Redskins ready to $pend?

[musicmaster45]

Paintrain i agree. Load Up Spend.i mean next years draft even with a top 5 QB (assuming we trade up or end up there ) we will have the rookie wage scale to lighten the burden of the pick. I mean use this to speed up rebuilding.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Do people realize that bypassing the youngest and most talented free agent class EVER is just as harmful as foolishly spending?

We just drafted 11 or 12 young players that we should get signed and see what they have to offer. I want to draft players and give them a chance to succeed and create a family like locker room instead of just trying to pirate the best free agents like we always do.

Teams affected positively:
1. Washington Redskins: Owner Dan Snyder gave defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and cornerback DeAngelo Hall around $36 million in bonus money in 2010 to free up room to be a big spender in free agency in 2011. Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

Am I missing something, first it says that the 120 million cap would only give them 10 million of cap room, but then their payroll is 75.7 million and they need to spend 45 million. How do they only have 10 million of cap room but have to spend 45 million in payroll?

[Hog1]

What Paintrain is alluding to is that the FA market is another tool for success when used properly. Not to take advantage of this......talent pool for players that fit our needs if done in a fiscally responsible way would be foolish indeed.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

One might think it were easier to predict feedback on an opinion than franchise QBs

tell me why the worst teams always have high picks and the winning teams don't...

cuz of ONE magical pick that made the rest of the years' picks null/void?

Good thing I've got many scouts to predict luck in such high regard a year before he even comes out for me.
One pick doesn't magically change a franchise instantaneously (especially a qb). But those high picks build the foundation for the future and are the reason why the nfl is not like baseball where you know the red sox and yankees are going to be contenders every year. The nfl goes in cycles because over time the bad teams are bound to do well after getting high picks over and over. It's statistics and odds and just a matter of time.
Also, too many teams get the high picks at the wrong time, and end up reaching for a franchise qb, they want to see something in a guy that's not there, and that sets them back even further. This is the important year to get as high as possible with luck.
Also, many bad teams are bad teams because they are simply bad at drafting, even with improved odds at hitting well on high draft picks, some teams (i.e. detroit lions in millen era) just can't draft for shit no matter where they pick.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i'm a bit confused. why don't you just say that you hope the skins have a great season and at next years draft they need to do whatever they can to get andrew luck (trade draft picks/players to move up ...)

Cause that's not how the rebuilding process works. The amount it would take to get luck would be ridiculous...especially if we have a pretty good season. It would almost defeat the purpose. Yes a franchise qb is the most important part of building the franchise, but for our team to be truly great, he needs as many players around him as possible. Lets say we get the 18th pick next year. It would take two draft classes to trade up to get luck (that is at a minimum...especially because trading for high picks are even more costly now because of the rookie wage scale). I don't want to settle for pretty good, I want to have a great team. IMO if we are not contenders for the superbowl, it is a lost season. If I were a seattle fan this year, I would not be happy to make the playoffs knowing that we had no shot at making it all the way. I would have preferred to have lost that last game and pick 15 spots higher in every round. IMO we are not contendors this year. It is a lost season. I still will watch every game to see how we are doing and evaluate the state of our franchise, but it is not the same watching the games of a team that has no chance of completing the ultimate goal. Playing to win games mean nothing unless those games have meaning. The meaning is to get to and win a superbowl. Sorry I have high expectations, but winning games without meaning....just doesn't have very much meaning to me. I'd prefer to best position ourselves in a way that puts us in a position to make us contenders, and have every win, every game have meaning. IMO high draft picks is the best way to do that.

[NLC1054]

Um, every game and every win gets a closer to the playoffs and closer to the Super Bowl. You gotta win during the regular season to have an opportunity to get there. Every year there is one team that shocks everyone and has a big turn around. Why not the Redskins? Not saying it will happen, not even saying it's likely to happen.

But it seems silly to me to sit around pouting about how they're not ready to get to the Super Bowl and therefore every season they're not ready constitutes a "lost season". That's bogus. You can never be happy with your football team looking at things from that standpoint. Might as well just cheer for a team that will be a contender at that point.

Every game and every win DOES have a meaning. There's 16 games every season, and each and every win you get, is important. There aren't dozens of hundreds of game and you can go on a losing streak but then recover.

[Alvin Walton]

"but winning games without meaning....just doesn't have very much meaning to me"

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Am I missing something, first it says that the 120 million cap would only give them 10 million of cap room, but then their payroll is 75.7 million and they need to spend 45 million. How do they only have 10 million of cap room but have to spend 45 million in payroll?

Deadcap.

They have more than $10 million in salary cap room though. Conservative estimates would put us a little over $20 million.