rooting for Goliath

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

But if you don't pay, like the eagles, you can have a very high roster value, and a not so talented roster. Which is what the eagles lack of talent thread was all about.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

It's this last sentence that is the key here. The 1.1x and 0.9x makes the assumption that x = the salary cap limit. You're applying a salary constraint to a team that always has capacity, the Eagles don't ever take it up to that limit.

When ample salary capacity exists in your structure, there is no reason why you shouldn't go get the best player possible. Cost should not be an issue for you, you're not up against the cap constraint. So for the Eagles, whether Hutchinson is a bargain or not should not be an issue.

If we're talking about a team up against the salary cap, then player value relative to price has to enter the equation. But money should not be an object in this situation, yet the Eagles refuse to spend it, and it's easy to see why that would be frustrating.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4, and leaving 25mill unspent means you start at 0.75 instead of 1.00.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

With the on-field success the Eagles have enjoyed in recent years, their fans have no reason to be unhappy. They will sing a different tune if their team suffers some lean years.

What success? The only thing Philly cares about is finally getting a championship again......and it's a pretty bitter pill to swallow when you come up just short for four straight years and you look at your cap situation and realize that you're 15 million under the cap. Then the "what if's" start coming into play. What if they had actually spent some of that money on getting a 2nd top-rate WR, or a better pass rushing DE opposite Kearse, or keeping Trotter the first time around, or getting a stud RB, or .....

The "what if's" are neverending because the fans all know that their owner is not doing everything he can to get over that final hump. If you lose in the super bowl, and spent every last dime you had on getting the best talent available, then you can't point the finger at the greedy owner. However, if you lose in the Super Bowl in a close game with cap room left, you can't help but wonder if that cap space could have gotten you those one or two players that could have made the difference between winning and losing.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

What success? The only thing Philly cares about is finally getting a championship again.

Still, they've had more to cheer about than the fans of 27 or 28 other teams in recent years. That's the success I was referring to.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Still, they've had more to cheer about than the fans of 27 or 28 other teams in recent years. That's the success I was referring to.

Yeah, but dude get real. The Skins won a Super Bowl in 1991, and then in 1993 suffered one of the worst seasons in team history. Nobody in DC was saying "oh it's OK, we've had plenty to cheer about over the years." It doesn't work that way, you always want to win more. And the Eagles haven't even won one yet.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Still, they've had more to cheer about than the fans of 27 or 28 other teams in recent years. That's the success I was referring to.

I understand that, but the point of my post was to respond to your comment that: "With the on-field success the Eagles have enjoyed in recent years, their fans have no reason to be unhappy." I think, in fact, they do have a very good reason to be unhappy......and that is: they keep coming up just short of a championship, all the while not utilizing millions upon millions of dollars in available cap room. I would argue that in some respects (at least with regard to their owner and front office), they have more to complain about than us Skins fans.

[BigSKINBauer]

I'll find the numbers later but the "cheap" eagles outspent the skins last year. The skins cannot spend money every year. OVer a course of 5 years the spend the same amount as all teams. They, however, decide to spend extra one year and less another. Just a system, no advantage. This system has yet to prove itself.

[NAVYSKINSFAN]

I agree the eagles have been the beast of the east for a few years now. But that is about to change!

[dmek25]

they have been very lucky as far as drafting and plugging holes after some of their people left.i think their window is closing and they are heading towards the eagles of old(we all remember the years not long ago when they SUCKED)

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I just know that I for one, don't give two craps or expect a congratulations from the rest of the league. A Super Bowl win for the Skins is for me and for fans of the Skins only. Other team's fans will give you excuses all day, and it doesn't make me proud when being able to talk shit to opposing team's fans. It gives me pride to be able to recount the Super Bowl win with other Skins fans.

[Cooley 350Z]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I just know that I for one, don't give two craps or expect a congratulations from the rest of the league. A Super Bowl win for the Skins is for me and for fans of the Skins only. Other team's fans will give you excuses all day, and it doesn't make me proud when being able to talk shit to opposing team's fans. It gives me pride to be able to recount the Super Bowl win with other Skins fans.

Malcom's dead-on. Skins' fans are going to get it either way this season. If we do win it all, it will become in the eyes of other fans "the year the Redskins bought the Super Bowl". If we fall short, we'll be ridiculed for "The Deion Experiment pt. 2". Therefore all these fans & so-called "expert analysts" opinions mean squat to me.

[skinsgt]

I honestly would rather have a superbowl than be the cheap loser in the NFL that everybody likes. I honestly would rather have an owner that spends all his money on the team rather than one that tries to horde it.

The Yankees spend lots of money and win they still have fans and the redskins spend lots of money and win some of the time but we still have fans.

While I do think there is a lot of anti-redskins sentiment out there I don't think it is as bad as we think. And even if it is so what, we are doing what we need to do to win and that is most important.

[firstdown]

I have to say this is a sstupid thread. The Yankies do not have a cap so they can just spend and spend on any player they want. Yes we do go after alot of players in FA but its not that we go after them that makes the Skins look bad. Its the fact that we don't win with all the money and movement we do. When we win the SB people will start saying that our moves are paying off unlike the past and I think the will admire us more for making the moves. The cap gives the impression that every team has a level playing field so the Yankie thing just does not apply.

[That Guy]

I think if the skins won a SB, they'd get slurped just like every other SB winner and danny would become a good owner (magically) and a lot of the bashing would turn into "that's just how he works" stuff. Winning fixes everything.