Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes? [Archive] - Page 5

#56fanatic

12-08-2005, 03:14 PM

"Teams with constant roster turn over DO NOT win." I am sorry but that statement is just idoitic. Every team, winning or losing has to deal with "constant roster turn over". Let's check the books shall we?

Philly - Wonderful cap space - maintained by constant turnover. They replaced both their CB's last year, made big free agent DL and WR signings, and have been playing ring around the rosie with their LB corp for years. Yet they made it to the SB last year.

Indy - Constantly in "cap hell" due to Peyton's contract (and now Marvin's). Constantly losing decent D starters b/c their offense is too expensive (seems to me they lost a damn good up and coming LB to free agency a couple years ago - Marcus Washington, heard of him? In fact, I think they also lost their starting MLB that year to the Jags). They have added new people - Cory Simon, you know that young DL guy that used to play for Eagles before the birds "managed" their cap by letting him go? For all the roster moves, Indy made it to the conference championship game. On top of that, the turnover has mostly come on the defensive side of the ball which has shown the most improvement.

New England - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? This is aquisition central. They are constantly signing and losing players - Ty Law, their pro bowl guard who signed with Detroit (don't remember the name), David Patten - and who was that old, over the hill, problem child running back they added to their team last year at the cost of a 2nd round draft pick and that help carry them to the S-Bowl? Cory something... Didnt he play, and star, for another team you site as lacking turnover? Perhaps...

Cinci - Marvin came and turned the whole roster over. Then this year and last continued to cut and pare add and subtract in less dramatic fashion - for all the turnover the last couple of years, they seem to be doing alright.

Jacksonville - Gotta admit a little fuzzy on this one but it seems to me they lost a number one WR (McCardell) and paid a big price for a bust DE (Hugh Douglas - also "managed" by the Eagles). And BTW, it's not like this team has been a powerhouse over the last few years - they seem to be winning now despite the turnover from the last couple of years.

I could go on forever. Turnover in the NFL is now a constant - Every team loses players they want to keep. Every team makes decisions as to where to take those losses. It's not that teams with roster turnover don't win, it's that teams who don't make good roster decisions (regardless of the price) as they constantly build and re-build teams lose. Which brings me to ...

Other than Steven Davis, who of any signifigance has been cut recently? Smoot and Pierce? They weren't cuts - they were given competitive offers and went elsewhere for more money. Thus, following your advice not to overpay - we lost two starters.

You mean like this year? Which was BTW, the second year after Gibbs came in - made a splash and got some quality FA's at a decent price (it seems to me that Gibbs and crew got Washington and Springs rather than overpay for Kearse), took some flyers on injured players before settling down this offseason.

What huge signings did they have this year that cost them players? Moss? That was kinda unexpectedly forced on us by Coles and, even so, appears to be a deal worth it. Brunnell? You got me on that one, but 1) that was Gibbs first foray into the new NFL and 2) I think we like Brunnell now. Overpaid - probably, but injurying our ability to sign needed players? No. Only if we had continued to overpay after Brunnell would it have been a problem.

As to draft picks, I sympathize with you on that one. I agree that we seem to be a bit cavalier about these. At the same time, the only real significant draft choice deal this year was the Campbell deal. If he pans out to be the QB of the future for the next 8-10 years, however, the trade was well worth it. Especially if we do well enough to make it a low first rounder.

IF cap hell strikes, I will do a mea culpa with everybody else. But for now, it seems to me that, on offense, we will have the same starting QB, RB's, Guards and Tackles (but for injury), TE for three years running (including 2006) and likely the same WR's and C two years in a row. On defense, Taylor, Arrington, Washington, Springs, Griffin, Marshall, Wynn (I think both he and Daniels will be back) will be three year starters.

Most of your criticism is about pre-Gibbs tendencies which appeared to be and were criticized as fantasy football GM'ing. It seems to me that Gibbs learned a little from year one to year two. Why don't we give him the same break you appear to be giving Del Rio and M. Lewis?

You dont get what I am saying. In regards to you statements, I will respond.

Philly, they draft core players and pick up the 1 or 2 free agents that put them over the top. Not every year, once in a while. Example : Donovan, westbrook, trotter, douglas, corey simon, another DT which slips my mind, both corners, which are not there now, dawkins, all drafted, 3 straight NFC championships. then Free agent pick up of TO and Kerse, reselt : Superbowl. so 2 free agent pickups, key players drafted.
Indy, Peyton, edge, harrison, wayne, pollard(not there now) clark, oline,mostly drafted, D : Doss, most recently drafted, corners, and Corey Simon picked up via Free agency, result : defense playing good, 12-0. Again, mainly key players drafted, 1 or 2 free agent pickups.

New England. Do we even have to go to this one. Everyone drafted, won a superbowl, got Corey dillon, won another two. (Ideal organization, draft players late that have an impact, spend WISELY, build a team of continuity and famaliarity)

Cincy, all key players are draft picks, Palmer, Johnson, TJ, Henry, Rudy. He picked up a few key players on D, but mostly they are all young and drafted, result, 9-3, going to playoffs.

Jacksonville - Key players drafted, few pick ups.

Not to overpay players : Brunell 35 yr old QB, 43 million + 3rd rounder(is that not too much?) 30 yr old CB in springs, 10 million signing bonus(is that not too much?) Trading of a 2nd pick + Bailey for Portis, too much given up!. Walt Harris, making almost 3 million a year, too much. I am not saying these players are not playing well and that I dont want them on the team. Just stating we overpaid them. Also, gave up a 3rd and a 1st for a QB # 3 on the depth chart. when you think about it between Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell we have 4 picks, 3 number 1's and a number 3 tied up in those players, not to mention the money we gave to Brunell.

Regarding this years draft. I think we should have taken a DE with the first pick, and got a quality CB in the 2nd. I am not going to complain about Rogers, I think he will be quality. Though Spears and Ware will now be eating us alive twice a year with the cowboys.

If we about building for the future, then why do we trade picks away for a 35 year old QB to be our starter. Why do you yank your started 1 quarter into the season. Why do you waiste another 1st round pick on another QB. Future building is not in the organization. I give Marvin and Del Rio credit and the owner credit for knowing it was going to be a few years of rebuilding with these young guys, then we will start winning when they grow and learn together. We have not done that since Danny bought the team. If we had done that from the get go with Lavar, Samuels, Jansen, we could have won something by now instead of spending money on guys that arenot here now and guys that probably wont be here in a year or two.


	Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum > Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes? Log in Looks like Skins are $10 mil over cap next year, who goes? Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 dmek25 12-08-2005, 03:00 PM i wouldnt call jansens year stellar,especially after the oakland game.but i would leave the o line alone(willing samuels will restructure)bowen gone i would keep harris(as a nickel back-doesnt make alot)lavar stays but with restructure,otherwise-gone.the biggest thing is those 2 guys reworking there deals.everything else is chump change MTK 12-08-2005, 03:02 PM Guys, Samuels base # for 2006 is $1M because he just signed a new deal this offseason. #56fanatic 12-08-2005, 03:14 PM "Teams with constant roster turn over DO NOT win." I am sorry but that statement is just idoitic. Every team, winning or losing has to deal with "constant roster turn over". Let's check the books shall we? Philly - Wonderful cap space - maintained by constant turnover. They replaced both their CB's last year, made big free agent DL and WR signings, and have been playing ring around the rosie with their LB corp for years. Yet they made it to the SB last year. Indy - Constantly in "cap hell" due to Peyton's contract (and now Marvin's). Constantly losing decent D starters b/c their offense is too expensive (seems to me they lost a damn good up and coming LB to free agency a couple years ago - Marcus Washington, heard of him? In fact, I think they also lost their starting MLB that year to the Jags). They have added new people - Cory Simon, you know that young DL guy that used to play for Eagles before the birds "managed" their cap by letting him go? For all the roster moves, Indy made it to the conference championship game. On top of that, the turnover has mostly come on the defensive side of the ball which has shown the most improvement. New England - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? This is aquisition central. They are constantly signing and losing players - Ty Law, their pro bowl guard who signed with Detroit (don't remember the name), David Patten - and who was that old, over the hill, problem child running back they added to their team last year at the cost of a 2nd round draft pick and that help carry them to the S-Bowl? Cory something... Didnt he play, and star, for another team you site as lacking turnover? Perhaps... Cinci - Marvin came and turned the whole roster over. Then this year and last continued to cut and pare add and subtract in less dramatic fashion - for all the turnover the last couple of years, they seem to be doing alright. Jacksonville - Gotta admit a little fuzzy on this one but it seems to me they lost a number one WR (McCardell) and paid a big price for a bust DE (Hugh Douglas - also "managed" by the Eagles). And BTW, it's not like this team has been a powerhouse over the last few years - they seem to be winning now despite the turnover from the last couple of years. I could go on forever. Turnover in the NFL is now a constant - Every team loses players they want to keep. Every team makes decisions as to where to take those losses. It's not that teams with roster turnover don't win, it's that teams who don't make good roster decisions (regardless of the price) as they constantly build and re-build teams lose. Which brings me to ... Other than Steven Davis, who of any signifigance has been cut recently? Smoot and Pierce? They weren't cuts - they were given competitive offers and went elsewhere for more money. Thus, following your advice not to overpay - we lost two starters. You mean like this year? Which was BTW, the second year after Gibbs came in - made a splash and got some quality FA's at a decent price (it seems to me that Gibbs and crew got Washington and Springs rather than overpay for Kearse), took some flyers on injured players before settling down this offseason. What huge signings did they have this year that cost them players? Moss? That was kinda unexpectedly forced on us by Coles and, even so, appears to be a deal worth it. Brunnell? You got me on that one, but 1) that was Gibbs first foray into the new NFL and 2) I think we like Brunnell now. Overpaid - probably, but injurying our ability to sign needed players? No. Only if we had continued to overpay after Brunnell would it have been a problem. As to draft picks, I sympathize with you on that one. I agree that we seem to be a bit cavalier about these. At the same time, the only real significant draft choice deal this year was the Campbell deal. If he pans out to be the QB of the future for the next 8-10 years, however, the trade was well worth it. Especially if we do well enough to make it a low first rounder. IF cap hell strikes, I will do a mea culpa with everybody else. But for now, it seems to me that, on offense, we will have the same starting QB, RB's, Guards and Tackles (but for injury), TE for three years running (including 2006) and likely the same WR's and C two years in a row. On defense, Taylor, Arrington, Washington, Springs, Griffin, Marshall, Wynn (I think both he and Daniels will be back) will be three year starters. Most of your criticism is about pre-Gibbs tendencies which appeared to be and were criticized as fantasy football GM'ing. It seems to me that Gibbs learned a little from year one to year two. Why don't we give him the same break you appear to be giving Del Rio and M. Lewis? You dont get what I am saying. In regards to you statements, I will respond. Philly, they draft core players and pick up the 1 or 2 free agents that put them over the top. Not every year, once in a while. Example : Donovan, westbrook, trotter, douglas, corey simon, another DT which slips my mind, both corners, which are not there now, dawkins, all drafted, 3 straight NFC championships. then Free agent pick up of TO and Kerse, reselt : Superbowl. so 2 free agent pickups, key players drafted. Indy, Peyton, edge, harrison, wayne, pollard(not there now) clark, oline,mostly drafted, D : Doss, most recently drafted, corners, and Corey Simon picked up via Free agency, result : defense playing good, 12-0. Again, mainly key players drafted, 1 or 2 free agent pickups. New England. Do we even have to go to this one. Everyone drafted, won a superbowl, got Corey dillon, won another two. (Ideal organization, draft players late that have an impact, spend WISELY, build a team of continuity and famaliarity) Cincy, all key players are draft picks, Palmer, Johnson, TJ, Henry, Rudy. He picked up a few key players on D, but mostly they are all young and drafted, result, 9-3, going to playoffs. Jacksonville - Key players drafted, few pick ups. Not to overpay players : Brunell 35 yr old QB, 43 million + 3rd rounder(is that not too much?) 30 yr old CB in springs, 10 million signing bonus(is that not too much?) Trading of a 2nd pick + Bailey for Portis, too much given up!. Walt Harris, making almost 3 million a year, too much. I am not saying these players are not playing well and that I dont want them on the team. Just stating we overpaid them. Also, gave up a 3rd and a 1st for a QB # 3 on the depth chart. when you think about it between Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell we have 4 picks, 3 number 1's and a number 3 tied up in those players, not to mention the money we gave to Brunell. Regarding this years draft. I think we should have taken a DE with the first pick, and got a quality CB in the 2nd. I am not going to complain about Rogers, I think he will be quality. Though Spears and Ware will now be eating us alive twice a year with the cowboys. If we about building for the future, then why do we trade picks away for a 35 year old QB to be our starter. Why do you yank your started 1 quarter into the season. Why do you waiste another 1st round pick on another QB. Future building is not in the organization. I give Marvin and Del Rio credit and the owner credit for knowing it was going to be a few years of rebuilding with these young guys, then we will start winning when they grow and learn together. We have not done that since Danny bought the team. If we had done that from the get go with Lavar, Samuels, Jansen, we could have won something by now instead of spending money on guys that arenot here now and guys that probably wont be here in a year or two. 12thMan 12-08-2005, 03:16 PM i wouldnt call jansens year stellar,especially after the oakland game.but i would leave the o line alone(willing samuels will restructure)bowen gone i would keep harris(as a nickel back-doesnt make alot)lavar stays but with restructure,otherwise-gone.the biggest thing is those 2 guys reworking there deals.everything else is chump change I agree, I would leave the o-line alone despite the play of the tackles. I think they get even better next year if they stay together. Keep in mind, this unit, so far, got through the season injury free. I think that's the biggest thing working for them next year - more continuity. That Guy 12-08-2005, 03:47 PM This is the same crap I talk about everyday. Look at all the people that are potential cuts. It is rediculous to build a franchise with constant turnover. It has to happen every year because... no it doesn't happen because of drafting, it happens to everyone (if you draft someone, someone else has to go, which also means turnover). Its the life of free agency, its been 14 years now, please get used to it ;) That Guy 12-08-2005, 03:52 PM Jansen has had a stellar year, with two broken thumbs. In point, 1 penalty all year long, a false start in week 5. Samuels not quite as good, but solid. wow, 1 penalty, i guess giving up sacks and letting DEs rip by you doesn't matter if you only have one penalty ;) CrazyCanuck 12-08-2005, 03:57 PM Didn't Samuels just restructure his contract last offseason? I'm not the biggest CS fan, but I would be surprised if he left Samuels just signed a new deal prior to 2005. We paid a lot, but since we backed ourselves into a corner with CS, we really had no choice. His cap numbers are big and I don't see any restructuring for 2006. 12thMan 12-08-2005, 04:00 PM wow, 1 penalty, i guess giving up sacks and letting DEs rip by you doesn't matter if you only have one penalty ;) I would agree, Jansen's year has been less than stellar. Granted at times he has been dominant, but during key times in the game he as well as Samuels have given up monstrous sacks. Additionally, Derrick Dockery has only had a couple of penalties the entire year, if that many, so we can't judge performance on penalties alone. CrazyCanuck 12-08-2005, 04:01 PM As for Arrington, his 2006 salary is only $545K so not exactly a great restructure candidate. If I had to guess, I'd say we let Lavar go this offseason, eat his $12M deadcap hit and get him off the books for the future. CrazyCanuck 12-08-2005, 04:06 PM As for other potential 2006 moves I see: Cuts/Trades: Ramsey Noble Hall Harris Bowen Patten Raymer Thrash Restructures: Brunell Jansen Thomas (ie same guys who restructured last year)