Offseason personnel strategy

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by That Guy

first - mccune is a workout warrior and he's 28, that's not young. when we drafted him he was already 26.

your contract numbers - pierce got a 30mill 6 year deal, no idea where you got the 7mill figure.

also, saying you'd like to trade down is nice, but which players are you looking at? there's gotta be someone there worth taking, and trading down does (i believe) end up giving denver the option to swap picks if we end up with a low first rounder.

we'll get NOTHING for archuleta or carter - even as 2year vet min deals for the new team they're not worth much above the 5th round, and each would result in a huge cap hit.

don't fantasize too much about smoot he's the nickel corner in minnesota now and he'd have cost more than springs. it was a good call to let him go, though we could have signed andre dyson for the same amount as rogers and still drafted merriman (dyson isn't a big tackler though, so GW was probably down on that ).

I don't think carter is solid at DE either. last game, wynn and daniels were started (and surprise, we played better on the DL), with carter coming in as a situational guy.

personally, i'm still riding the gaines/clements bandwagon.

There is some legitimate criticism here. The Pierce number I pulled from an inaccurate Web site and the new estimate I found was 6-years at $26 million with $6.5 in guaranteed bonuses. For the signing bonus we paid Archuleta though, we still could have covered both Pierce's and Clark's bonuses.

Regarding your point about trading down, I'm not suggesting the front office should arbitrarily trade down. If there is an offer made that allows them to recoup some lost material, I think they should take advantage. I don't believe you trade down to take someone; you trade down because you don't have an impending need to take someone where you are at and someone else values the pick more than you do. We have been on the other side of this equation quite a bit and I'm suggesting that a strategy that values the draft would compel the front office to look for ways of increasing draft potential, not decreasing draft potential.

Regarding your point about Smoot, I don't look at this as strictly a dollars and cents issue. I think it is about taking care of your own and the net effect that this has on your entire team and the brand loyalty of an organization. If players see that other Redskins are playing well, and are rewarded accordingly, the net effect is going to be positive. That being said, I do tend to agree that the Smoot contract was excessive. I do feel that if he is cut and comes available, I feel as though the Skins should think very carefully about bringing him back.

Regarding your point about Carter, I really think the verdict is out. Of course I respect your doubts and they are well founded.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

There is some legitimate criticism here. The Pierce number I pulled from an inaccurate Web site and the new estimate I found was 6-years at $26 million with $6.5 in guaranteed bonuses. For the signing bonus we paid Archuleta though, we still could have covered both Pierce's and Clark's bonuses.

Regarding your point about trading down, I'm not suggesting the front office should arbitrarily trade down. If there is an offer made that allows them to recoup some lost material, I think they should take advantage. I don't believe you trade down to take someone; you trade down because you don't have an impending need to take someone where you are at and someone else values the pick more than you do. We have been on the other side of this equation quite a bit and I'm suggesting that a strategy that values the draft would compel the front office to look for ways of increasing draft potential, not decreasing draft potential.

Regarding your point about Smoot, I don't look at this as strictly a dollars and cents issue. I think it is about taking care of your own and the net effect that this has on your entire team and the brand loyalty of an organization. If players see that other Redskins are playing well, and are rewarded accordingly, the net effect is going to be positive. That being said, I do tend to agree that the Smoot contract was excessive. I do feel that if he is cut and comes available, I feel as though the Skins should think very carefully about bringing him back.

Regarding your point about Carter, I really think the verdict is out. Of course I respect your doubts and they are well founded.

I am with you 100% that we should have kept Pierce and Smoot. I think the salary cap was a little tight that year so they let Pierce and Smoot go. Although they did eat Coles' contract and sign Santana to an extension when they could have let him play for the number that the Jets had on his last year. I guess you could argue that if they signed Smoot and Pierce, they could have traded down and then they wouldn't have had to pay ninth draft pick money.

Anyway, you can't change it now. I just wish they could play as hard as they did against the Panthers on a consistent basis. With that effort they easily would have beaten Minny, Tennessee (who gets better every week), and the lowly Bucs. But then we would still have Brunell calling the plays...