The Redskins' new approach to free agency

I just feel that some talent like Moss is can't miss, so we should make a run at him. Plus I think its a great trade market that we should take part in. Lastly I think many agents are upset that we have taken this approach to free agency.

I think that we picked a pretty good year to sit tight. Last year, we needed to spend to improve. Next year, we will probably want to spent to either rebound or sustain the results of this season.

But this year, we have a QB who isn't quite in his prime yet, a new HC, a defense that is in the process of having younger players replace the aging vets (because we are adding the draftees while keeping the vets on the roster), and a minor rebuilding process on the OL.

All signs point to the goal being to sustain our playoff level of play so that we can ride Campbell when he's a 5th year pro in 2009. By not spending this year, we will have some cap room next year to build the team that might lead Jim Zorn to the top.

Plus we have a roster that could go further than last year if we get really lucky.

This situation was kinda forced by the cap mess we got into back in 2006, but teams are slowly starting to catch up to us in spending. Taking a year to let them is always a good decision.

The bad is that we are definately letting pass a few guys who could make this team much better, but it does no good if you have to tear it down in two years. We simply aren't close enough to warrant that.

There are still a couple of guys to restructure that will free up room. If a guy like Briggs or Hackett is still around next week & their price drops considerably, we'll see to what lengths vinny & danny will go to meet their demands.

With J. Smith signing w/SF, I wonder if they've still got another 20mil contract offer for briggs? I have a feeling that his asking price is way too high & that around the league LB is currently a osition w/a lot of parity + other free agents on the market that can do the job, though they're not stars.

If Briggs is willing to drop his price considerably I wonder if the danny will make a move, considering that they tried to trade for him last year. IMO that will be a litmus test for this new approach.

I believe that VC and DS maybe have learned somewhat from thier past. Vinny has a history with the cap and it's ramifications. Between his days at SF and his time with the Skins he has had some cap numbers blow up in his face. His statment regarding the player working out the full terms of his contract is reassuring. Some of the deals in the past you say to yourself "no way that guy sees year three of that deal, much less year five or six." I see some of the moves that have been made becoming a part of a lower key-higher yield nature. Do not get me wrong. Never a fan of Cerrato in the past. However, listening to him on Riggo's show as of late leads me to believe that he is more grounded in the "value" aspect of a prospect, more than being merely impressed by a name or a breakout season. In short the Skins will have probably two more seasons of this nature before they will put the pressure on Zorn to "make it happen" now that we got the lateset and greatest free agent prospect. I kinda like being the lunchpail Skins again.

I just feel that some talent like Moss is can't miss, so we should make a run at him. Plus I think its a great trade market that we should take part in. Lastly I think many agents are upset that we have taken this approach to free agency.

Really? Ask the Raiders about his can't miss talent. I will agree that he is a top player when everything is going right (i.e. Tom Brady is dishing the ball to him and they run off 18 straight) but the slightest bit of adversity and the guy goes off the deep end (i.e. walking off the field at FEDEX and his entire time in Oakland). Why overpay for a less than sure thing (although we do know he can find his way to the locker room without any directions)

And who gives a crap if agents don't like us because we are no longer the stalking horse. If it means not getting a guy like Briggs because he can't get paid mega-bucks so be it. Last year the guy threatened to sit out. Now that we are no longer pushing the market, he gets a much smaller than expected contract. It just shows how we overpaid in the past and if that means we don't get the next Archuletta and Lloyd, I'm ok with that. Players go where they want to go, not where their agents say. I think it's actually a relief that we aren't a pawn of the agents running up the market for useless players.

Last year was a wait and see... boom 9-7.

Really? Ask the Raiders about his can't miss talent. I will agree that he is a top player when everything is going right (i.e. Tom Brady is dishing the ball to him and they run off 18 straight) but the slightest bit of adversity and the guy goes off the deep end (i.e. walking off the field at FEDEX and his entire time in Oakland). Why overpay for a less than sure thing (although we do know he can find his way to the locker room without any directions)

I think he played hurt most of 2006. But when he was with Oakland in 2005 he was as good as any receiver we've had in a long time.

I think he played hurt most of 2006. But when he was with Oakland in 2005 he was as good as any receiver we've had in a long time.

As good as any receiver we've had is not exactly a bench-mark for paying the guy the big $ that he wants as well as taking on the potential baggage. As for 2005 he had 60 catches for 1005 yards and 8 TDs. In comparison, Santana had 84 for 1483 and 9. Laveraneus (in NY) had 73 for 845 and 5 and the year before had 90 for 950 and 1. He does match up with the output of our guys and former guys but I wouldn't pay big $s for any of these guys either.

Here's my take on it. When we were big players in free agency, the contracts weren't quite as big. We would spend draft picks in order to get proven talent. We massaged the cap pretty well, and it worked. However, our players weren't getting the type of contracts and guarantees players are now. Nate Clements is a good DB, but was he THAT good? The guaranteed money is just too much now.

Here's my take on it. When we were big players in free agency, the contracts weren't quite as big. We would spend draft picks in order to get proven talent. We massaged the cap pretty well, and it worked. However, our players weren't getting the type of contracts and guarantees players are now. Nate Clements is a good DB, but was he THAT good? The guaranteed money is just too much now.Good point. Just because we went hard into the market 2 years ago, and dabbled with a pair of players last year that really no one wanted, doesn't mean we can afford to be players in this market.

I think we kind of knew that 2 years ago, which is why we tried to mass shop at a bargain price. It just turned out that we bought a pair of contributors, and a pair of useless players. Either way, we were going to be in this type of cap situation, but the idea was to have the ability to win a pair of super bowls in 06 and 07.