Dead money and scouting

JWsleep · 03-08-2005, 02:08 AM

A recent wash. Times article talks about our dead money issue and says we've failed "capology." But I think this is actually incorrect. The skins haven't been forced to just drop people because of the cap, like the Titans did. Instead, it's that we've released or traded people who didn't work out for one reason or another, or we've got dead meat riding the pine and taking up money (read: Brunnell).

This is more a matter of bad scouting than cap problems. And for all that, we've got a D with Lavar and Washington as bookend LBs, Griffen, Taylor, Springs, and a great coordinator. We've got good bookend offensive tackles, a good right guard in THomas, and a good looking center coming in. We've got Portis. We've got Cooley. And we've got Ramsey who's improving. The wideouts are a question mark, to be sure, and we could use a good blocking TE. Smoot and the MLB position are up in the air. So we've got some dead money right now, but we're not so bad.

And here's the kicker. I think with Coles' release, Samuel's restrucing, Jansen's restructuring, Thomas's restructuring, and the players we've released, we're gonna be WAY under the cap next year. (I could be wrong, so maybe Canuck can confirm this.) If that's true, so much for failing "capnomics." Now if we can just scout properly!

(Actually, our scouts got us Taylor and Cooley, Washington and Springs, so it ain't all bad...

)

jacobyfan · 03-08-2005, 04:06 AM

I'm glad someone else can see what's going on. As it stands right now, we won't be way under the cap next year (unless it's unexpectedly high). However, it looks like we'll be around 4-5mil over instead of 15+. That means we'll likely be able to work things out without having a Titans-like purge. I've gotten quite tired of people complaining about how stupid it is that we screwed up our cap this year with the Coles deal and how angry they are. If they had any sense they'd realize that it was a GREAT LONG-TERM move. Frees money in the future, gets rid of a player who doesn't want to be here, and get's rid of a player whose health may be questionable in the future.

BTW, the Times doesn't have a damn clue about the cap. Weren't they the ones that thought that we should trade Arrington ($18mil hit) and picks to get Moss? And THEN cut Brunell ($7mil hit) to pay for it? That should show you that they are talking straight out of their asses on anything regarding the cap. That's a great scenario, there. $25 million in cap hits + have to sign Randy Moss to an extention = lots of minimum salary (non-veteran) players starting.

Lunacy.

BTW, reporters do this all the time on a wide variety of subjects. e.g. You actually got better than a C in freshman chemistry in college? You're our new science editor!

BigSKINBauer · 03-08-2005, 06:26 AM

ya we good and we know it too super bowl baby!!

n e ways PTI said that we are genious in the offseason but it doesn't translate to the season. they said the deal w/ coles was dumb but this was the first really dumb move in years and that we do everything right every off season but it seems that it just doesn't work in the regular season

FRPLG · 03-08-2005, 09:09 AM

I have mentioned this before...
I believe the Redskins build dead into their budgets every year expecting to have anywhere from 2 to 8 million. It is how they do things. I think the strategy is actually crazy like a fox. If they build in dead money and are constantly restructuring it always leaves room for FAs. This year is an exception because of the Coles situation but if not for that we'd have like 9 mil in cap space which is A LOT. The eagles do the opposite. They sign as many people to one yaer deals as they can and worry about resigning them next year. Just a different approach. Theirs is working because they have had some coaching consistency and do better at personell evaluation.

That Guy · 03-08-2005, 09:20 AM

part of the scouting that is working is our use of the practice squad... we literally changed it out twice a week last year and continued to bring in new guys to test... I believe thats how we ended up with brown and wilds among other late season additions...

JWsleep · 03-08-2005, 01:49 PM

Any idea what other teams dead money amounts are? Are we the worst? In the middle of the pack? Without this sort of comparison, the charge doesn't mean anything.

Obviously, no one is going to say Coles or Brunnel are good FO moves. But I don't think it's a cap thing.

Daseal · 03-08-2005, 01:51 PM

I agree - I think we've done a fine job.

If you are infact right and we're WAY under the cap. There's a man that the Colts probably won't be able to afford when his contract is up. Freeney would look awful nice and B&G!

FRPLG · 03-08-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

part of the scouting that is working is our use of the practice squad... we literally changed it out twice a week last year and continued to bring in new guys to test... I believe thats how we ended up with brown and wilds among other late season additions...

Brown yes...Wilds I believe was a UDFA that excelled in preseason for us along with another guy who i can't think of. Both made the practice squad at the bginning of the year. Not sure if the other guy hung on or not. We had as much turnover on the practice squad as I can remember last year.

03-08-2005, 02:08 AM	#1
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,717	Dead money and scouting A recent wash. Times article talks about our dead money issue and says we've failed "capology." But I think this is actually incorrect. The skins haven't been forced to just drop people because of the cap, like the Titans did. Instead, it's that we've released or traded people who didn't work out for one reason or another, or we've got dead meat riding the pine and taking up money (read: Brunnell). This is more a matter of bad scouting than cap problems. And for all that, we've got a D with Lavar and Washington as bookend LBs, Griffen, Taylor, Springs, and a great coordinator. We've got good bookend offensive tackles, a good right guard in THomas, and a good looking center coming in. We've got Portis. We've got Cooley. And we've got Ramsey who's improving. The wideouts are a question mark, to be sure, and we could use a good blocking TE. Smoot and the MLB position are up in the air. So we've got some dead money right now, but we're not so bad. And here's the kicker. I think with Coles' release, Samuel's restrucing, Jansen's restructuring, Thomas's restructuring, and the players we've released, we're gonna be WAY under the cap next year. (I could be wrong, so maybe Canuck can confirm this.) If that's true, so much for failing "capnomics." Now if we can just scout properly! (Actually, our scouts got us Taylor and Cooley, Washington and Springs, so it ain't all bad... ) __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-08-2005, 04:06 AM	#2
jacobyfan Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Nashville, TN Age: 45 Posts: 172	Re: Dead money and scouting I'm glad someone else can see what's going on. As it stands right now, we won't be way under the cap next year (unless it's unexpectedly high). However, it looks like we'll be around 4-5mil over instead of 15+. That means we'll likely be able to work things out without having a Titans-like purge. I've gotten quite tired of people complaining about how stupid it is that we screwed up our cap this year with the Coles deal and how angry they are. If they had any sense they'd realize that it was a GREAT LONG-TERM move. Frees money in the future, gets rid of a player who doesn't want to be here, and get's rid of a player whose health may be questionable in the future. BTW, the Times doesn't have a damn clue about the cap. Weren't they the ones that thought that we should trade Arrington ($18mil hit) and picks to get Moss? And THEN cut Brunell ($7mil hit) to pay for it? That should show you that they are talking straight out of their asses on anything regarding the cap. That's a great scenario, there. $25 million in cap hits + have to sign Randy Moss to an extention = lots of minimum salary (non-veteran) players starting. Lunacy. BTW, reporters do this all the time on a wide variety of subjects. e.g. You actually got better than a C in freshman chemistry in college? You're our new science editor!

03-08-2005, 06:26 AM	#3
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 36 Posts: 5,688	Re: Dead money and scouting ya we good and we know it too super bowl baby!! n e ways PTI said that we are genious in the offseason but it doesn't translate to the season. they said the deal w/ coles was dumb but this was the first really dumb move in years and that we do everything right every off season but it seems that it just doesn't work in the regular season

03-08-2005, 09:09 AM	#4
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: Dead money and scouting I have mentioned this before... I believe the Redskins build dead into their budgets every year expecting to have anywhere from 2 to 8 million. It is how they do things. I think the strategy is actually crazy like a fox. If they build in dead money and are constantly restructuring it always leaves room for FAs. This year is an exception because of the Coles situation but if not for that we'd have like 9 mil in cap space which is A LOT. The eagles do the opposite. They sign as many people to one yaer deals as they can and worry about resigning them next year. Just a different approach. Theirs is working because they have had some coaching consistency and do better at personell evaluation.

03-08-2005, 09:20 AM	#5
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Dead money and scouting part of the scouting that is working is our use of the practice squad... we literally changed it out twice a week last year and continued to bring in new guys to test... I believe thats how we ended up with brown and wilds among other late season additions...

03-08-2005, 01:49 PM	#6
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,717	Re: Dead money and scouting Any idea what other teams dead money amounts are? Are we the worst? In the middle of the pack? Without this sort of comparison, the charge doesn't mean anything. Obviously, no one is going to say Coles or Brunnel are good FO moves. But I don't think it's a cap thing. __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-08-2005, 01:51 PM	#7
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	Re: Dead money and scouting I agree - I think we've done a fine job. If you are infact right and we're WAY under the cap. There's a man that the Colts probably won't be able to afford when his contract is up. Freeney would look awful nice and B&G!

Dead money and scouting

Locker Room Main Forum