Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

True, but the SLB in particular has to match up against TEs in receiving situations. Blades against Witten, for example, is a mismatch in the Cowboys' favor. The ball just goes up top.

Exactly. Now MLB is another matter entirely. Hopefully, we can keep Blades here long enough that he can replace Fletcher when he retires.I love the intensity Blades brings to the game and, as you guys have mentioned, he's a heavy hitter.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Exactly. Now MLB is another matter entirely. Hopefully, we can keep Blades here long enough that he can replace Fletcher when he retires.I love the intensity Blades brings to the game and, as you guys have mentioned, he's a heavy hitter.

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

[Hamoskinz]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

...make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

He played for KC as a DE. Isn't he old (+30yrs) or something? I like his game, good outside speed and is worth a look IMO. I don't know if he can play OLB though?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

GT per Blades doesn't switching him to WLB (for the time being) help minimize his shortness since he'll probably get caught in coverage less often? I know we talked about Marcus switching prior to his departure to hide his coverage issues, and because Rocky is probably our best coverage LB anyway, so why not make the same switch if Blades is set to start?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

i agree with your philosophy of playing our best 2 guys, but, from my perspective, we need to get better linebackers instead of just playing fletch and blades because theyre all we got... not familiar with edwards. if hes cheap, why not give him a shot to compete for a spot - sign me up.

[GTripp0012]

I should really diagram this defensive crap, because they say a picture is worth 1,000 words. And 1,000 words is worth an hour and a half.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I should really diagram this defensive crap, because they say a picture is worth 1,000 words. And 1,000 words is worth an hour and a half.

I actually think you gave a very clear explaination of the point. You did pique my curiosity though: Do you think McIntosh is a starting-caliber LB?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I actually think you gave a very clear explaination of the point. You did pique my curiosity though: Do you think McIntosh is a starting-caliber LB?

In ideal conditions, yes. Put talent in front of him and when healthy, he's a league average linebacker. He actually fits our system pretty well. Problem is, if his knees aren't 100%, he usually can't recover from the mis-steps he's prone to taking, and get back into position.

Therefore, while the answer to your question is 'yes' I would not re-sign him unless he makes noticible improvement this year.

[vallin21]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

In ideal conditions, yes. Put talent in front of him and when healthy, he's a league average linebacker. He actually fits our system pretty well. Problem is, if his knees aren't 100%, he usually can't recover from the mis-steps he's prone to taking, and get back into position.

Therefore, while the answer to your question is 'yes' I would not re-sign him unless he makes noticible improvement this year.

That's his main problem: bad knees. We should've drafted Thomas Howard instead. That kid is a beast!

[GMScud]

So, salary cap gurus (since I'm not anywhere close to a guru nor do I pretend to be), what does this potentially mean for the Skins? Are we aware of this loophole? Could we use it to our benefit this year with any of our current players?

“COMPLETION BONUS” GIVES CAP FLEXIBILITY IN 2009, POSSIBLE SECURITY IN 2010

Posted by Mike Florio on March 21, 2009, 11:01 p.m.


With the intricacies of the last capped year restricting the devices that teams have used in the past to stay on the right side of the per-team spending limit, the New Orleans Saints have developed an innovative way to push money into future years without running afoul of the special accounting rules that apply as the NFL transitions to a season without a salary cap in 2010.
But, frankly, we think there’s a deeper motivation at play.
According to Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Saints are using “completion bonuses” in 2010 as a tool for giving guaranteed money to players without driving up the 2009 cap numbers arising from their contracts.
Per Triplett, the Saints used a completion bonus in contracts paid to linebacker Jonathan Vilma, tackle Jon Stinchcomb, and cornerback Jabari Greer.
The device provides guaranteed money upon the “completion” of the 2010 season, if the players don’t skip or otherwise miss any mandatory team activities during the 2010 season.
One league source believes that the real aim of the completion bonus is to protect teams against holdouts or other player misbehavior. If the motivation was cap compliance, teams would still be able to use option bonuses with a non-exercise fee in the form of guaranteed base salaries.
The only difference is that a 2010 option bonus would most likely require option bonuses in future years, due to the rule prohibiting an increase in base salary of more than 30 percent in an uncapped year.
But, frankly, it’s an easy thing to do.
A league source tells us that the possible application of the Ashley Lelie grievance was discussed during one or more of the negotiations resulting in the use of completion bonuses by the Saints. Though a player’s entitlement to a completion bonus would likely be subject to the grievance process if, for example, he is suspended for violating the substance abuse policy and then gets stiffed out of the bonus, it seems fairly clear to us that the Saints believe that they’ve found a way to ensure that money isn’t “earned” until the player completes the season in which the completion bonus is to be paid.

[That Guy]

btw, (tangent) i do believe that those option bonuses (like the 20+mill one haynesworth has) are truly guaranteed... if he starts up a dog fighting ring and smoking crack, the skins can't go back and try to recoup any of that money (whereas the non-option vick money was sued for by the falcons after his indiscretions came to light).

as far as what this means for us... almost nothing, since i don't think that's standard practice in skinsland. It's an interesting concept, but i don't know why it wouldn't be considered as a likely-to-be-earned/not-likely-to-be-earned bonus, since that's essentially what it is.

[MrJL]

Could the Redskins rework some of the current contracts, pushing the money to the uncapped year if the contract isn't extended? What if they added a year to say Clinton Portis' contract with a relatively low salary with him having a void option?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by MrJL

Could the Redskins rework some of the current contracts, pushing the money to the uncapped year if the contract isn't extended? What if they added a year to say Clinton Portis' contract with a relatively low salary with him having a void option?

Money can only be prorated through, I believe 2012. So any player whose contract already extends past that date can't get any money pushed into future years, at least via extension.

There's pretty much no place left to go to free up cap space. There's Rabach, and there's Thrash. Either could be released (or extended, in theory) to lower their 2009 cap number. Santana I believe is another option, but the team seems to be specifically avoiding guarenteeing any more money to him. Simply put, if Kelly or Thomas breaks out as a top target this year, Moss is gone at seasons end.

[MrJL]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Money can only be prorated through, I believe 2012. So any player whose contract already extends past that date can't get any money pushed into future years, at least via extension.

There's pretty much no place left to go to free up cap space. There's Rabach, and there's Thrash. Either could be released (or extended, in theory) to lower their 2009 cap number. Santana I believe is another option, but the team seems to be specifically avoiding guarenteeing any more money to him. Simply put, if Kelly or Thomas breaks out as a top target this year, Moss is gone at seasons end.

why release Moss? 2010 is uncapped. The point would be to free money for this year. Rogers is due to be a RFA next year, right? Couldn't we extend him if he'd lower this year's salary?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by MrJL

why release Moss? 2010 is uncapped. The point would be to free money for this year. Rogers is due to be a RFA next year, right? Couldn't we extend him if he'd lower this year's salary?

Rogers simply isn't making enough to save money when extending him.

If he got a Hall-type deal, it would raise his 2009 cap number by 1.0-1.5 million.

Cutting Moss would be more of a football decision, based on what he is/isn't needed for. He'll be here until a better option comes along. He won't be here as long as Randle El will be.