View Single Post
Old 11-19-2007, 03:24 PM   #5
Schneed10
A Dude
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 12,458
Re: Peter King on The Skins - Future Cap Trouble

Quote:
Originally Posted by #56fanatic View Post
i wont get into a lenghty discussion on this either. The way things are done now is the reason we see our roster changes every few years. I hope things change in the near future. I am kind of tired of retooling the roster every few years. The signings of Cooley, Sellers, Betts is in the right direction. Keeping draft picks and using them next year will hopefully stop all the overpaid signings. I do think our FO does a good job of working the cap figures, but the costly signings of Lloyd, Arch, Brunell (money and picks) ect hurt us more in the long run because of dead money. cutting lloyd is like 7 million in dead money next year. Arch has to be costing some money too.
Can't argue with any of this, except to correct that Arch is costing us much. We farmed $5 million in Archuleta dead money off to the Bears. In the grand scheme, Arch is barely a blip on our dead-money radar.

I think the team needed to make free agent acquisitions mainly because Spurrier didn't manage to leave the team chock full of talent. The 'Skins had to make some free agent moves and make some trades to get the players they liked. Those 2004 moves were pretty solid, all in all. But they whiffed miserably on the Archuleta, Lloyd, and Duckett moves, which really hurt the team's depth.

From what I've seen, they now are liking the guys they've drafted, which wasn't the case when Gibbs first took over. Now they're managing the team quite a bit better, IMO.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.79821 seconds with 10 queries