Surprise Cuts

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by holcknowsbest

i wish they cut rogers. that guy makes me think gwill is a retard sometimes. hopefully he will play better this year because if he doesnt his ass will be gone next year. watch out for lemar marshall getting cut if rocky is as advertised......i still dont think rocky is good, he never stood out in college and so far he hasnt made any plays that make me think he will be good.......GOD I PRAY OUR D IS BADASS like the two years prior to last.

Why would they cut Rogers? Other than him not being able to catch an interception when it hits him in the hands, he really isn't that bad for a 3rd year corner. There are worse in the NFL than Rogers. Also, there is no way that they will cut Marshall. Think about it why cut a player that is as versitile as Marshall? He can play all three LB positions, weak side, middle, and strong side. Not only that but did you ever hear of having depth? I mean having a starter as your backup is a pretty good situation to be in...

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by holcknowsbest

i wish they cut rogers. that guy makes me think gwill is a retard sometimes. hopefully he will play better this year because if he doesnt his ass will be gone next year. watch out for lemar marshall getting cut if rocky is as advertised......i still dont think rocky is good, he never stood out in college and so far he hasnt made any plays that make me think he will be good.......GOD I PRAY OUR D IS BADASS like the two years prior to last.

First of all, Rogers isn't as bad as you think. Even if Rocky keeps his position Marshall will not be going anywhere because of his versatility and knowledge of the defense. While I agree that Rocky never really stood out in college the Redskins saw something in him to make him their 1st pick in the second round two drafts ago.

Notice the passes def last year.
NFL.com - Carlos Rogers
Notice what he said about Rocky. Go to the press confrence videos and look at the Greg Williams one on the 16th of June
Washington Redskins

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think Macklin was a min wage signing at a position we were desperate for depth for, and I think the fact that we signed Jeremetrius Butler, a better player, after we signed Macklin makes him expendable to say the least.

Macklin is on a one year deal. He'll have his shot in camp, but unless he improved immensely this offseason, he won't be taking Butler's roster spot, nor Jimoh's.

Well, under the salary cap rules, the people that are signed for the league min don't hit your salary cap numbers. They only count the top paid players (I forget the exact amount of people they count). So to drop Macklin would be stupid cause he doesn't cost us a thing.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, under the salary cap rules, the people that are signed for the league min don't hit your salary cap numbers. They only count the top paid players (I forget the exact amount of people they count). So to drop Macklin would be stupid cause he doesn't cost us a thing.

The Top 53 count towards the cap. So Macklin counts if he makes the final roster.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

The Top 53 count towards the cap. So Macklin counts if he makes the final roster.

Are you absolutely sure, I thought it was only 40-45 or so. I can't recall, but I thought it was in the 40's.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Are you absolutely sure, I thought it was only 40-45 or so. I can't recall, but I thought it was in the 40's.

I will double check for ya.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I will double check for ya.

In the Offseason its 51, during the regular season its 53 or all active players.
Ask The Commish.com - Salary Cap FAQ

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

In the Offseason its 51, during the regular season its 53 or all active players.
Ask The Commish.com - Salary Cap FAQ

That's a great link...thanks. there is a lot of info there.
I wonder if it was like that under the old CBA? Cause I distinctly remember it. Does anyone else remember that?

Well, then I take back the macklin comment...however, since you are required to hire someone at the league minimum, Macklin shouldn't be worried.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's a great link...thanks. there is a lot of info there.
I wonder if it was like that under the old CBA? Cause I distinctly remember it. Does anyone else remember that?

Well, then I take back the macklin comment...however, since you are required to hire someone at the league minimum, Macklin shouldn't be worried.

I believe that under the old CBA it might have been 45. But I'm not sure and I cannot find any facts to support it.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I believe that under the old CBA it might have been 45. But I'm not sure and I cannot find any facts to support it.

That sounds about right.

I just had no idea how much they changed in the new CBA.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That sounds about right.

I just had no idea how much they changed in the new CBA.

I was shocked at the teams that opposed it. Indy was one of them and at the time they needed more CAP relief than anyone. Maybe they were hoping that 07 would be an uncapped year who knows.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I was shocked at the teams that opposed it. Indy was one of them and at the time they needed more CAP relief than anyone. Maybe they were hoping that 07 would be an uncapped year who knows.

Yeah, you're probably right...but as you can see there were MANY things changed with the new CBA, so there was obviously something they didn't like.

[KLHJ2]

I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.

Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.

Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and

good post and link!

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I retract previous statement. They were against us who were against the new CBA.

Taken from Scout.com: NFL Haves, Have-Mores on Collision Course
It would appear that the higher-revenue teams have the advantage over the mere high revenue teams when it comes to determining what, if anything, will be done. It would take a 3/4 majority to enact any new proposal to split revenues. That means it takes only nine votes to prevent a change to the status quo. Reports are that seven teams are adamantly opposed to any changes in the current setup -- the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Texans. That means that they have to recruit just two more votes from a group that may include teams like the Bears, Seahawks, Bucs, and

haha, the entire nfc east.