Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Redskins Locker Room


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack (1) Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-07-2012, 01:21 PM   #1171
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terpfan76 View Post
I'm just not interested in drafting a 28 year old to be our "qb of the future". That is where the Weinke comparison comes in. A ton of picks for Luck >>>>>>>>> one pick on Weedon.
I totally understand, and I'm of the opinion that I would not want the team to toss out 4 draft picks plus from the first two rounds of this year and next just to get a QB they really don't know how well he will do in the NFL. On top of that even if I use my common sense and say he's got talent I don't see it making a whole mess of difference if the coaching staff is going to expect him to sit in the pocket to deliver the ball. To me ...

Mobile QB means rolling him out more or more shot gun situations so he can run if need be. Beck being the more mobile QB was made to sit in the pocket more often then Grossman. It really didn't make much sense. So if the team is not going to use the mobility then don't draft him. Save your picks and get more weapons to put with some other QB better suited for the pocket passing role.
SBXVII is offline  

Advertisements
Old 02-07-2012, 01:25 PM   #1172
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689 View Post
So what would you guys rather have:
QB Robert Griffin III
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley

or

QB Peyton Manning
QB Ryan "Clark Kent" Tannehill
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Justin Blackmon
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley
I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.

Last edited by SBXVII; 02-07-2012 at 01:29 PM.
SBXVII is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 01:32 PM   #1173
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,881
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
I'm not totally sure of this, so I defer to CC. But I believe that incentive laden deals, particularly if the incentives are reasonably attainable, are potentially more damaging to your salary cap than regular deals
Ya I'm not sure if the rules have changed with the new CBA, but in the past any incentive that was "likely to be earned" counted against the cap right away. So incentives wouldn't help the cap situation too much.

They could use "unlikely to be earned" incentives. These only count on the cap if/when they are achieved. But if they are "unlikely" to be reached then Peyton might not want them in the first place.

Of course the ultimate "incentive" is to give Peyton very little guaranteed money up front, but then give him huge salaries every year. So basically if Peyton is still playing he will continue to earn these huge salaries every year. Once we have to trade/cut him it wouldn't hurt our cap at all since salary is not guaranteed.
CrazyCanuck is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:54 PM   #1174
The Starter
 
44Deezel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Davidsonville
Posts: 1,662
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.
So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.
__________________
I am a system poster.
44Deezel is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:56 PM   #1175
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,659
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:03 PM   #1176
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44Deezel View Post
So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.
Franchise QB trumps all other needs. RG3 > Tannehill. Can get WR's and any other position in free agency...

Option #2 is not a bad one though...I just prefer 10+ years of RG3 over the Manning/Tannehill combo.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/

Last edited by celts32; 02-07-2012 at 03:04 PM.
celts32 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:04 PM   #1177
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 11,888
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag59 View Post
Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.
Unlikely incentive, I like it.
mooby is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:08 PM   #1178
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,524
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck View Post
Ya I'm not sure if the rules have changed with the new CBA, but in the past any incentive that was "likely to be earned" counted against the cap right away. So incentives wouldn't help the cap situation too much.

They could use "unlikely to be earned" incentives. These only count on the cap if/when they are achieved. But if they are "unlikely" to be reached then Peyton might not want them in the first place.

Of course the ultimate "incentive" is to give Peyton very little guaranteed money up front, but then give him huge salaries every year. So basically if Peyton is still playing he will continue to earn these huge salaries every year. Once we have to trade/cut him it wouldn't hurt our cap at all since salary is not guaranteed.
Ahhhh I see! I didn't realize the incentives counted toward the salary cap. I always thought it was just purely the guaranteed money. In that case, then I change my mind on the incentive based contract.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is online now  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:12 PM   #1179
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,678
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
Ahhhh I see! I didn't realize the incentives counted toward the salary cap. I always thought it was just purely the guaranteed money. In that case, then I change my mind on the incentive based contract.
I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:24 PM   #1180
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,524
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think
Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is online now  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:26 PM   #1181
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,678
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?
Um ask Canuck
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:28 PM   #1182
Camp Scrub
 
Higskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Metro area
Posts: 74
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think
Yep...per new 10 year CBA -

(c) Incentives

(i) Any and all incentive amounts, including but not limited to performance bonuses, shall be included in Team Salary if they are "likely to be earned" during such League Year based upon the player's and/or Team's performance during the prior year.

(ii) At the end of the season, if performance bonuses actually earned resulted in a Tearm's paying Salary in excess of the Salary Cap, then the amount by which the Team exceeded the Salary Cap as a result of such actually paid performance bonuses shall be subtracted from the Tearm's Salary Cap for the next Lague Year.

(iii) At the end of a season, if performance bonuses previously included in a Tearm's Team Salary but not actually earned exceed performance bonuses actually earned but not previously included in Tearm Salary, an amount shall be added to the Team's Salary Cap for the next League Year equaling the amount, if any, by which such overage exceeds the Team's Room under the Salary Cap at the end of a season.
__________________
The future is now ~ George Allen

Last edited by Higskin; 02-07-2012 at 03:31 PM.
Higskin is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:32 PM   #1183
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,524
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Um ask Canuck
Paging CrazyCanuck...paging CrazyCanuck!
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is online now  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:39 PM   #1184
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,635
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag59 View Post
Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.
Excellent idea. The De Soto Clause.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:41 PM   #1185
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,881
Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?
Higskin's post seems to confirm the incentive rules haven't changed.

It's not that complicated:

- If an incentive is "likely to be earned' it counts right away against the cap, with a credit the following year if the incentive is unreached.

- If an incentive is "unlikely to be earned" it won't count against the cap in the current year. It will count against the cap the following year if the incentive is reached.

... and any incentive involving the Redskins winning the Super Bowl would definitely be deemed "unlikely".
CrazyCanuck is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.42899 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25