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

[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.

[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?

[warriorzpath]

And those that prefer the draft vs free agency - what's your standpoint with signing or re-signing a free agent cornerback?

[warriorzpath]

I'm alone in valuing free agency. ALL of the NFL teams do too.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I'm alone in valuing free agency. ALL of the NFL teams do too.

No, I think guys are defending not using FA because A. We have made bad moves in the past (Vinny, Dan S) and B. We can't really participate.

Me personally, I am pretty upset that we are not able to add a couple of quality players as is the FO if you listen to their press conferences.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I don't understand why people are using the draft vs FA arguement. You are right you need to be good at both.

[warriorzpath]

I'm sure that there are probably at least a handful of starting players on each of the Super Bowl teams that were signed or re-signed in free agency.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I'm sure that there are probably at least a handful of starting players on each of the Super Bowl teams that were signed or re-signed in free agency.

Ravens: Leach, Pollard, McKinney and of course Boldin.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Ravens: Leach, Pollard, McKinney and of course Boldin.

I would include Jacoby Jones even though he's probably not listed as a starter, but it still bolsters my point.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I would include Jacoby Jones even though he's probably not listed as a starter, but it still bolsters my point.

Actually he's a starting return specialist. So there is at least 5 right there.

[That Guy]

superbowls are a death spell for your FO. that's part of why it's so hard to repeat... every decent FA on a superbowl team tends to get pretty good outside offers.

[warriorzpath]

Without the players the ravens signed through Free Agency, they don't win the Super Bowl. They probably don't even get to the Super Bowl.