|
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
12-08-2005, 12:08 PM
|
#1 |
|
Hail Raiser
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 53
Posts: 100,050
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
I feel like we've had this same discussion about 1000 times on this board.
Do people actually think there are teams in this league with zero roster turnover year to year? We've had more than our share but that also goes hand in hand with the constant coaching turnover. Regarding the cap, we were supposed to be in cap hell about 5 years ago. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen these major cap problems the mediots keep saying we're headed for. Teams around the league have to wheel and deal to get under the cap each year, and contract restructuring is the name of the game in the modern free agency era. These things aren't exclusive to the Washington Redskins. Each year there are a handful of teams in much worse shape than the Redskins cap-wise, and this offseason will be no different. We are building towards something right now, a major overhaul of the roster just isn't going to happen this offseason. I'm not sure why some people seem to be freaking out right now. |
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 12:25 PM
|
#2 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 51
Posts: 1,801
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 12:56 PM
|
#3 | |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
So if we measure progress by getting to playoffs, then I think we are right there. If the Super Bowl is the measuring stick, well, we have a little ways to go. Our problem in the past has been we've tried to leap-frog the process and win overnight, now we are doing one inch at a time. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 02:33 PM
|
#4 | |||
|
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
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 ... Quote:
Quote:
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? |
|||
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 03:14 PM
|
#5 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 51
Posts: 1,801
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 04:11 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: VA
Age: 43
Posts: 17,620
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 05:44 PM
|
#7 | ||||||||||
|
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
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". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The consistency of your various positions is simply astounding. Quote:
Quote:
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). Quote:
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. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 12:29 PM
|
#8 |
|
Hail Raiser
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 53
Posts: 100,050
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Last year was the start of those minimal moves I believe.
We really didn't have any splashy signings. Rabach was signed right out of the gate, and outside of the Coles debacle it was a pretty quiet offseason acquisition-wise. I think we'll see more of the same this offseason as well. A few low key moves here and there. I know it's tough to get over, but the days of looking to sign every big name free agent that hits the market are long gone. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 12:55 PM
|
#9 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 44
Posts: 262
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
I think we'll be fine--all the potential cuts are guys that are replaceable anyway. It's funny to see that Raider cap #, that isn't even counting Charles Woodson! They are screwed. They are going to cut Collins for sure. We are going to be able to get something more for Ramsey than people are predicting, methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 01:55 PM
|
#10 |
|
Hail Raiser
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 53
Posts: 100,050
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Samuels and LaVar aren't going anywhere. Just stop.
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 02:34 PM
|
#11 |
|
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Didn't Samuels just restructure his contract last offseason? I'm not the biggest CS fan, but I would be surprised if he left
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 02:41 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 03:57 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Serenity Now
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,008
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 04:01 PM
|
#14 |
|
Serenity Now
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,008
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
As for Arrington, his 2006 salary is only $545K so not exactly a great restructure candidate. If I had to guess, I'd say we let Lavar go this offseason, eat his $12M deadcap hit and get him off the books for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005, 04:06 PM
|
#15 |
|
Serenity Now
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,008
|
Re: Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes?
As for other potential 2006 moves I see:
Cuts/Trades: Ramsey Noble Hall Harris Bowen Patten Raymer Thrash Restructures: Brunell Jansen Thomas (ie same guys who restructured last year) |
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
