|
GTripp0012 04-21-2008, 11:50 PM Let me pose this question back to you all. If the Steelers had given Willie Parker an extension prior to this season with 20 million dollars guarenteed, what would we be saying about that deal right now, with the guy coming off a broken leg and a season in which Najeh Davenport was far more effective?
Portis is probably a better football player than Parker because he does all the little things very well, but their running production over their careers with their current teams are pretty similar. And at the end of the day, you are paying a RB to carry the ball, and getting blocking and receiving ability as a bonus.
GTripp0012 04-21-2008, 11:53 PM But I thought you liked Rock? If I remember right, you don't like Betts right? Either way, I'm not too concerned about CP right nowI think Rock would be a good second option. I think Betts would be a good second option also, but Betts is on a deal that averages over 2 million a year, and Rock is playing for the league min.
The point wasn't that Portis shouldn't be starting, the point is that you want to have the contextual flexibility to go another direction if Portis loses effectiveness.
Is a running back supposed to lose effectiveness before age 29? No he's not, but he does play the most physically demanding position in sports, and he doesn't do a whole lot of good if he--for whatever reason--can't play.
FRPLG 04-22-2008, 01:03 AM Geez we get it already JLC! Now get off your high horse.
I am consistently baffled by the inabilities of journalists to understand finances in this league. There are two ways to handle the cap. Ours requires cash on hand AND IS COMPLETELY SUSTAINABLE as long as that cash keeps flowing. Yes you pay bonuses and push cap money ahead. Yes it means you have to do this every year, But every year one or two big cap numbers wipe away and the cycle continues. Of course if older guys get hurt it causes cap problems. Guess what...it does for every team. It is a simple numbers game and if you compare our way to say... the Eagles, it would kill them because they don't have the cash to keep something like this up. They can't afford bonuses every year to push money away but we can and do. You'd think the fact that they have been doing this for almost a decade now would show some people that this cap management style does work. But I guess journalists also can't tell the difference between talent evaluation and cap management. They are different things. Not once has this team been worse off in the last decade because of the way we manage the cap. Not once.
SmootSmack 04-22-2008, 01:10 AM I would venture to guess that JLC understands it (as do many other journalists) but he's choosing to present the information in a different light.
I think a lot of it is in fact personal, and a lot of it is pressure to churn out stories. But, as the Insider, he should be churning out stories like "Lawrence Jackson will be visiting Redskins coaches tomorrow. Sources tell me the Redskins are talking to the Falcons about a trade that would send their 1st and Antwan Randle El to Atlanta for multiple picks, one of which would be spent on Jackson" (I totally made that rumor up).
That's an "Insider"
GTripp0012 04-22-2008, 01:12 AM But what if the money dries up?
I think the Skins are banking on the league being uncapped in the future. If 2009 is the final year the NFL ever has a salary cap on, we can push enough money into the future to where we are paying a ton of salary in 2010, and that'll be fine.
Because if that's not the plan, once the cap stops accelerating upward, we won't be able to hold our own roster. I mean, we already can't really add to the team through free agency (although if we want, we should have the cap room for a major move next season).
Actually, the end of the cap would be a wonderful, wonderful thing for the Redskins. Anthony Montgomery, Kedric Golston, Jason Campbell, Carlos Rogers, Reed Doughty, and Rocky McIntosh would all be unrestricted FAs in 2010 if the owners don't back out of the CBA, but if they do, all 6 of those guys would be restricted free agents, and effectively, Redskins through 2011.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 04-22-2008, 01:26 AM We'd certainly be in trouble if the cap stopped accelerating, but why would it do that? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it's likely.
steveo395 04-22-2008, 02:29 AM But what if the money dries up?
I think the Skins are banking on the league being uncapped in the future. If 2009 is the final year the NFL ever has a salary cap on, we can push enough money into the future to where we are paying a ton of salary in 2010, and that'll be fine.
Because if that's not the plan, once the cap stops accelerating upward, we won't be able to hold our own roster. I mean, we already can't really add to the team through free agency (although if we want, we should have the cap room for a major move next season).
Actually, the end of the cap would be a wonderful, wonderful thing for the Redskins. Anthony Montgomery, Kedric Golston, Jason Campbell, Carlos Rogers, Reed Doughty, and Rocky McIntosh would all be unrestricted FAs in 2010 if the owners don't back out of the CBA, but if they do, all 6 of those guys would be restricted free agents, and effectively, Redskins through 2011.
as long as we don't sign or trade for any big name guys, then our cap will be fine. If our only major additions in the next couple of years are draft picks, and we start to get rid of the old veterans (like Daniels, Washington, Springs, and Griffin), we will have a lot more smaller contracts.
djnemo65 04-22-2008, 03:43 AM Yeah, how is this entry not merely rehashing the same things we have heard from him and others for years? And how can one ignore that this year marks a major change in the Redskins' personnel acquisiton philosophy?
He's all over the place in this post and it's hard to determine what his argument even is. If his point is that we are giving older players more than they deserve, I mean, who cares? Is he Snyder's accountant? All that matters is that we are under the cap (which once again we well are, in spite of the doomsday scenarios spewed in the media) and that we are able to implement our personnel philosophy, which again we are.
What are these "tough decisions" we don't want to make. You mean cutting capable players so we can be 20 million under the cap like the Pats and the Eagles? Again, who cares. All that matters is that we are able to field the team we feel best gives us a chance to win a championship.
Our strategy in the past was to value experience over youth; the results were questionable at best, and now we are going in a different direction. If you want to criticize the Redskins past player management fine, but don't sit here and nitpick numbers and act like nothing has changed, because obviously things have...
hagams 04-22-2008, 09:00 AM CP will be fine for a couple more years. I'm really thinking that the WCO is going to help him excel a little more than he has in recent years. I'm really hoping we can throw him the ball a couple more times. "If" his shoulder holds up, he should have a big season.
Beemnseven 04-22-2008, 09:26 AM The history of the NFL is full of flash-in-the-pan running backs who look like dynamite for a season or two, then rapidly fade away. So far, Portis has lasted longer than that. To assume that he is immune to that scenario is shortsighted.
It wouldn't surprise me that if 2008 is less than spectacular, his time here will be shorter than expected.
|