Redskins 2012 Salary Cap Status

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Count me in as an interested party. 2013 is not looking good.

You say goodbye to Hall, Brown, Grossman, maybe Moss and Cooley too.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

You say goodbye to Hall, Brown, Grossman, maybe Moss and Cooley too.

Well its mos def Moss and D Hall's last year with their contracts. Cooley and Brown kinda depends on their healthy, but Browns is kinda friendly if he somehow plays well this year. Rex only has a one year deal.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Count me in as an interested party. 2013 is not looking good.

They can move a ton of 2013 salary to 2014 if they need to in order to make a big move or two. Most notably, Fletcher has a 5.5 million salary in 2013, if he's back, but they can move about 3.5 million of that into the future when he won't be on the team (they'll still have to pay it of course).

The big issue is that the 2012 roster has to be strong. We know it's young. If it's young and weak, 2013 is going to be a tear-down rebuilding year under a reorganized front office. If it's a young, strong roster in 2012, then 2013 will largely be about staying the course and trying to maintain gains (Shanahan might try to take the next step, but I think the most prudent use of 2013 is to attempt to maintain any gains made this season). The cap won't prevent the Redskins from keeping their young players. It's just going to prevent going outside the organization to get core pieces that every team could use.

Here's a list of all free agents next year (not including anyone still on the market this year):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...XJGSGNFOWFITGc

[BigHairedAristocrat]

The cap is expected to decline next year and, with the penalty, well have less tha 100m in cap space. We're screwed

[GTripp0012]

My very best bet for our current cap room is $2.065 million. That's not an official number by any means, but it's not pulled out of my ass either, and should be fairly close to the real number.

That number will be accurate as to after the Redskins sign their rookies.

[GTripp0012]

I think the Redskins can expect about three starters total from the next two drafts. If I told you all you could CHOOSE (the Redskins obviously cannot) which three need positions you would take into the 2015 offseason, which positions would you fill?

[The Dull Roar]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think the Redskins can expect about three starters total from the next two drafts. If I told you all you could CHOOSE (the Redskins obviously cannot) which three need positions you would take into the 2015 offseason, which positions would you fill?

Easy. A right tackle, a safety, and cornerback.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think the Redskins can expect about three starters total from the next two drafts. If I told you all you could CHOOSE (the Redskins obviously cannot) which three need positions you would take into the 2015 offseason, which positions would you fill?

CB, safety and right-tackle...probably in that order for need but draft-wise I'm a BPA believer.

I would love to see us replace Hall next year and we need starter CB talent regardless.

[GTripp0012]

That's probably what I would go with too, although I would make sure MLB was in mine if the exercise was *only* three starters. You can find quality MLBs later in the draft (even Cerrato found HB Blades in the 5th), but if your team doesn't have one, then your defense ends up looking like the 2006 Redskins or 2011 Buccaneers -- just an absolute sieve. I'd definitely address MLB in the 2013 draft, even if I like the season that Bryan Kehl or Jonathan Goff has.

So I'd probably go: MLB, Slot corner (which is a CB/S hybrid kind of like Rich Crawford), and right tackle. And of the three, I'd say right tackle is both the least immediately pressing issue, and the longest standing weakness on the Redskins.

[GTripp0012]

My definition of "starter" (btw) just means that if you changed your coaching staff and organization entirely and had the existing roster in an entirely new scheme, a 'starter' would remain in the lineup because he's too good to be sitting on the bench. Obviously some later round picks (think Justin Tryon) can grow into roles and play a lot, but he's a free agent now four years in. So not a "starter" by definition, even though both the Redskins and the Colts used him as such.

[Schneed10]

What's all this "if you had a new regime" talk? You better be knocking on wood as you say that stuff, GTripp!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

What's all this "if you had a new regime" talk? You better be knocking on wood as you say that stuff, GTripp!

Just a definition. Not a loaded hypothetical.

A loaded hypothetical would be wondering how many changes this team would need if they can't win this year. But until they lose their fourth game, I wouldn't rush the evaluation process. There's plenty of time to be thorough.

Anyway, I'm on record saying the Redskins can win a whole bunch in 2012. Not going to say 'will'. Not enough faith in the coaches yet to not screw this up. But this team is leaning towards the young side (at last), talented enough at the critical positions (QB, pass rusher, TE, MLB, LT) to compete with the top teams in the NFL, and might even have enough depth to weather the injuries of a long NFL season. That last one is the key. They are deeper than they were in 2010 and 2011, but are they deep enough?

[Chief X_Phackter]

How 'bout let's see how our 2012 draft pics and FA pick-ups perform this year before we decide that 2013 is doomed due to what we may or may not have to spend. I, for one, am optimistic that regardless the salary cap, we will be able to field a competetive and progressively better team each year with the current regime. Just because you don't have a first rounder, doesn't mean you can't find starters in the draft or elsewhere for that matter. You don't need 22 superstars to be a contender...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

How 'bout let's see how our 2012 draft pics and FA pick-ups perform this year before we decide that 2013 is doomed due to what we may or may not have to spend. I, for one, am optimistic that regardless the salary cap, we will be able to field a competetive and progressively better team each year with the current regime. Just because you don't have a first rounder, doesn't mean you can't find starters in the draft or elsewhere for that matter. You don't need 22 superstars to be a contender...

No, in fact, even the best teams are incomplete, which is why it doesn't make any sense to try and build a complete team that can't ever get any better. It's also why I'm cautiously optimistic about the Redskins this year. They're not better than 20-22 teams in the NFL, but they also can play top ten teams pretty evenly with their current roster.

[GTripp0012]

I'll show work on Monday or something, but if the salary cap stays at $120.6, I have the Redskins $8.2 million over the cap in 2013 (after all re-signings and rookie signings, so that's not a figure they'll have to comply with at the start of free agency).

No resignings are in that figure though. We'll have five players eligible for RFA (Armstrong, Banks, Gano, Young, Paulsen) if they make the team this year. Also if we want to franchise Fred Davis again, the tender will be $6.5 million (120% increase).

That's really not that high of a number. The Raiders were more than $30 million over the cap this past year AND that didn't include their rookie signings or re-signings. I think they cut just 5 or 6 players, and only really 3 of them could be deemed true cap casualties.

The bottom line is this: Moss, Cooley, and Hall aren't likely to be back in 2013 at their current salaries, but I'm not sure that wasn't always the case, even before the cap penalty.