Is there a contingency plan for Brunnell and the money/cap room at the end?

That Guy · 10-13-2004, 05:30 AM

arrington's agent didn't do his job, and i doubt the league is going to see it any differently... arrington seems to not even care if he loses though, which is nice... and smoot ditched the postons, which is even nicer with a new contract coming up.

backrow · 10-13-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Here's the dead money situation if Brunell is cut/traded prior to:

2005 - $7.167M
2006 - $5.733M
2007 - $4.300M
2008 - $2.867M
2009 - $1.433M
2010 - $0

I be really surprised if Brunell wasn't here in 2005.

One possibility would be to cut him after June 1, 2006 which would leave $1.433M of dead money for 2006, and $4.3M of dead money for 2007.

I agree with Matty that this isn't a terrible cap deal - but then again the way he's playing...

Now I have even more reason to dislike the trade for Brunell!

SUNRA · 10-13-2004, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I'd eat the $5 million dead cap money if Brunell brought us to a championship (or even to the brink of one), but does anyone think this is the guy who's going to lead us into a SB? He's leading us somewhere, just not to the SB - to cap hell.

EVERYONE outside of D.C. believes that eventually you have to pay the pied piper if you spend without concern for the salary cap. I tend to agree. Doesn't anyone know that our constant restructuring of deals has left us with the possibility of losing Samuels this offseason? Yes, Samuels. The guy is carrying a monster cap figure and has repeatedly refused to restructure his deal after doing it to his rookie deal twice.

The bottom line is that $5 million in dead space for one player is HUGE. We could go out and get an ALL-PRO Defensive Tackle or End for that amount. If anyone thinks that's insignificant, they'd better think twice.

You know what's so frustrating about the offensive line is there are veterans who are not playing up to the potential. I mean Randy Thomas, Chris Samuels and new comer Derrick Dockery are big and strong enough to move a boulder. So why aren't they winning the war at the line of scrimmage? Eight men in the box could be one reason,but not on every down.

celts32 · 10-13-2004, 01:43 PM

No one is really playing well on that offense. the only question is how to divide up the blame. brunel as is always the case with the QB has earned a big chunk of it. It all starts with the QB. He is the one handling the ball on every play. But also the line has not blocked well, the WR's drop every other pass, Portis is a fumbling 3 yard per carry cluster fu*k. Name an offensive player and he's screwed up something.

10-13-2004, 05:30 AM	#16
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	arrington's agent didn't do his job, and i doubt the league is going to see it any differently... arrington seems to not even care if he loses though, which is nice... and smoot ditched the postons, which is even nicer with a new contract coming up.

10-13-2004, 01:43 PM	#19
celts32 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hackettstown NJ Age: 53 Posts: 2,665	No one is really playing well on that offense. the only question is how to divide up the blame. brunel as is always the case with the QB has earned a big chunk of it. It all starts with the QB. He is the one handling the ball on every play. But also the line has not blocked well, the WR's drop every other pass, Portis is a fumbling 3 yard per carry cluster fu*k. Name an offensive player and he's screwed up something.

Is there a contingency plan for Brunnell and the money/cap room at the end?

Locker Room Main Forum