Redskins.com: Cap doom? Hardly.

[Ernie5]

Fantoostik!

[Westbrook36]

Except, as demonstrated, we're not being irresponsible at all. A boost in the guarantees allows a lower base which creates a reasonable cap number for everyone we sign. No down the road impact. No worries at all. It is not good for you to have millions left to spend during the season when you are hurt by injuries and might have been competitive if you used those millions to acquire players.

It's not good for you to have a glaring weakness on your offensive line, then let a guy go to CLEVELAND for a few dollars more without stepping up. Now, granted, you guys can't just spend for the sake of spending and have it be good for you. Look at T.O. as an example of you guys finally deciding to spend some money and hurting yourself for adding Owens.

There's no plausible rationale that allows you to think it's BETTER to not spend your money. Obviously the Redskins can spend as long as they keep base salary down. So can you. You just won't because your owner enjoys counting his money more than our owner does.

Do the Skins allocate ANY money for resigning it's own emerging stars? I can't wait to see the pricetags for Cooley and ST which will eventually have to be dealt with. Therin lies the difference. The Eagles draft well and identify, and then sign, young players from our own roster.

The Skins spend right up to the cap on sexy names and don't keep any money for a rainy day or to give back to their own.

With all the hubbub about sexy name signings, where is the OL depth? What about WLB? PK? Punter? I know ARE does a lot of things but does he pass block as well as the offensive line depth you now have if someone goes down for year.....as has happened the last two years on your team?

How about the draft? Will you be able to fill holes then? How many picks do you have? 2? I'm serious.

[Ernie5]

It seems to me that as long as you have players who feel like they're treated right and in a good place, you always maintain the possibility of players re-structuring when the numbers get truly serious for the better of the team. If this is the case, why do the Redskins ever have to face real cap hell? Sure, they might have off-seasons -- like a few over the past few years -- where they have to tighten the belts a little, but this cap hell needn't happen if the players who are heading into the big cap hit years are willing to re-structure. In effect, they know they're getting paid & sticking with a (hopefully winning) team for longer.

[jrockster21]

Do the Skins allocate ANY money for resigning it's own emerging stars? I can't wait to see the pricetags for Cooley and ST which will eventually have to be dealt with. Therin lies the difference. The Eagles draft well and identify, and then sign, young players from our own roster.

Yeah...the price tag for Cooley and Taylor will be high. But when it comes time to re-sign them, the salary cap will be somewhere in the 115-118 million dollar range...plenty of money. And I'm not so sure about Taylor, but I'm pretty positive that CC is a lifetime Skin. Just a hunch of course, but I think he'll be in B&G for the majority of his career, a la Jon Jansen.

The Skins spend right up to the cap on sexy names and don't keep any money for a rainy day or to give back to their own.

How can you say that? You have absolutely no idea. Pierce wanted more money than Washington. Not gonna happen. Smoot wanted more money than Springs. Not gonna happen.

With all the hubbub about sexy name signings, where is the OL depth? What about WLB? PK? Punter? I know ARE does a lot of things but does he pass block as well as the offensive line depth you now have if someone goes down for year.....as has happened the last two years on your team?

How about the draft? Will you be able to fill holes then? How many picks do you have? 2? I'm serious.

Typical scared response from an NFC East fan...:laugh:

[Art]

Not in the reply to SixersFan, which is why I commented:

Indeed, Jason, it was in that reply too. You've simply chosen to ignore it. And, again, I ask why? You picked one sentence out of the context and are pretending the rest doesn't exist. To what point?

Right after the sentence you were willing to quote, I wrote:

Seriously though, when you figure out how $2 million for three full years is too much, you let me know. Since you have to tell me it's not and it's well UNDER market value, we can then address the fact that combined bonuses for him may be higher than he should have gotten, but, in combination, the dramatic inexpensive nature of the deal early and the mild boost to his bonus, plus a big option/roster bonus, kind of makes a very cheap deal all things considered.

Again, exactly as I said, I made mention of bonuses being a part of it. So, you saw mention everywhere and ignored it, and are now wasting my time having to respond to your OWN blindness. Again, why?

Even if I didn't mention it in the thread you quoted but you saw it later -- and since you quoted from that post you saw both -- you knew I understood the nature you understood. So, why make any of this an issue? How about shutting up?

What's the point of ignoring what was said then holding me accountable for your own ignorance?

[Art]

Do the Skins allocate ANY money for resigning it's own emerging stars? I can't wait to see the pricetags for Cooley and ST which will eventually have to be dealt with. Therin lies the difference. The Eagles draft well and identify, and then sign, young players from our own roster.

The Skins spend right up to the cap on sexy names and don't keep any money for a rainy day or to give back to their own.

With all the hubbub about sexy name signings, where is the OL depth? What about WLB? PK? Punter? I know ARE does a lot of things but does he pass block as well as the offensive line depth you now have if someone goes down for year.....as has happened the last two years on your team?

How about the draft? Will you be able to fill holes then? How many picks do you have? 2? I'm serious.

Absolutely we allocate money for players who are with us. Just as we did this year. We made the determination we could improve our roster with some changes to the two players who were free to leave. Next year we appear set to have 21 of 22 if not all 22 starters under contract. See how well the allocation works?

We're a week into free agency. It's laughable and embarrassing to worry about whether we have offensive line depth yet. Worry about that in August when we don't. We could sign Mitchell and Goodwin this week and have abundant depth. We could add June and Cowart for backer. The offseason didn't end because we landed the players we sought right away.

We do need to add a couple more pieces to complete the whole puzzle. Fortunately just not as many as you have to add .

[Art]

WB,

I just wanted to add how amusing it is for you to talk about adding the players we have as "sexy" signings. Only Randle El has any national name recognition. None of the other players is established as much of a name. Archuleta is the closest name player because white announcers loved the next John Lynch a lot, but, even he isn't a name.

Apparently anyone we sign now qualifies as a name player in your world. Is it because they all have names? That's the only qualification I see to them being name players.

[jrockster21]

WB,

I just wanted to add how amusing it is for you to talk about adding the players we have as "sexy" signings. Only Randle El has any national name recognition. None of the other players is established as much of a name. Archuleta is the closest name player because white announcers loved the next John Lynch a lot, but, even he isn't a name.

Apparently anyone we sign now qualifies as a name player in your world. Is it because they all have names? That's the only qualification I see to them being name players.

Yeah. And after just over a week of free-agency, 81 players have switched teams (source). Obviously, the Skins are not the only team in the NFL making moves.

[TheLongshot]

I guess it serves me right to actually try to be helpful to Art's argument.

I'm done with this thread.

Jason

[skinsfanevan]

thats being read all over philly right now just from extremeskins members e-mails

including me

amazing article, i love it

[Redsk58417]

With Danny, it's cake and ice cream every night before bed......stomach aches be damned.

More like "Lobster and Shrimp" for dinner. As opposed to Spam and Vienna sausages. Especially when you can afford atleast steak!....The Mediots have been predicting stomach aches (Cap Hell) for years, but no way.

[Westbrook36]

WB,

I just wanted to add how amusing it is for you to talk about adding the players we have as "sexy" signings. Only Randle El has any national name recognition. None of the other players is established as much of a name. Archuleta is the closest name player because white announcers loved the next John Lynch a lot, but, even he isn't a name.

Apparently anyone we sign now qualifies as a name player in your world. Is it because they all have names? That's the only qualification I see to them being name players.

I agree. Their signing bonus's were more sexy then the actual level of player you added. Yet you crow like a giddy schoolboy over these signings. Weird.

I'll await to see what bottom barrell OL you add as "depth" now that the lion's share of your money is gone. I just hope you don't have to talk 55 year old Ray Brown out of retirement.

BTW, you seriously going into the season with Hall as the PK?

[Art]

I guess it serves me right to actually try to be helpful to Art's argument.

I'm done with this thread.

Jason

That's what I'm bothered by. You and I are saying the same thing. You just chose to ignore half of what I said and say the other half doesn't make sense without the half you ignored. Help me by actually having the respect to quote what I've said, not, pick pieces and suggest the remainder is not there. Especially when we AGREE.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I agree. Their signing bonus's were more sexy then the actual level of player you added. Yet you crow like a giddy schoolboy over these signings. Weird.

I'll await to see what bottom barrell OL you add as "depth" now that the lion's share of your money is gone. I just hope you don't have to talk 55 year old Ray Brown out of retirement.

BTW, you seriously going into the season with Hall as the PK?

it must be a tough time in eagles land when you are cracking on our place kicker... is that really all you got? and as for o linemen, whats up with runyan and tra thomas... seems like you are gonna lose both your bookends.

[Art]

I agree. Their signing bonus's were more sexy then the actual level of player you added. Yet you crow like a giddy schoolboy over these signings. Weird.

I'll await to see what bottom barrell OL you add as "depth" now that the lion's share of your money is gone. I just hope you don't have to talk 55 year old Ray Brown out of retirement.

BTW, you seriously going into the season with Hall as the PK?

WB,

The signing bonuses were higher than the players had earned, just as the base salaries were dramatically lower. You understand there are multiple components to their pay, right?

And, yes, I hope we're going into the season with Hall as our kicker. He's an excellent kicker who's had a bad stretch of luck with those injuries the last two years. I hope we KNOW he's 100 percent healthy before going with him, but, if he is, he certainly is a good kicker to count on. Asking me this question would be like having me ask you if you're actually going with Akers next year as your kicker. Don't embarrass yourself with that foolishness.

[Westbrook36]

Akers was kicking 50 yard FGs at the end of last year. What are you talking about?

[Art]

Akers was kicking 50 yard FGs at the end of last year. What are you talking about?

Akers was 1 for 2 on kicks from more than 50 with the one he made being Dec. 11. Hall was 12 of 14 on field goals last year returning from injury and kicking THROUGH it without all his power back. The point made is suggesting we wouldn't want Hall would be exactly the same as saying you wouldn't want Akers. Both are very good kickers -- Akers better when healthy.

[Butz65]

Do the Skins allocate ANY money for resigning it's own emerging stars?

The Skins spend right up to the cap on sexy names and don't keep any money for a rainy day or to give back to their own.

Actually - as demonstrated by the fact that a large number of players would have restructured had the new CBA not happened - the Skins structure contracts to allow the players to "cash out" into new cap-friendly deals after a few years. The only player who left over the last few years that the Skins should have offered more money to keep was Pierce. Nonetheless they seemed to do pretty well without him. Besides - the Eagles aren't that much better -how badly would you have liked to have Burgess back? Even Corey Simon? Deuce would have helped when Westy went down.

With all the hubbub about sexy name signings, where is the OL depth? What about WLB? PK? Punter? I know ARE does a lot of things but does he pass block as well as the offensive line depth you now have if someone goes down for year.....as has happened the last two years on your team?

:laugh: That's rich coming from an Eagles fan. Depth? How about the Birds last season where was your depth at QB? How about OL once Andrews went down? Any depth at WR? DL? Please..... - and don't bring up punters and place kickers. They can be added or dropped at any time. Those are not needs to be addressed through the draft or through the first round of free agency.

How about the draft? Will you be able to fill holes then? How many picks do you have? 2? I'm serious.

Actually not that many holes left to fill at this point. OL depth will be solved in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (June 1st cuts) of free agency. What else is left? Perhaps another LB (although Carter can help fill that void). Again - just because we signed guys to our biggest areas of need doesn't mean we're done. However, the Birds have barely gotten started and most of the key FA's at their areas of need are now gone.

[Butz65]

I'll await to see what bottom barrell OL you add as "depth" now that the lion's share of your money is gone. I just hope you don't have to talk 55 year old Ray Brown out of retirement.

Who said the lion's share of our money is gone or that we aren't going to add some more players? Oh - I forgot - you are the cap expert that correctly predicted our cap doom about a month ago.

[Dan T.]

Westbrook--you're more concerned with Art's tone, which is tongue-in-cheek than the substance of what he is saying.

Actually, if you've read Art's posts over the years, I think the arrogant tone is more spot on than tongue in cheek. Many have been called stupid who don't agree with his point of view.

I happen to agree to a large degree with his substance. People have been incorrectly damning the Redskins to Cap Hell for years now. I don't agree with his tone.

[Art]

Actually, if you've read Art's posts over the years, I think the arrogant tone is more spot on than tongue in cheek. Many have been called stupid who don't agree with his point of view.

I happen to agree to a large degree with his substance. People have been incorrectly damning the Redskins to Cap Hell for years now. I don't agree with his tone.

To be fair, this was less arrogant and more, "Na Ne Na Ne Boo Boo, Stick your head in Doo Doo." .

[Dan T.]

To be fair, this was less arrogant and more, "Na Ne Na Ne Boo Boo, Stick your head in Doo Doo." .

:laugh:

Maybe a lot of your posts should be taken in the context of "Na Ne Na Ne Boo, Stick your head in Doo Doo."

[Art]

:laugh:

Maybe a lot of your posts should be taken in the context of "Na Ne Na Ne Boo, Stick your head in Doo Doo."

Doubtless true .

[Tarpon75]

Actually, if you've read Art's posts over the years, I think the arrogant tone is more spot on than tongue in cheek. Many have been called stupid who don't agree with his point of view.

I happen to agree to a large degree with his substance. People have been incorrectly damning the Redskins to Cap Hell for years now. I don't agree with his tone.

I too am sick of the media in regard to our supposed,pending cap doom.That being said, I would like to see a slightly less scathing tone in response to such media drivel.Other than that I think Art stated the Redskins case very well.