey Simon), carefully trade draft choices for talent (Dillon), and draft well DO win.

The statements are mutually exclusive b/c the second assumes constant roster turnover. If you are asserting that, actually constant turnover is not the key issue but rather the careful aquisition and retention of talent is, I would agree AND I would suggest that Gibbs' two off-seasons appear to be working towards that goal.

Further, your analysis simply ignores that NE started its run the season after it made a ton of low end FA aquistions (for which it was roundly lambasted) and that each of these teams has lost "core" players along the way (Two seasons ago NE cuts it locker room leader safety but recovered nicely). As to drafting well, the players you mention are heavy in the 1st - 3rd round category. I would suggest that the Skin's have done OK in that department (as evidenced by your later references to Jansen, Samuels, and Arrington). Your analysis of the roster moves is heavy on the "key players drafted" analysis - Let see: Arrington, Marshall, Taylor, Rodgers, Jansen, Samuels, Dockery, Cartwright, Betts, Cooley - sounds like a pretty good list of "key players drafted".

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Not to overpay players : Brunell 35 yr old QB, 43 million + 3rd rounder(is that not too much?)

Didn't I basically agree that the price seemed to high? As I said, I am willing to give Gibbs a pass on this one as it was his first foray into the new NFL. Good move on your part - Way to hammer home a conceded point.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

30 yr old CB in springs, 10 million signing bonus(is that not too much?)

HOLY CRAP - You cannot be serious. At the time, a slightly overmarket price to lock down a starting CB. A bit of a gamble but one that has paid off in spades. We COULD NOT NOW get a CB of Springs quality at the price he was asking then, regardless of age. If Springs hit the open market, any doubt he could get a deal significantly BETTER than the one Smoot got???

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Trading of a 2nd pick + Bailey for Portis, too much given up!.

Beat that dead horse. Obviously, you would have slyly negotiated the Broncos into at least a straight up deal and probably pried the 2nd rounder from them. If the deal doesn't go through, we lose Champ to FA and get nothing, Denver keeps Portis, we draft Tatum Bell. Unless you were there, this is just your opinion and not one that is the clear majority (Bronco's fans were complaining that THEY got the short end of the stick). You are entitled to your opinion, but b/c you believe don't make it a fact.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Walt Harris, making almost 3 million a year, too much.

Walt Harris was a flyer picked up in case Smoot departed. He was a former starter who signed a reasonable K that pays 1.5 this year and 2.7 next. He won't be collecting the 2.7 next year. For a starting CB, that's a damn fine bargain. For a back-up, it certainly is not exhorbitant. You want to bitch about his performance, fine. Who would you have picked up in his place? Who would you have started earlier this year in place of him? In lieu of your preference for a DE in the draft, this was a damn fine pick up - or does your well thought out plan include drafting Ware, starting him at the DE spot and starting Ade Jimoh opposite Springs? Yes - that would have worked. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I am not saying these players are not playing well and that I dont want them on the team. Just stating we overpaid them.

So, in order to aquire players that you generally approve of, we MAY HAVE overpaid them in order to solidify our depth and get players that fit the team mold envisioned by Gibbs. IF we overpaid them, HOW HAS THE TEAM BEEN HARMED?? WHO HAVE WE missed out on? HOW SHOULD we have filled the voids left by the PRE-GIBBS era??

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Also, gave up a 3rd and a 1st for a QB # 3 on the depth chart. when you think about it between Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell we have 4 picks, 3 number 1's and a number 3 tied up in those players, not to mention the money we gave to Brunell.
...

If we about building for the future, then why do we trade picks away for a 35 year old QB to be our starter. Why do you yank your started 1 quarter into the season. Why do you waiste another 1st round pick on another QB. Future building is not in the organization.

So the first thing Gibbs does is lock up an experienced veteran who has shown himself to be a solid starter. Meanwhile, he retains a talented young QB who may yet prove himself to be a solid starter or a valuable back-up/trade bait. After experienciing a year in which the QB play was simply not very good, while still believing he has the right guy for the job, Gibbs moves to aquire a young QB with good talent and put him in a situation where he can sit and learn for at least one, possibly two years a' la Carson Palmer. What an absurd way to build for the future at THE most important position on the field.

The consistency of your various positions is simply astounding.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Regarding this years draft. I think we should have taken a DE with the first pick, and got a quality CB in the 2nd. I am not going to complain about Rogers, I think he will be quality. Though Spears and Ware will now be eating us alive twice a year with the cowboys.

Tell you what, buy a franchise and you can draft all the DE's you like. But tell me, assuming we don't overbid for Smoot and don't sign Harris - who is your other starting CB? A 2nd round rookie? Again, buy a franchise and you can take that gamble - maybe you get lucky, maybe you don't.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I give Marvin and Del Rio credit and the owner credit for knowing it was going to be a few years of rebuilding with these young guys, then we will start winning when they grow and learn together. We have not done that since Danny bought the team.

But as we seem to be doing these last two years under Gibbs? Jesus man, give it a break - we are in year 2 of Gibbs. You want slow careful building for the future but you want it, and the results it brings, NOW!!!

If a slow careful building process is what you want, then TELL ME how this last offseason failed to provide that: Compared to last year - we got the same OL (3 of whom were draft picks), the same TE's (oh wait, he was a draft pick to!), the same first and 2nd string QB (didn't we draft one of those guys??), the same back-up running backs (by gosh, those guys are our draft picks also!) and we bring back 9 of 11 starters on D (of which 4 were our draft picks).

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

If we had done that from the get go with Lavar, Samuels, Jansen, we could have won something by now instead of spending money on guys that arenot here now and guys that probably wont be here in a year or two.

Okay - after naming several excellent roster moves by the Skins you make an amorphous reference to "spending money on guys that arenot here now and guys that probably wont be here in a year or two". SINCE GIBBS TOOK OVER AND, OTHER THAN BRUNELL, TELL ME: WHO, specifically, are you referring to; WHO, specifically, we lost out on b/c of the expenditure and WHO, specifically, we should have gotten in their place?

Harris? Maybe - but given the position he plays and the team make-up, probably not. Patten? Again, maybe, but who do we sign in his place? SPRINGS?? WASHINGTON?? GRIFFIN??

As I said earlier, you are entitled to your opinion. IF that opinion, as it appears to be, is that the Skins are making disastrous front office moves then I disagree. Could they improve? Well, who can't?

BUT in terms of aquiring and retaining talent, it is just too damn early to be blasting the Gibbs era Skins. Especially since the evidence appears to be that the team is going to make solid efforts to retain home-grown talent and stop paying through the nose for big-name FA aquisitions a' la Kearse or Musin Muhammed.