Barrow To Be Axed?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

Why cut him. If we can afford him hes not extremely expensive. Hes been a great linebacker, and I would attribute a lot of pierces success to barrows helping teach him. Hes a valuable leader that if he is better would be a great backup, or change of pace player, and a great mentor to our defense. Extra leadership will help out team.

His knee issue is career threatening and if we kept him this year it causes even bigger concern down the road. If we assume he can get back in playing shape for the coming season and even has a good year for us we also have to assume that since his injury is acute knee tendinitis it is never going to go away fully. Tendinitis basically is going to hang around a 35 year LB in the NFL. So anyways he has a good year and even stays healthy enough to not miss much time. Then comes 2006 and he sticks around and the knee flares up. Now you're paying a 35 year old LB with a history of knee tendinitis 3.4 mil to sit on his ass(for the second time in three years). That looks like a bad decision to me even if he had one good season. It justs seems that the Skins could very decide to cut their losses on this and save the 1.7 for the coming season. I know they'll get skewered for this but Barrow was a quality sign when they got him. Who knew he'd develop a dehablitating knee injury that will never go away fully?

[CrazyCanuck]

I've always thought that if Barrow could play at all we should keep him, since we don't really save anything by cutting him.

If he can't play then I have nothing against cutting him. But I wonder why they would choose to eat the deadcap in 2006 instead of 2005.

Assuming Barrow is cut we'll have $2.1M deadcap on our books. Instead of pushing $1.7M to 2006 (our trouble year), why not just eat the entire $2.1M in 2005 and get it over with?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

I've always thought that if Barrow could play at all we should keep him, since we don't really save anything by cutting him.

If he can't play then I have nothing against cutting him. But I wonder why they would choose to eat the deadcap in 2006 instead of 2005.

Assuming Barrow is cut we'll have $2.1M deadcap on our books. Instead of pushing $1.7M to 2006 (our trouble year), why not just eat the entire $2.1M in 2005 and get it over with?

Good points. I don't think he'll displace Pierce as a starter. But I could see some downs where Barrow comes in, Pierce moves to his natural OLB position and either Washington or LaVar line up as a DE