In a Perfect World: A Look Back at the 'Skins Major Offseason Moves

offiss · 07-23-2004, 03:08 AM

The biggest prob. I have with what we did in the draft this year, was giving that 2nd rd pick for Portis, I think if we stuck to our gun's we would have pulled that deal off straight up for Champ, other than that I was very happy, RF, your plan leaves us week in the secondary, I don't know if I would have taken all the same player's, but I thought you did a fairly credible job with your pick's, on the other hand, I was prob. the first guy to start screaming Taylor, the day I found out we held the #5 pick, I just love this kid as a player, he could go down as an all time great, and I wouldn't give that up, I still feel he's the best player in a very deep draft, I know a lot of people where worried about signing Taylor on time, well look at the trouble jackson is giving the Ram's in that dept., and by the way, I like jones better than Jackson.

Hogskin · 07-23-2004, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offiss

The biggest prob. I have with what we did in the draft this year, was giving that 2nd rd pick for Portis, I think if we stuck to our gun's we would have pulled that deal off straight up for Champ, other than that I was very happy, RF, your plan leaves us week in the secondary, I don't know if I would have taken all the same player's, but I thought you did a fairly credible job with your pick's, on the other hand, I was prob. the first guy to start screaming Taylor, the day I found out we held the #5 pick, I just love this kid as a player, he could go down as an all time great, and I wouldn't give that up, I still feel he's the best player in a very deep draft, I know a lot of people where worried about signing Taylor on time, well look at the trouble jackson is giving the Ram's in that dept., and by the way, I like jones better than Jackson.

The problem with that is that Portis was not OFFERED straight up for Champ. Our front office talked with them for days, and that was the best deal we could get. Remember, there was a time issue with Champ, and we were the big loser if no deal was cut to move him. I think the deal will prove to be absolutely spectacular!! And in addition to that, don't forget about the new "enforcement" that is going into place this year that will handcuff the DB's and open up passing games. Let's see how many WR's champ can shut down in the new environment.

Hogskin · 07-23-2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

This year I think we'll go far (we'll get kicked out of the first round of the playoffs), but I am skeptical about how this offseason will affect our team over the course of the next 3 years.

Maybe you will be right, but that is a prediction I could NEVER make with Gibbs at the helm. He is definitely not a "lose-in-the-first-round" guy. I hope they do make the playoffs. If so, I would see them making it at least to the NFC Championship.

And as far as the value of their moves 3 years down the road, don't forget a major intangible. Ramsey has some GREAT talents (strong arm, very accurate, extremely tough, great attitude), but has some critical problems that need correcting (very slow footwork, slow decision-making - in general, a slow release). Our opponents learned that very quickly and took advantage of it - look at the huge difference in sacks with Hasselbeck in there. A year or two learning under Brunell with some GREAT coaching will be HUGE in his development, and the best thing that could happen to him right now. So, 2-3 years from now when Patrick is tearing up the NFL, don't forget how important Brunell was to him (and the Redskins).

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 07-23-2004, 08:58 AM

Good post Hogskin. But I think Ramsey’s biggest weaknesses are not necessarily his slow footwork or slow release, but his poor short-passing game. He seems to be much more accurate with his 20+ yard throws than he is with passes to WRs running 5 yard screen or 10 yard curl routes. That is a major problem, especially when you are slow footed and need to be able to dump the ball off in the face of a strong pass rush.

In any event, I pray to God that I am wrong about the long haul. In any case, it will be fun to watch us go somewhere this season.

skinsfanthru&thru · 07-23-2004, 11:39 AM

anyone know if we will have our franchise tag next year or not? cuz I think if a player who's tagged is signed after march 17th and before july 14th I believe, the franchise tag is gone for however long the contract signed by the franchised player is, but I can't remember if champ signed before march 17th with denver or not.

hurrykaine · 07-23-2004, 12:37 PM

Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.

Assuming the same pace keeps up, in 3 yrs, the cap will be close to 93 million - which will give us an extremely decent cushion against deadmoney and backloaded contracts from the current roster. When Gibbs, Cerrato and our cap experts say they have a plan and they're not concerned about the future cap, I assume this is what they're referring to. Plus, it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.

In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.

SmootSmack · 07-23-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru

anyone know if we will have our franchise tag next year or not? cuz I think if a player who's tagged is signed after march 17th and before july 14th I believe, the franchise tag is gone for however long the contract signed by the franchised player is, but I can't remember if champ signed before march 17th with denver or not.

He signed on March 2

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 07-23-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.

That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.

I am sure that we will continue to restructure deals to put off huge cap numbers, but it will come back to bite you at some point (as the recent Washington Post article re: the cap noted). We had to release Stephen Davis because his cap numbers got too unwieldy (would have been $11 million for 2003 if we had kept him), not just because he didn’t fit Spurrier’s scheme. Samuels is eating up a ton of cap space right now because we kept restructuring his deal. I’m not saying that teams shouldn’t restructure players’ contracts – every team does it. I am saying that you cannot disregard the cap and that someday you have to pay the pied piper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.

. If this SB run results in a Lombardi trophy, I’ll say that Snyder and Gibbs were right and that I was embarrassingly wrong. However, if they don’t get us to the promised land AND they screw up our cap, I’ll be one pissed on fan.

To his credit, Snyder has big rocks and he’s aggressive. I prefer that to an owner who tries to spend as little as possible. I’m just afraid Danny is a little too aggressive.

Hogskin · 07-23-2004, 12:55 PM

HarryK, yes, and there is one more important factor to add to that argument. The TV contracts will be renegotiated (is it 2006?). That should provide a sudden healthy bump in the cap.

Fan, interesting - I guess I was paying attention to some details and did not notice others just as significant. Had not noticed Ramsey's trouble with the short passes.

Hogskin · 07-23-2004, 01:07 PM

Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine

hurrykaine · 07-23-2004, 01:23 PM

"That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road."

In fact, I would say the opposite - you have to give the likes of Brunell long term backloaded deals since there would be no cap-space in the next two yrs if you didn't. That would affect the signing of other cheap but decent free agents (such as the Kozlowskis, Baxters, & CBs).

As an example, It is cheaper for us (short-term cap-wise) to give Brunell a huge deal over 7-8yrs than to give him a short term deal like say, 15 million over 3 yrs. How would you spread a 3yr 15 million deal in a way that doesn't adversely affect the cap in 2005? What's worse, he would've turned down the short term deal and signed elswhere, and our QB search would've been painful.

I realize you can't play a ponzi type game with the long term cap - stuff adds up and will count against the cap in 2007, but with 93 million as the cap, the extra 13-14 million will more than make up for both Portis and Brunell's back loaded deals.

I'm with you that if this experiment fails, it will be a costly failure, and we will be pissed off fans, but this year more than ever, we have the coaching staff in place to justify Snyder's spending spree.

hurrykaine · 07-23-2004, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hogskin

Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine

No worries Hogs....you by any chance the same Hogs from the Washington Post forum?

Hogskin · 07-23-2004, 02:10 PM

No, I use "Hogskins" everywhere I can - started using it in the mid/late 80's when I started playing fantasy football. But I don't believe I have an ID on the Post - if I do, I am inactive.

SkinsRock · 07-23-2004, 02:18 PM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned anything like this, but consider this:
In this day and age of Free Agency, it doesn't matter if you build with older or younger players. The older players usually get the shorter, but higher $ contracts, but the young guys will also likely be gone in a few years anyway, especially if they perform well and want the big contract. This goes for ALL teams. Nowadays, a team can only keep a core group of maybe 10-15 players for more than a couple years. That's the way it is built to promote parity.
That said, I agree more with the "proven player philosophy", but I'll admit that RF's plan has it's merits too...

skinsfanthru&thru · 07-23-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

He signed on March 2

thanks

View Poll Results: Which would have been better, "my plan" or how things actually worked out?
Ramseyfan's plan (yes I know hindsight is 20/20)	3	9.68%
Dan Snyder/Joe Gibbs' plan (how the offseason actually played out)	28	90.32%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

07-23-2004, 12:37 PM	#51
hurrykaine Impact Rookie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Age: 53 Posts: 762	How FAs with big contracts affect the team over the next 3 yrs Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year. In 2001, it was around 67 million, In 2002, it was 71.1 million In 2003, it was 75 million, and this year it is almost 79 million. Assuming the same pace keeps up, in 3 yrs, the cap will be close to 93 million - which will give us an extremely decent cushion against deadmoney and backloaded contracts from the current roster. When Gibbs, Cerrato and our cap experts say they have a plan and they're not concerned about the future cap, I assume this is what they're referring to. Plus, it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure. In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.

07-23-2004, 12:55 PM	#54
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 85 Posts: 659	HarryK, yes, and there is one more important factor to add to that argument. The TV contracts will be renegotiated (is it 2006?). That should provide a sudden healthy bump in the cap. Fan, interesting - I guess I was paying attention to some details and did not notice others just as significant. Had not noticed Ramsey's trouble with the short passes. __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

07-23-2004, 01:07 PM	#55
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 85 Posts: 659	Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

07-23-2004, 02:10 PM	#58
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 85 Posts: 659	No, I use "Hogskins" everywhere I can - started using it in the mid/late 80's when I started playing fantasy football. But I don't believe I have an ID on the Post - if I do, I am inactive. __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

07-23-2004, 03:08 AM	#46
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 62 Posts: 3,097	The biggest prob. I have with what we did in the draft this year, was giving that 2nd rd pick for Portis, I think if we stuck to our gun's we would have pulled that deal off straight up for Champ, other than that I was very happy, RF, your plan leaves us week in the secondary, I don't know if I would have taken all the same player's, but I thought you did a fairly credible job with your pick's, on the other hand, I was prob. the first guy to start screaming Taylor, the day I found out we held the #5 pick, I just love this kid as a player, he could go down as an all time great, and I wouldn't give that up, I still feel he's the best player in a very deep draft, I know a lot of people where worried about signing Taylor on time, well look at the trouble jackson is giving the Ram's in that dept., and by the way, I like jones better than Jackson.

07-23-2004, 08:58 AM	#49
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 47 Posts: 8,317	Good post Hogskin. But I think Ramsey’s biggest weaknesses are not necessarily his slow footwork or slow release, but his poor short-passing game. He seems to be much more accurate with his 20+ yard throws than he is with passes to WRs running 5 yard screen or 10 yard curl routes. That is a major problem, especially when you are slow footed and need to be able to dump the ball off in the face of a strong pass rush. In any event, I pray to God that I am wrong about the long haul. In any case, it will be fun to watch us go somewhere this season.

07-23-2004, 11:39 AM	#50
skinsfanthru&thru Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Age: 45 Posts: 3,815	anyone know if we will have our franchise tag next year or not? cuz I think if a player who's tagged is signed after march 17th and before july 14th I believe, the franchise tag is gone for however long the contract signed by the franchised player is, but I can't remember if champ signed before march 17th with denver or not.

07-23-2004, 01:23 PM	#56
hurrykaine Impact Rookie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Age: 53 Posts: 762	"That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road." In fact, I would say the opposite - you have to give the likes of Brunell long term backloaded deals since there would be no cap-space in the next two yrs if you didn't. That would affect the signing of other cheap but decent free agents (such as the Kozlowskis, Baxters, & CBs). As an example, It is cheaper for us (short-term cap-wise) to give Brunell a huge deal over 7-8yrs than to give him a short term deal like say, 15 million over 3 yrs. How would you spread a 3yr 15 million deal in a way that doesn't adversely affect the cap in 2005? What's worse, he would've turned down the short term deal and signed elswhere, and our QB search would've been painful. I realize you can't play a ponzi type game with the long term cap - stuff adds up and will count against the cap in 2007, but with 93 million as the cap, the extra 13-14 million will more than make up for both Portis and Brunell's back loaded deals. I'm with you that if this experiment fails, it will be a costly failure, and we will be pissed off fans, but this year more than ever, we have the coaching staff in place to justify Snyder's spending spree.

07-23-2004, 02:18 PM	#59
SkinsRock Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Crofton, MD Age: 56 Posts: 907	I don't know if anyone has mentioned anything like this, but consider this: In this day and age of Free Agency, it doesn't matter if you build with older or younger players. The older players usually get the shorter, but higher $ contracts, but the young guys will also likely be gone in a few years anyway, especially if they perform well and want the big contract. This goes for ALL teams. Nowadays, a team can only keep a core group of maybe 10-15 players for more than a couple years. That's the way it is built to promote parity. That said, I agree more with the "proven player philosophy", but I'll admit that RF's plan has it's merits too...

In a Perfect World: A Look Back at the 'Skins Major Offseason Moves

Locker Room Main Forum