Page 6 of 11
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:11 pm
by Redskin in Canada
PulpExposure wrote:Oh I'm with you on the risk of it. I'm well on record here for being against signing Haynesworth, because of his injury & motivation concerns.
Amen
1. Haynesworth's seven-year, $100-million contract from the Redskins: According to various media reports, the deal is structured so that it essentially will be a four-year agreement worth $48 million. But the most important part of the deal -- and the part that has more than a few people around the league questioning its wisdom -- is that $41 million (or 85 percent) is guaranteed, including $32 million in the first 13 months.
That just seems like a whole lot of commitment to a player who arrives from the Tennessee Titans with more than a few troubling question marks.
The biggest, as a general manager who requested anonymity pointed out, is his "reputation for picking spots when he wants to play hard." Haynesworth also once suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament, kicked a helmetless Dallas Cowboy in the head during a game not long ago, and has had his share of off-field issues.
No NFL GMs or player agents with whom I spoke questioned Haynesworth's place atop this year's free-agent crop. They just wonder, as I do, whether a team with so many needs, especially on offense, should devote so much money to a defensive tackle. Haynesworth had the most dominant season of his career in 2008, yet it still wasn't good enough to allow the Titans to avoid going one and done in the playoffs.
For all of that guaranteed money the Redskins are paying him, his presence is expected to, at the very least, guarantee a playoff appearance -- and probably a lot more.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:38 pm
by Deadskins
DEHog wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:That the Skins cut Taylor for that workout clause was just a pretext. He wasn't going to be a Redskin in 2009 with his cap number. Let's use a little common sense here.
Thanks IB that is really all I'm saying...While e I won't call it cap hell the Skins did have to make some moves to get under the cap and to be active in FA. I really don't have a problem with them ( other than I didn't like the deal at first but that's old news) just cutting JT to get the cap space to go after someone else in FA or in the draft. I found it interesting that Hall didn't sign his contract until yesterday so some player(s) was getting cut yesterday.
It just seems like the Skins FO have to have some excuse or something AKA GW and Lavar.
But by the same token, JT's "wanting to be around his family" exuse rings just as hollow. He could just as easily flown back and forth between the less than 2/3 of the work outs they wanted him to attend. I just think we should have entertained trade offers before cutting him outright.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:05 pm
by Deadskins
Redskin in Canada wrote:El Mexican wrote:Very interesting thread here.
I'd like to point out something, given the fact that I have studied and worked in the Marketing field.
Snyder knows he has a triple A product. One that has, in itself, an element that other products rarely have. This element is loyalty. Redskins fans are extremely loyal to this team, in this case a "brand".
When, as a marketer, you appeal to the loyalty of your consumers by making your brand "new" every year, you imply that, in fact, you are producing a better product. Every loyal fan, in Snyder's view, should see he's "trying" to win a SB by bringing in the big time free agents.
This is his game and he knows how to play it.
Think about the few products you buy "blindly" just because you are a loyal consumer to that brand. That, my friends, is the wet dream of any marketer because he knows he can get away with irregular quality in his product from time to time just by saying it's "new and improved".
Loyalty to a brand is so coveted by marketers because it is, at it's core, irrational.
Just my opinion, here, to an already great thread.
This is a GREAT post.
But I would differ with the last conclusion. Redskins fans' loyalty is not irrational (in the strictest sense of the word, meaning only charged with emotion and not logical deduction).
The loyalty of Redskins fans towards their team means living memories that have not been shared with any other team. It means camaraderies among fans, camaraderies among players and fans, appreciation for the sacrifices of our coaches and players, strength against adversity, courage against unsormountable odds against us, etc. It is, in other words, a microcosmos of life where the values that we cherish are represented in a fair competition on the field. The Redskins have a hsitory of VALUES which make them different than many other teams. The Redskins for some of us represent a metaphore for life's values and challenges.
Yes, the best Skins that I remember are unforgettable. Win or lose, the effort and the work ethic is what we look into players who wish to become real Redskins and not only employees.
You see, some of us are still romantics who feel that their team has been kidnapped and taken away by a magalomaniac who likes to play fantasy football with the roster. He knows little or less about the NFL than most posters in this board and he still wishes to SHOW his ego and fatten his pockets with this Team.
But just look at this thread, just a few posts above you have a poster saying that the "new and improved" Washington Redskins have awaken his interest and faith in success for the coming season.
One would think that after over a decade of stunts, the Redskin Nation would have awaken to see the writing on the wall but not. One wonders how the same snake oil can be delivered to the fans year after year and we do not get to learn that the ownership and lack pf quality people at the top are hurting this team and its fan base!
You are right. Loyalty in -SOME- cases can be irrational.
I'm with you on some of that, RiC. But these are not the same type of FA signings as were the Deion Sanders-Bruce Smith deals of just a few years ago. To me these fall more under the Marcus Washington-London Fletcher type of signings; players that are in their prime who can make a solid contribution for three or four years before we let them go. AH does make me nervous with his injurious past, but so did Sean Springs when he came in. And AH will make everyone else on the defense that much better, so he is worth getting two other players all by himself. The more I think about it, the more I like this signing.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:43 pm
by DEHog
Redskin in Canada wrote:PulpExposure wrote:1. There just aren't a lot of very good players in the FA market this year. There are (were) virtually zero good OT, for instance, and very few (if any) good linebackers.
2. Even mid-level free agents are getting insane deals. I mean I like Chris Canty; I think he's a decent player, but to me, he's just a young Renaldo Wynn. He has shown no passrush ability (career high 3.5 sacks last year). Even still, the guy gets 7 million a year from the Giants.
Is it possible to have a PLAN among the midst of this money madness???
I will not argue that this guy was not the best available at a position of need. It is the JUDGMENT and WISDOM of placing most of your eggs in such a risky basket that should scare theliving daylights out every fan.
My point all along has been that FOR YEARS this owner has been under the illusion that he is just a couple of players away from a Lombardi Trophy which shall bring him BOTH fame and fortune.
He wishes to win NOW and big signings do two things for him: feed the illusion of the two players away and restore the marketability of the franchise.
Some of you have decided to ignore the MAIN point raised to point at the GREED of the owner: the PRICE OF THE FRANCHISE.
Jerseys and other revenue (such as dwindling ticket sales for those in the know) are only a small part of the REAL increase of value of the Skins. Nobody was able or willing to tell me how much money has the Danny made, not on tv, not on endorsements, not on ticket sales but on the increase in the COST OF THE FRANCHISE !!!
That's why we need to move away from trading our picks and buying into high end FA. As I have asked who have we drafted, developed into a player that is of interest to the rest of the league and resigned under the Snyder regime. Samuels,
ey. I always see people asking why we didn't trade this player or that player..because the he's already on the team that was will to trade!!
We took a step in the right direction last year with our draft but because of this signing you half to ask if any of these picks develop will the money be there to sign them?? Will the money be there to sign JC if he has a great year...without major cuts??
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:05 am
by SkinsFreak
Deadskins wrote:You are right. Loyalty in -SOME- cases can be irrational. I'm with you on some of that, RiC. But these are not the same type of FA signings as were the Deion Sanders-Bruce Smith deals of just a few years ago. To me these fall more under the Marcus Washington-London Fletcher type of signings; players that are in their prime who can make a solid contribution for three or four years before we let them go.
I agree, and even the folks in the industry have recognized that. These players are just entering their prime and are still on the upward swing of their careers. They're not aging old guys on the downside of their careers. And that's the difference and change made by the FO. They're still going to sign free agents, but do it more wisely with younger guys with plenty of gas left in the tank.
As for the guaranteed money paid to AH, by far the most talented and desired free agent in this class, how much guaranteed money does the 1st overall selection in the draft get? JaMarcus Russell got $32 million guaranteed, and he was an unproven rookie that had never even taken a NFL snap. And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:32 am
by Redskin in Canada
SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from signing whomever they -should- want by acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions with more balance in cost?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:51 am
by DEHog
Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions for greater balance?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
Or keeping our own players... Spring, Daniels, Evans, Taylor. Washington, Kendall, who am I missing....spin it any way you want... our spending contributed to their departure
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:57 am
by Deadskins
DEHog wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions for greater balance?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
Or keeping our own players... Spring, Daniels, Evans, Taylor. Washington, Kendall, who am I missing....spin it any way you want... our spending contributed to their departure
Springs and Kendall have been replaced by the new, younger acquisitions. I don't know if you can blame them totally on salary. Springs maybe, but he was oft injured, so he was too pricey for the contribution.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:29 pm
by SkinsFreak
Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from signing whomever they -should- want by acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions with more balance in cost?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
At what positions are they lacking depth and which players currently available in free agency should they sign for depth?
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:36 pm
by SkinsFreak
Deadskins wrote:DEHog wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions for greater balance?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
Or keeping our own players... Spring, Daniels, Evans, Taylor. Washington, Kendall, who am I missing....spin it any way you want... our spending contributed to their departure
Springs and Kendall have been replaced by the new, younger acquisitions. I don't know if you can blame them totally on salary. Springs maybe, but he was oft injured, so he was too pricey for the contribution.
Exactly.
Come on, DE... you're smarter than that. There will always be some degree of turnover as teams need youth and better players from year to year. But there's STILL money available to fill the gaps, which may include guys like Kendall, Daniels and Evans...
As Free Agency Slows, Redskins Look to Fill Gaps
By Gary Fitzgerald
Redskins.com
Posted: March 3, 2009
The first week of free agency is replete with high profile signings, and this year the Redskins were right in the middle of things.
The team made a splash on the first day of free agency, signing defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, cornerback DeAngelo Hall and guard Derrick Dockery.
The pace has started to slow down now.
What’s next for the Redskins?
Team officials can now turn their attention to filling in the gaps.
“We’re looking at a couple other guys and we’ll see how that goes,” Redskins executive vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato said. “Any way we can try to improve, we’re going to keep trying and keep looking at it, and then see where it takes us.”
Cerrato, not wanting to tip his hand, was vague when asked if there were specific positions the team would look at in free agency.
“We won’t be looking for a corner and we won’t be looking for a defensive tackle,” he said. “We still have areas that we’ll look at.”
Given the release of Jason Taylor and Marcus Washington this offseason, it makes sense that the Redskins might explore free agent options at defensive end and strong-side linebacker.
“I think it puts a need in that direction, whether it’s in free agency or through the draft,” head coach Jim Zorn said. “We have other areas we want to shore up as well. It’s a long process. It just takes grit. We’re still working. Some things go away, and some things develop.”
Beyond Andre Carter, the Redskins do not have a defensive end with starting experience on the roster.
Phillip Daniels and Demetric Evans are veterans with starting experience, but they are both unrestricted free agents this offseason.
Zorn said he was hopeful the Redskins could re-sign Evans to maintain depth along the defensive line.
Regarding Evans, Zorn said: “I think some players have to go find a financially competitive place that can compete with what we’re [offering]. And then they have to find a place they feel they can go and win.
"So I think there are a lot of ingredients that go into a player’s pursuit. We hope Demetric comes back to us.”
At strong-side linebacker, it appears H.B. Blades is next in line to assume the starting job. Blades is thought to be a more natural fit at middle linebacker, though.
Khary Campbell and Alfred Fincher are both unrestricted free agents, so at the very least the Redskins may need to add some linebacker depth this offseason.
On offense, it appears Jon Jansen and Stephon Heyer are in line to compete for the starting job at right tackle.
Last year, Heyer won the job coming out of preseason, but he was sidelined several games due to a shoulder injury.
Jansen replaced Heyer in the lineup and re-claimed the starting job for the rest of the season.
With Pete Kendall, Jason Fabini and Justin Geisinger unrestricted free agents this offseason, the Redskins could look to add a veteran offensive lineman who could compete for backup jobs at guard and tackle.
Zorn and offensive line coach Joe Bugel remain interested in retaining Kendall, even though Dockery assumes his starting job at left guard.
On special teams, the Redskins have just one punter on the roster, untested first-year player Zac Atterberry.
The club could look to sign one or two veteran punters this offseason to fortify that position.
Last year’s punter, Ryan Plackemeier, was released by the Redskins in February.
Of course, the Redskins could look to fill defensive line, linebacker, offensive line and punter in the NFL Draft, slated for April 25-26.
The Redskins hold the No. 13 pick in the NFL Draft.
The team will look for that player to develop into a starter in his rookie year, Zorn said.
So this notion that AH's contract is prohibiting the team from signing depth and filling gaps is completely inaccurate.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:56 pm
by Bob 0119
The other less stressed point, Freak, is that the Redskins have made offers to Daniels and Evans, but those two want to see if they can get more money elsewhere.
Sometimes, you just gotta let guys test the market before they decide your offer is a fair one. It's better than just giving them what they are asking for just to ensure they stay. That's how you wind up overpaying.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:22 pm
by DEHog
SkinsFreak wrote:Deadskins wrote:DEHog wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions for greater balance?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
Or keeping our own players... Spring, Daniels, Evans, Taylor. Washington, Kendall, who am I missing....spin it any way you want... our spending contributed to their departure
Springs and Kendall have been replaced by the new, younger acquisitions. I don't know if you can blame them totally on salary. Springs maybe, but he was oft injured, so he was too pricey for the contribution.
Exactly.
Come on, DE... you're smarter than that. There will always be some degree of turnover as teams need youth and better players from year to year. But there's STILL money available to fill the gaps, which may include guys like Kendall, Daniels and Evans...
As Free Agency Slows, Redskins Look to Fill Gaps
By Gary Fitzgerald
Redskins.com
Posted: March 3, 2009
The first week of free agency is replete with high profile signings, and this year the Redskins were right in the middle of things.
The team made a splash on the first day of free agency, signing defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, cornerback DeAngelo Hall and guard Derrick Dockery.
The pace has started to slow down now.
What’s next for the Redskins?
Team officials can now turn their attention to filling in the gaps.
“We’re looking at a couple other guys and we’ll see how that goes,” Redskins executive vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato said. “Any way we can try to improve, we’re going to keep trying and keep looking at it, and then see where it takes us.”
Cerrato, not wanting to tip his hand, was vague when asked if there were specific positions the team would look at in free agency.
“We won’t be looking for a corner and we won’t be looking for a defensive tackle,” he said. “We still have areas that we’ll look at.”
Given the release of Jason Taylor and Marcus Washington this offseason, it makes sense that the Redskins might explore free agent options at defensive end and strong-side linebacker.
“I think it puts a need in that direction, whether it’s in free agency or through the draft,” head coach Jim Zorn said. “We have other areas we want to shore up as well. It’s a long process. It just takes grit. We’re still working. Some things go away, and some things develop.”
Beyond Andre Carter, the Redskins do not have a defensive end with starting experience on the roster.
Phillip Daniels and Demetric Evans are veterans with starting experience, but they are both unrestricted free agents this offseason.
Zorn said he was hopeful the Redskins could re-sign Evans to maintain depth along the defensive line.
Regarding Evans, Zorn said: “I think some players have to go find a financially competitive place that can compete with what we’re [offering]. And then they have to find a place they feel they can go and win.
"So I think there are a lot of ingredients that go into a player’s pursuit. We hope Demetric comes back to us.”
At strong-side linebacker, it appears H.B. Blades is next in line to assume the starting job. Blades is thought to be a more natural fit at middle linebacker, though.
Khary Campbell and Alfred Fincher are both unrestricted free agents, so at the very least the Redskins may need to add some linebacker depth this offseason.
On offense, it appears Jon Jansen and Stephon Heyer are in line to compete for the starting job at right tackle.
Last year, Heyer won the job coming out of preseason, but he was sidelined several games due to a shoulder injury.
Jansen replaced Heyer in the lineup and re-claimed the starting job for the rest of the season.
With Pete Kendall, Jason Fabini and Justin Geisinger unrestricted free agents this offseason, the Redskins could look to add a veteran offensive lineman who could compete for backup jobs at guard and tackle.
Zorn and offensive line coach Joe Bugel remain interested in retaining Kendall, even though Dockery assumes his starting job at left guard.
On special teams, the Redskins have just one punter on the roster, untested first-year player Zac Atterberry.
The club could look to sign one or two veteran punters this offseason to fortify that position.
Last year’s punter, Ryan Plackemeier, was released by the Redskins in February.
Of course, the Redskins could look to fill defensive line, linebacker, offensive line and punter in the NFL Draft, slated for April 25-26.
The Redskins hold the No. 13 pick in the NFL Draft.
The team will look for that player to develop into a starter in his rookie year, Zorn said.
So this notion that AH's contract is prohibiting the team from signing depth and filling gaps is completely inaccurate.
As I said it contrubuted to it...You noticed that Hall contraact wasn't signed until Monday...and we are now looking to bring back player we cut...why did we cut them in the first place??
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:30 pm
by dad23hogjrs
and we are now looking to bring back player we cut...why did we cut them in the first place??
Because cutting them or voiding their contracts cleared cap space (M Washington 4.5M; Daniels 2M) and we will be able to sign them to the veteran minimum. They are not getting calls...Daniels is still at Redskins park working out...we can see whats available, take our time, and if nothing comes along bring them back for pennies on the dollar
doesn't sound very nice, but its smart business.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:36 pm
by PulpExposure
dad23hogjrs wrote:and we are now looking to bring back player we cut...why did we cut them in the first place??
Because cutting them or voiding their contracts cleared cap space (M Washington 4.5M; Daniels 2M) and we will be able to sign them to the veteran minimum. They are not getting calls...Daniels is still at Redskins park working out...we can see whats available, take our time, and if nothing comes along bring them back for pennies on the dollar
doesn't sound very nice, but its smart business.
Yeah. There is no way that Marcus Washington is worth 4.5 million right now...it's just good business sense to evaluate players based upon cost and production, and cut those who don't measure up.
In my opinion, one huge failing of the Redskins FO is that we get
too attached to aging players, and keep them at a high salcap cost after they should have been cut. Other teams (notably the Eagles) are far more ruthless; they have no qualms cutting or not resigning players who have been good solid players for their team, but are on the downside of their careers.
We just don't do this. There is no way that Shawn Springs was worth 8 million last year, for instance. Even if he had played in all 16 games, he wasn't worth franchise CB money. If they had cut him and let him play the FA market, they very likely could have resigned him to a lesser deal, as 33 year old (age as of March 2008) injury prone CBs aren't exactly a hot commodity.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:44 pm
by VetSkinsFan
Bob 0119 wrote:The other less stressed point, Freak, is that the Redskins have made offers to Daniels and Evans, but those two want to see if they can get more money elsewhere.
Sometimes, you just gotta let guys test the market before they decide your offer is a fair one. It's better than just giving them what they are asking for just to ensure they stay. That's how you wind up overpaying.
That's what we did with Rock. Sometimes these guys forget their actual worth in regardsd to the market. You can't blame a guy for wanting the most he can get; give them that freedom. Just make sure the good one s know they have a home. I'd totally welcome back Daniels and Evans.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:59 pm
by DEHog
Thank you all for making my point!!
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:16 pm
by CanesSkins26
SkinsFreak wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from signing whomever they -should- want by acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions with more balance in cost?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
At what positions are they lacking depth and which players currently available in free agency should they sign for depth?
We lack quality depth at a whole bunch of positions....wide receiver, linebacker, offensive line, safety, defensive end. Obviouly this cant all be fixed in one offseason, but a major factor in our lack of depth is poor drafting and a wasting of draft picks. There is a significant drop-off in talent between our starters and almost all of our backups. Succesful teams (such as the Colts and Patriots) stockpile young talent (particularly at important positions such as oline) and are better to handle injuries and transition away from aging players. The Colts had an injury to their oline this year and plugged in a late second round lineman and he ended up starting 13 games and playing very well for them. Their entire oline is made up of guys that they drafted or signed as unrestricted free agents.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:55 pm
by Redskin in Canada
CanesSkins26 wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:SkinsFreak wrote: And for those that continue to ask if AH's deal will limit who the Skins can sign next year, I ask... has the cap ever stopped the team from signing whomever they want? Has Eric Schaffer ever proven to be ineffective in managing the cap?
No, the cap has not stopped the Team from signing whomever they want. But that is the WRONG question.
A more appropriate question from OUR perspective is:
Has the cap (and these expensive acquisitions) prevented the Team from signing whomever they -should- want by acquiring personnel and depth at this and other positions with more balance in cost?
And, of course, the contention made by some of us is DEFINITELY, YES!
At what positions are they lacking depth and which players currently available in free agency should they sign for depth?
We lack quality depth at a whole bunch of positions....wide receiver, linebacker, offensive line, safety, defensive end. Obviouly this cant all be fixed in one offseason, but a major factor in our lack of depth is poor drafting and a wasting of draft picks. There is a significant drop-off in talent between our starters and almost all of our backups. Succesful teams (such as the Colts and Patriots) stockpile young talent (particularly at important positions such as oline) and are better to handle injuries and transition away from aging players. The Colts had an injury to their oline this year and plugged in a late second round lineman and he ended up starting 13 games and playing very well for them. Their entire oline is made up of guys that they drafted or signed as unrestricted free agents.
I suspect that people are so entrenched in their PERCEPTIONS that it does not matter what arguments are brought to the table. Those who feel that we are fine will call us negative and say that we are adding salt to the wound when an injury occurs and the lines in the trenches collapse, for example.
The Skins have been regarded as a "top heavy" team in the NFL for years. We have a reputation for solid and expensive starters without much depth to fill in with quality.
But I do not think that it matters if we say that we are ONE INJURY away from disaster in the lines. AGAIN.
Let's pray for a good and productive Draft.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:08 pm
by prinzeofmoval
Stop crying about Dan Snyder already. Does he pick up players that we can do without sometimes...Yes but give me an owner thats willing to open his pocket book anyday. Theres teams in every league who doesn't even have a shot because the ownership is a cheap bastard. So Dan doesnt know football but each year he grabs a player(s) which tricks you to believe we have a shot.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:15 pm
by DEHog
Theres teams in every league who doesn't even have a shot because the ownership is a cheap bastard.
Yea like the Florida Marlins and Arizona Cardinals
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:50 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
prinzeofmoval wrote:Stop crying about Dan Snyder already. Does he pick up players that we can do without sometimes...Yes but give me an owner thats willing to open his pocket book anyday. Theres teams in every league who doesn't even have a shot because the ownership is a cheap bastard. So Dan doesnt know football but each year he grabs a player(s) which tricks you to believe we have a shot.
SMH....
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:35 pm
by JansenFan
CanesSkins26 wrote:Their entire oline is made up of guys that they drafted or signed as unrestricted free agents.
Not to cherry pick, but aren't almost all players either drafted or signed as a UFA? I'm assuming you mean un
drafted free agents, otherwise, the same can be said for our line. We'll have three draftees, and two UFA's on our line next year (subject to change depending on RT).
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:38 pm
by SkinsFreak
Redskin in Canada wrote:The Skins have been regarded as a "top heavy" team in the NFL for years. We have a reputation for solid and expensive starters without much depth to fill in with quality.
Right, they
had a reputation, and apparently you can't get passed that. You're still hanging on so tightly to a previous reputation that you can't see the reality of the present.
JUST LOOK AT THE CURRENT ROSTER! WE HAVE NO DEPTH?
Here's what it is with you and a very few others.
The team can do no right, ever, no matter what. Because God only knows, you hate Snyder so much, that even the mere semblance of acknowledgment of the team taking positive steps in the right direction, even little steps, you're too afraid that simple acknowledgment might be construed as drinking Snyder's Kool-Aid, and the Lord knows, you can't have any of that. So therefore, no matter what the organization does, it can never be right in your eyes.
The difference between you few and the vast majority of board member here and Redskins fans in general is this. There's not a single Skins fan that would say they're completely satisfied with everything Snyder says and does. In fact, is there anyone you've ever known in your life that you agree 100% with everything that person does or says? No, of course not, and Snyder is no exception.
The difference is that while the vast majority can voice frustration, they can also put things into perspective and acknowledge the good moves as well. It's called objectivity, expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation. Yeah, I believe he's made a lot of mistakes, but I can man-up and give him credit for the positive things he's done. And that ain't "drinking the Kool-Aid", it's about putting things into perspective.
Redskin in Canada wrote:I suspect that people are so entrenched in their PERCEPTIONS that it does not matter what arguments are brought to the table.
BOOM! That's classic... but projection.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:50 pm
by SkinsFreak
CanesSkins26 wrote:We lack quality depth at a whole bunch of positions....wide receiver, linebacker, offensive line, safety, defensive end.
Dude, what roster are you looking at? First, quality is subjective, so perceived quality rankings may vary. With the exception of WR, which I agree we lack depth, I disagree we have no depth at safety, o-line and d-line. We needed a few starters, mind you, but we HAVE depth.
But here's a little well known news flash...
free agency and the draft aren't over with yet. And here's another little news flash... no team is going to have starter quality back-ups at EVERY position. Not even the Colts, as you blindly assert. Just look at
their roster.
Their entire oline is made up of guys that they drafted or signed as unrestricted free agents.
uhhh... so is ours.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:56 pm
by roybus14
See Snyder is not such a bad owner is he??? What needs to happen now, IMO, is the FO needs to be smart with the draft and maybe look to trade Betts for picks. RB is one position you can find young hungry players at. So if we can get a pick or picks for Betts, that would enable us to fill some other needs through the draft. Then it's up to the coaching staff to help develop our young talent like other teams in this league do.
With the recent FA moves, we are okay for a minute. Meaning, we need to ensure that we continue to get young and develop the talent within. I think that if AH gives us what he gave the Titans AC and Chris Wilson, if he is the replacement for JT, should have a pretty year next year. I think that we should take the LB out of USC because we have $41 million reasons why AC and the other DE should have more success.