Brunell and Redskins Reportedly Close to Restructured Deal

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not saying JC is not going to be the starter but I think as long as Gibbs and MB are around there is a good chance that MB will become the starter at the first opportunity.

If Campbell is injured or really struggles I'd expect to see MB, otherwise I wouldn't worry. Campbell is the starter.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If Campbell is injured or really struggles I'd expect to see MB, otherwise I wouldn't worry. Campbell is the starter.

I wonder if your definition of "really struggles" and Gibbs definition are the same. I doubt Gibbs will let JC get to what you and the rest of us consider really struggling.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I wonder if your definition of "really struggles" and Gibbs definition are the same. I doubt Gibbs will let JC get to what you and the rest of us consider really struggling.

That remains to be seen.

I'm confident that the permanent switch to Campbell has been made.

Didn't you say that Gibbs would go back to MB last year even after JC was named the starter?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That remains to be seen.

I'm confident that the permanent switch to Campbell has been made.

Didn't you say that Gibbs would go back to MB last year even after JC was named the starter?

I did and for once I was wrong (LOL).

I think when JC was brought in last year the season was over and the team had nothing to lose no matter how he played. Now in 2007 the slate is clean and in Sept everyone will have a shot again so JC's play will be looked at with a different mindset by Gibbs. I believe that Gibbs will be a little quicker to pull the pin on JC if he sees the offense sputter and the season looks like its slipping away. I'm sure the switch has been made to JC but I'm not sure thats its permanent.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I did and for once I was wrong (LOL).

I think when JC was brought in last year the season was over and the team had nothing to lose no matter how he played. Now in 2007 the slate is clean and in Sept everyone will have a shot again so JC's play will be looked at with a different mindset by Gibbs. I believe that Gibbs will be a little quicker to pull the pin on JC if he sees the offense sputter and the season looks like its slipping away. I'm sure the switch has been made to JC but I'm not sure thats its permanent.

For once? At least you can admit it, there are plenty of people here that don't.

Gibbs let him work through his struggles last year so I don't see why he would have a quick hook with him this year. Besides, I think Campbell is going to be so improved that Gibbs won't even have to think twice about it.

Brunell is 37 and coming off shoulder surgery... I think even Gibbs can see the writing on the wall. Gibbs wants to win at any cost, and I think it's clear Campbell gives the team the best shot at winning. Campbell is in year 3 and he's a guy that Gibbs gave up alot to get... it's time to see if this investment is going to pay off.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

For once? At least you can admit it, there are plenty of people here that don't.

Gibbs let him work through his struggles last year so I don't see why he would have a quick hook with him this year. Besides, I think Campbell is going to be so improved that Gibbs won't even have to think twice about it.

Brunell is 37 and coming off shoulder surgery... I think even Gibbs can see the writing on the wall. Gibbs wants to win at any cost, and I think it's clear Campbell gives the team the best shot at winning. Campbell is in year 3 and he's a guy that Gibbs gave up alot to get... it's time to see if this investment is going to pay off.

I think Gibbs let him work because the season was basically toast anyway. 2007 is a new year and I think Gibbs is kind of desperate so he wont let the season get away from him like he did last year and any player not getting it done will be benched.

I think at the end of this season we will now for sure if the Skins are sold on JC as their starter.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I think Gibbs let him work because the season was basically toast anyway.

Not to keep harping on this but that's what most of us said last year when the change was made but you insisted Gibbs would bring MB back in. Going back to MB didn't make any sense last year and I don't see where anything has changed regarding that.

We'll see.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I wonder if your definition of "really struggles" and Gibbs definition are the same. I doubt Gibbs will let JC get to what you and the rest of us consider really struggling.

I think you are overrating Gibbs' current opinion of Brunell. The team needs salary cap space and went to Brunell to get it. They could have cut him and gained $2.1 million in space, or they could ask him to take a paycut and gain even more space.

Gibbs is the team president. He went to Brunell knowing that at the very least, he was going to get that $2.1 million in space. That's what is motivating Brunell to accept the paycut. Brunell knows that he's not worth much on the open market these days, and that whatever he could get from the Skins in this restructured deal would be the most $ he could get in 2007. What was the catalyst to make Brunell realize that? The team, and it's team president, had to make it real clear: "Mark, accept a pay reduction so we can save more than $2.1 million. Or we're going to cut you and save the $2.1 million. Those are your options."

In the words of AC/DC, "listen to the money talk." It says it all. When Brunell was signed to a $42 million deal, we all knew what that meant for Patrick Ramsey, and look what happened to him. Now, Gibbs is cutting Brunell's salary. Campbell is the guy.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think you are overrating Gibbs' current opinion of Brunell. The team needs salary cap space and went to Brunell to get it. They could have cut him and gained $2.1 million in space, or they could ask him to take a paycut and gain even more space.

Gibbs is the team president. He went to Brunell knowing that at the very least, he was going to get that $2.1 million in space. That's what is motivating Brunell to accept the paycut. Brunell knows that he's not worth much on the open market these days, and that whatever he could get from the Skins in this restructured deal would be the most $ he could get in 2007. What was the catalyst to make Brunell realize that? The team, and it's team president, had to make it real clear: "Mark, accept a pay reduction so we can save more than $2.1 million. Or we're going to cut you and save the $2.1 million. Those are your options."

In the words of AC/DC, "listen to the money talk." It says it all. When Brunell was signed to a $42 million deal, we all knew what that meant for Patrick Ramsey, and look what happened to him. Now, Gibbs is cutting Brunell's salary. Campbell is the guy.

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

Seriously, that's a huge difference.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

I was only looking at post 39 where you say it costs 2.1 to cut or 2.1 to sign. There is a difference and that savings is nice and maybe if the redskins ever hold onto a 2nd round pick that $ will come in handy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I was only looking at post 39 where you say it costs 2.1 to cut or 2.1 to sign. There is a difference and that savings is nice and maybe if the redskins ever hold onto a 2nd round pick that $ will come in handy.

You misread post 39. I said:

"Mark, accept a pay reduction so we can save more than $2.1 million. Or we're going to cut you and save the $2.1 million. Those are your options."

Doesn't have to be a 2nd round pick. It can be two guys playing for the vet minimum. It can go towards finding enough space for Nate Clements and London Fletcher. Etcetera.

This is how the 'Skins always do it. Trim $1.4 million here, trim $1 million there. Cut bums like John Hall and Troy Vincent, trim a few million there. It's how they always avoid the "cap hell."

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

He saves us more by restructuring vs. cutting him.