Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


We must draft better...

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2005, 11:31 PM   #61
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,636
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifetimeskin
OH WELL, I was looking for a discussion on our draft experience, and it started out that way, but by god, "CAP HELL" took over. I sure would like to have a discussion on our drafting. I am not sure where to get the info for other teams, but it would be worth while to compare with maybe the feagles, the giants, the cowgirls, and the pats.

If anyone has a website, I'll do the analysis!
LOL. Maybe next time start a thread called "Cap Hell"...then we can discuss our draft history.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 12-14-2005, 02:09 AM   #62
Special Teams
 
bedlamVR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 389
Re: We must draft better...

As for the original discusion on the draft the leugue is littered with first day draft busts and really it is day one where you have to make your choices count and in that regard I belive we havent done too bad . One problem is fans have no patience in regard to player development already Taylor Jaobs is written off, Betts is written off etc etc .

Yes it is good to find good players on day 2 but equallly if you can get equal value from UDFA isn't that a good way to go too ? Ryan Clark, Lamar Marshell, Chris Clemons, Demetric Evans, Ade Jimoha (makes a good 4th CB in this legue), Aki Smith, Cedric Killings even the likes of mike Sellars and James Thrash were orginally UDFAs by this team .

Another point is FA and traded players can make a winning team . Just looking at QB a key area talked about in the draft Jake Delhomme took the panthers to the super bowl wasnt drafted by them, Matt Hasselbeck was in Green Bay, Brad Johnson took the bucs to the superbowl and he started life where he is now with the Vikings .

The point is there is always more than one way to field a competitive team and those who live throught the mantra of draft draft draft have to live with the consiquence and be prepared to wait 3-4 years to see thier draft classes pan out .
bedlamVR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 02:23 AM   #63
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,636
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bedlamVR
As for the original discusion on the draft the leugue is littered with first day draft busts and really it is day one where you have to make your choices count and in that regard I belive we havent done too bad . One problem is fans have no patience in regard to player development already Taylor Jaobs is written off, Betts is written off etc etc .

Yes it is good to find good players on day 2 but equallly if you can get equal value from UDFA isn't that a good way to go too ? Ryan Clark, Lamar Marshell, Chris Clemons, Demetric Evans, Ade Jimoha (makes a good 4th CB in this legue), Aki Smith, Cedric Killings even the likes of mike Sellars and James Thrash were orginally UDFAs by this team .

Another point is FA and traded players can make a winning team . Just looking at QB a key area talked about in the draft Jake Delhomme took the panthers to the super bowl wasnt drafted by them, Matt Hasselbeck was in Green Bay, Brad Johnson took the bucs to the superbowl and he started life where he is now with the Vikings .

The point is there is always more than one way to field a competitive team and those who live throught the mantra of draft draft draft have to live with the consiquence and be prepared to wait 3-4 years to see thier draft classes pan out .
That sums up my, and many other people's, feelings perfectly. The draft isn't the end all, be all answer to everything. We should just lock the thread now because that was a great post...because I agreed with it, haha
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 05:01 AM   #64
The Starter
 
RedskinPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Camino,Ca
Posts: 1,174
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss
Well most of them aren't on our roster, or sitting the bench or practice squad somewhere's else.

I remember Desmond to, that's another reason I worry about Gibbs ability to judge talent. lol

You are Both wrong! I remember back about The Howard pick. Gibbs didn't want him. The facts are when Desmond was timed after he was picked Gibbs said "is that all he has"? That pick was all the FO!!! As for Gibbs picking talent we will see!!! That first round pick we gave up on top of others for Campbell will come due in april!!!
RedskinPete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 06:22 AM   #65
Special Teams
 
PhxRedSkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 39
Posts: 142
Re: We must draft better...

The draft will always be a crap shoot. No one can blame any team for taking a Heisman winner(Desmond). They just always seem to be busts. We'll all see where Reggie ends up....However, how can we complain at this moment? Cooley, Taylor, and Rogers(already) are household names. Not bad in my opinion. McCune and Broughton may become household sooner than later. Btw how about the Moss/Coles trade for free agency!
Cowpunks will be kicked all around sunday! GO SKINS!
PhxRedSkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 07:42 AM   #66
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,264
Re: We must draft better...

#56, i can find you other capologists that say its not a big problem, just cause one person agrees with you doesn't make it true.

as far as the original topic, look at the bengals, when i went over their roster, 30+ players have been around over 3 years and there's a ton of draft picks in there too. most importantly, their high picks (CP, CJ) have been absolute slam dunks, and the lower round guys make up very cheap depth on their roster.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 08:17 AM   #67
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,297
Re: We must draft better...

I love how people just can't let go of Desmond Howard. One draft bust and it's tainted Gibbs ability to "judge talent" for the rest of his life. Give me a break.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 08:25 AM   #68
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 40
Posts: 1,788
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
ARRRGGHHHH. Don't you see? It was the housecleaning that was supposed to send us into cap hell. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Supposedly, when we cut Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith and George it was going to cause such a large cap hit because their prorated bonuses would be accelerated. In turn, the accelerated bonuses would cause such a big cap hit that we would be forced to make wholesale cuts to get under the cap. HOW MANY PLAYERS WERE CUT B/C OF THE "CAP HELL" CAUSED BY DEION, CARRIER AND SMITH???

Do you even understand the articles you posted??? Could you at least try for some consistency in your arguments? I know that seems to be asking for a lot, but others in this thread seem to manage it.
i just read this today, so sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. The accelerated portions were spread over the two year period since it was after June 1. so the cap hits were not as big as a 1 year hit, obviously. Cutting people is what saves money on the cap. If a player is due 10 million on the cap, they generally cut him because they can spread what ever portion of the signing is left over that year and next,again depending on when he is cut. Deion screwed us by retiring, but the other guys were able to be spread over two years. Dont sound so rude, its just a discussion. You sound a little too stressed out. relax.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 08:29 AM   #69
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 40
Posts: 1,788
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
"Cap Hell" may not be what everybody perceives it to be -- everyone uses San Fransisco as the ultimate example. They had to purge their roster, now look at them.

While the Skins haven't fallen to that point, our version of Cap Hell might be less debilitating, but still negates our ability to keep the players once they become free agents -- Smoot and Pierce are the most recent examples. Can you imagine how retaining those players could have helped us out now?
Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 08:44 AM   #70
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,293
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic
Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.
But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 09:04 AM   #71
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 40
Posts: 1,788
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
On the Warpath's main page you'll see a link to the left hand side of the screen for Salary Cap Info. Click that and you'll get a set of spreadsheets with tabs at the bottom. Click on the cap summary sheet to see the players' cap figures for each season. These sheets are managed by CrazyCanuck.

I'm not saying there are different rules for the Redskins. I'm saying that the Redskins have not put themselves in the precarious situation that you are making them out to be in. When you examine the numbers, you can tell me where the major problems are that will cause us to dismantle our squad. Because I don't see it.

OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 09:07 AM   #72
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 40
Posts: 1,788
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.
Not again today!! He just said will our limited amount of cap space, we sometimes, SOMETIMES can not afford to keep certain players. I agreed with his statement, how am I missing the point, HOW!! I didn't make a point, I agreed with his!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 09:49 AM   #73
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,293
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic
OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.
You need to check out the Release Fee tab. It's very revealing. It lists, for each year, the guy's expected cap hit for that year and the "release fee." The release fee represents the cap hit we'd carry for that player if we cut him or traded him that year. So basically, if the release fee is lower than the cap hit in that year, you can SAVE CAP ROOM by getting rid of that player.

With that in mind let's examine Brunell. In 2006, Brunell's cap hit will be $5.4 million if he's on the team, and his release fee would hit our cap with $5.7 million if we cut him. So we wouldn't want to cut him in 2006, because it would cost more to cut him than to keep him. Plus the intention was to have Brunell around as starter for 3 years. Sure enough, in 2007, the release fee would represent a savings over his 2007 cap hit. In 2007 he's scheduled to hit us for $6.6 million, but releasing him would hit us with only $4.3 million in dead money. That's a lot more palatable than something like Coles' $9 million.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. When we do eventually have to eat a hit on these guys, the hits aren't as big. The players signed under Spurrier like Coles and Trotter resulted in crippling blows to our salary cap. But Brunell won't, and that was one of the signings people were complaining about most.

Let's consider the rest of the players Gibbs has signed. Let's say we cut them in 2007. The most dead money we'd carry in 2007 would be for Carlos Rogers or Santana Moss, who would both hit us with $7 million in dead cap money. The rest would be like $4 million or less. Now, can you imagine us cutting Moss or Rogers by 2007? I can't. This is proof positive that we're in great shape. Samuels was a re-sign under Gibbs, he'd represent a big cap hit if we had to cut him. But he's such a rock and always plays hurt, the chance of cutting him seems pretty low.

Nobody has reasonable potential to decimate our salary cap, with the exception of Arrington. Arrington's contract is the one that causes most concern, but mostly because he is now developing a reputation as an injury-prone guy. But if you only have one player on your team that represents a risk of decimating your cap, you're not doing too bad. Again, we're not perfect. But we're in good shape overall.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 09:52 AM   #74
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,556
Re: We must draft better...

Ladies and Gentlemen -

I believe we have found the true meaning of Question 3.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2005, 09:56 AM   #75
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,293
Re: We must draft better...

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic
But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.
If you're figuring a 10% rise in the salary cap each year, the 2008 cap will be $113 million. Seems about right given the new TV deals and such, it might even be higher. But I doubt lower than $113 million.

The $70 million that is currently wrapped up in those 11 players is mostly base salary and roster bonuses. That would easily be restructured by then, moving most of the money into the future years. But before you start, please spare me the sermon on delaying the cap hits in this fashion. As long as you don't delay TOO MUCH of it, you stay in great shape.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:15 PM.


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 0.40736 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