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

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.

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

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.


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.


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.

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.

Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine

"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.

Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine

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

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.

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...

He signed on March 2
thanks