Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[warriorzpath]

What's the point in having a free agency vs the draft discussion? Because its better to pick up good players both ways. It's like having this discussion: Redskins Defense vs the Redskins Offense. Bottom line is everyone's on the same team. And to really have a good team, you really need to be good at both.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

What's the point in having a free agency vs the draft discussion? Because its better to pick up good players both ways. It's like having this discussion: Redskins Defense vs the Redskins Offense. Bottom line is everyone's on the same team. And to really have a good team, you really need to be good at both.

Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder. The teams that are good for a long period of time usually draft well, they are constantly having youth that is underpaid on their team keeping their cap manageable.

While that may not be the situation every time, it does seem to bear out over the long run. Just compare the Redskins of the past 20 years compared to the last couple. The Eagles for the longest time were a good team. Now that being the dream team is more important, how has their record been?

IMO, free agency should be used to supplement what you have built during the draft. Not saying to ignore FA, but the main building of the team cant be FA or you will always have what we had for the longest time. Some top talent, but no where near enough overall talent and zero depth. Cant afford that when you are paying FA prices for everyone.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder. The teams that are good for a long period of time usually draft well, they are constantly having youth that is underpaid on their team keeping their cap manageable.

While that may not be the situation every time, it does seem to bear out over the long run. Just compare the Redskins of the past 20 years compared to the last couple. The Eagles for the longest time were a good team. Now that being the dream team is more important, how has their record been?

IMO, free agency should be used to supplement what you have built during the draft. Not saying to ignore FA, but the main building of the team cant be FA or you will always have what we had for the longest time. Some top talent, but no where near enough overall talent and zero depth. Cant afford that when you are paying FA prices for everyone.

I understand personnel strategy and differences in philosophy, but I don't understand the argument with a Redskins player vs another Redskins player like Garçon vs Morris. I want both players even at Garçon's cap number. You have to utilize both methods to obtain players and every team's situation is different at any given point of the development of the team. The philosophy should be changing from year to year and not just free agency = bad and draft = good or vice versa. That's what these arguments were all heading towards. I don't think it's that black and white.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I understand personnel strategy and differences in philosophy, but I don't understand the argument with a Redskins player vs another Redskins player like Garçon vs Morris. I want both players even at Garçon's cap number. You have to utilize both methods to obtain players and every team's situation is different at any given point of the development of the team. The philosophy should be changing from year to year and not just free agency = bad and draft = good or vice versa. That's what these arguments were all heading towards. I don't think it's that black and white.

The player vs player arguments are salary cap related. I want to have the starters from both the NFC pro bowl team and the AFC pro bowl team here with the Redskins, but the salary cap prevents that. So choices have to be made based on production vs pay. When you make decisions based on that, the draft usually comes out ahead.

Again, im not saying FA isnt important, Im just saying that maintaining a winning team when they dont draft well is almost impossible. Maintaining a winning team that drafts well and doesnt do much in FA is more sustainable. So to me, the draft is, and always will be, more important.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The player vs player arguments are salary cap related. I want to have the starters from both the NFC pro bowl team and the AFC pro bowl team here with the Redskins, but the salary cap prevents that. So choices have to be made based on production vs pay. When you make decisions based on that, the draft usually comes out ahead.

Again, im not saying FA isnt important, Im just saying that maintaining a winning team when they dont draft well is almost impossible. Maintaining a winning team that drafts well and doesnt do much in FA is more sustainable. So to me, the draft is, and always will be, more important.

But it's not a discussion of free agency vs the the draft. It's more a discussion of doing well in the draft. If you do well in the draft then you won't need to depend on free agency as much - except re-signing your own. Which is what the redskins have focused in so far but arguably moreso of the cap.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

But it's not a discussion of free agency vs the the draft. It's more a discussion of doing well in the draft. If you do well in the draft then you won't need to depend on free agency as much - except re-signing your own. Which is what the redskins have focused in so far but arguably moreso of the cap.

Either way, it boils down to the draft. You cant pay the FA prices to fill up a team and expect to have good players across your roster. Relying on FA usually results in little to no depth.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Either way, it boils down to the draft. You cant pay the FA prices to fill up a team and expect to have good players across your roster. Relying on FA usually results in little to no depth.

What's your take on current redskins players that were signed or re-signed via free agency and/or trades? And also your opinion of signing a free agent cb, safety or offensive tackle?

Say you pick up 3 cb in the draft - are you prepared to cut Wilson as soon as they are drafted. This is the case you would be making. You have much more depth there with 3 cb instead of one and you get rid of his cap hit at the same time. You can do this for all of the players signed through free agency.

[takethecake]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder.

THIS. This is what it all boils down to. You'll never hit on 100% of your draft picks OR your FA signings, so you have to minimize your losses when you inevitably get an underperforming player. You drafted a bust? Oh well, he's signed to a rookie deal, so you don't really lose much. You signed an Albert Haynesworth and he sucks (or Mike Wallace this year)? Too bad, you've already guaranteed him so much money that he cripples your ability to replace him.

You can argue that FAs are generally more proven than rookies, but that neglects to take into account FAs that have to learn a new system, FAs that appear better than they are because of their supporting cast (Matt Cassel), etc. Without having any real numbers, I can still guarantee you that the "Hit Percentage" on FAs is not significantly higher than it is for high draft picks. Draft vs. Free Agency? It's all about the Benjamins... :cool-smil

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by takethecake

THIS. This is what it all boils down to. You'll never hit on 100% of your draft picks OR your FA signings, so you have to minimize your losses when you inevitably get an underperforming player. You drafted a bust? Oh well, he's signed to a rookie deal, so you don't really lose much. You signed an Albert Haynesworth and he sucks (or Mike Wallace this year)? Too bad, you've already guaranteed him so much money that he cripples your ability to replace him.

You can argue that FAs are generally more proven than rookies, but that neglects to take into account FAs that have to learn a new system, FAs that appear better than they are because of their supporting cast (Matt Cassel), etc. Without having any real numbers, I can still guarantee you that the "Hit Percentage" on FAs is not significantly higher than it is for high draft picks. Draft vs. Free Agency? It's all about the Benjamins... :cool-smil

So does it boil down to free agency is bad and the draft is good - to you? And if so (or if not)- then what is your philosophy about free agency? Keep in mind that there's a good number of redskins players that were obtained through free agency and through low risk trades. What would have done with these players and what do you do with them going forward?