Brunell's future(a cap perspective)

[Kurd Cudins]

So, after this new restructuring there has been a lot of speculation on Brunell's future. This thread is designed to evalute the situation from a cap perspective, and go from there. It should be noted that the restructuring had no impact on future cap #'s. Here it goes.

2007 Cap # = $6.633 million. If released we save $2.33 million.

Possible restructure.

2008 Cap # = $7.833 million. If released we save $4.967 million. Number will be lower if he restructures in 2007(salary becomes prorated SB).

2009 Cap # = $9.033 million. If released we save $7.6 million. Number will be lower if he restructures in 2007, 2008 and much lower if both.

2010 Cap # = $8.8 million. Save ALL unless he restructures in one or all of the previous years.

If cut this year:

Total Cap hit = $4.3 million

Savings = $2.33 million

If kept, then cut in 2008:

Total Cap hit = $9.5 million

Savings = $4.967 million

So, after looking at the numbers we see that we save $2.33 million by cutting him before June 1st. A deeper analysis shows that cutting him after June 1st makes no sense, so I won't go into that. Many have been saying that we should restructure his contract to save the amount we would have saved should he have been cut. A further look at the numbers however shows that this does not work, because whatever he saves us this year we'll still be accountable for the next year(2008).

That scenario:

If restructured in 2007 and cut in 2008 #'s

2007 Cap # $4.3 million Savings of $2.33 mil

2008 Cap Savings if released of $2.637 mil

Total Cap hit = $12.3 mil

Savings = $5 mil

There is also the further scenario of not restructuring, keeping him for 2007, then releasing him after June 1st. Frankly, I'm not doing any more number crunching, but from other patterns I can assume that won't work.

I understand the analytical arguements. We need a veteran backup. He knows the system. He has the respect of his teammates. All valid points and excellent reasons to keep a player. Unfortunately, IMO, the front office has put themselves and Mark in this position. The yearly restructurings compound this problem. I like and respect what Brunell brings to our team, but a look at the numbers suggests that we may need to move on. I think we should bring in Damon Huard as a FA. He was in the system and showed this year that he can successfully guide a team, in the AFC no-less. Sorry Mark. :helmet:

[Drunken Master III]

He's not worth the millions of dollars that WE pay him. Cut him.

[skins4eva]

He should be playing for the vet's minimum since no other team would take him.

[gkekoa]

To me, proper analysis of this situation is simple. Supposing Campbell is our guy for next year then if we can sign a young backup as third string for a year at a price of about one million, then beyond saving the 2.3 on Brunell, we save 1.3 million in total for the position.

The other aspect to look at is having Collins as a back up going to give us as good a chance as having Brunell. I'll say this about Collins, he can't actually be worse.

[Stew]

Good post. I had been wondering about this. It looks best to cut our losses with Mark right now. My fear is that Gibbs wont let the numbers push Brunell out of Redskins Park. Huard would be an excellent back up, and if Campbell faulters, he would make a great starter.

[nebster21]

you might want to check those cap numbers. The paper today said he only costs us 5.2 million next year.

[Kurd Cudins]

you might want to check those cap numbers. The paper today said he only costs us 5.2 million next year.

That's his base salary. His total cap hit is $6.633 million because there is a signing bonus allocation of $1.433 million.

[Guest Rafterman]

Good post. I had been wondering about this. It looks best to cut our losses with Mark right now. My fear is that Gibbs wont let the numbers push Brunell out of Redskins Park. Huard would be an excellent back up, and if Campbell faulters, he would make a great starter.

Mr. Synder might be realizing by now that Joe Gibbs has wasted a ton of his/our money.

Hopefully, Mr. Gibbs will be reined in severely.

[TheLongshot]

Mr. Synder might be realizing by now that Joe Gibbs has wasted a ton of his/our money.

Hopefully, Mr. Gibbs will be reined in severely.

Considering that it was Mr. Snyder (spell it right) who was behind the contract that he gave Mark in the first place, he has only himself to blame.

Jason

[909997]

why did we give brunell a 40 mil 6 year deal at age 34?

[Stew]

why did we give brunell a 40 mil 6 year deal at age 34?

The blanket excuse is "He will never see most of that money" but im beginning to wonder how long we are going to hang on to him. It really is quite a bit of money for someone who isnt starting.

[Pocono]

Those dead cap hits will go up slightly because the salary he just turned into signing bonus to aid the Betts extension will be prorated over his remaining contract years. I think he'll be cut after 6/1 saving them 5.2M on the 07 cap with the rest of his signing bonus counting against the 08 cap. They'll probably use the new rule which allows them to designate a player as a 6/1 cut at the beginning of the new cap year in March so he can seek employment with another team. With his QB rating in 07 it's likely someone else will sign him as a back up QB....BTW Great post STIG.

[Kurd Cudins]

Those dead cap hits will go up slightly because the salary he just turned into signing bonus to aid the Betts extension will be prorated over his remaining contract years. I think he'll be cut after 6/1 saving them 5.2M on the 07 cap with the rest of his signing bonus counting against the 08 cap. They'll probably use the new rule which allows them to designate a player as a 6/1 cut at the beginning of the new cap year in March so he can seek employment with another team. With his QB rating in 07 it's likely someone else will sign him as a back up QB....BTW Great post STIG.

I thought the proration to be the case too, but in the original article I read on the extension(washpost I think, not sure) they mentioned that it ALL is tied to this year. I am aware of the proration rules and it's possible they just overlooked it. Either way, the prorations are somewhat insignificant. When i looked into the numbers I looked at your proposed solution. In the end it saves the same amount of money and costs the same as if releasing him before. The difference is whether you want to take it all at once, or spread it over two years. I think that just comes down to preference and for the life of me I cannot figure out our FO's MO. O.K.? I agree Pocono, we will probably do exactly what you've said. The key is that those HUGE cap numbers in '09 and '10 need to come off the books.

P.S. Thank you Pocono and Stew

[RedskinzOwnU]

We HAVE to cut this guy. We should not keep him going into next year under any circumstances, even as a #3.

[truskinsfan18]

Good post. I had been wondering about this. It looks best to cut our losses with Mark right now. My fear is that Gibbs wont let the numbers push Brunell out of Redskins Park. Huard would be an excellent back up, and if Campbell faulters, he would make a great starter.

Will Huard really be looked at as a #2 this offseason? He had what 11 td's and 1 pick this year? I think someone will get him as their sure starter

[ImmortalDragon]

Do any of you really believe Gibbs would cut Brunell?

[ST's ATVs]

Gibbs is not Spurrier and Brunell is not Wuerfell. He will restructure and stay.

[Jerrod6002]

I think we should bring in Damon Huard as a FA. He was in the system and showed this year that he can successfully guide a team, in the AFC no-less. Sorry Mark. :helmet:

He could get as much a 2 million. That is what a lot of good backups are being paid.

[armada58]

This one is probably the easiest decision to make when it comes to offseason moves. You cut Brunell, keep Todd Collins, and sign a 3rd QB from wherever. There are a couple of reasons for this. The #1 reason for cutting Brunell is that I don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever want to give Gibbs the option of going to Brunell ever again for the rest of eternity. Much like cutting Weurfel so Spurrier was never able to be tempted again.

Brunell has given us some wonderul memories, but the time to sever ties is this offseason. Whatever cap hits/savings result, so be it. Todd Collins knows this offense 5 times better than Brunell and he can continue to be a help for Campbell.

[Kurd Cudins]

He could get as much a 2 million. That is what a lot of good backups are being paid.

My idea here is that we would be releasing BOTH Brunell and Collins. Cutting Collins saves us $1.25 million for a total of $3.583 million. With the way we structure contracts, I would not expect his cap number next season to be more than two mill, and overall we'd still be saving one and a half million and have a more solid backup(IMO). The greatest thing about Huard, and something that gives us an advantage in luring him here is his familiarity with Saunders. Perhaps we could convince him to reunite with his old coach to make a run at the SuperBowl as insurance to our young QB. :logo:

[MABfan]

What makes any of you think he'd want to come back? The guy probably wants to be on a team that will make a run, and let's face it, 2007 for the Redskins will see its ups and downs. He'd also fit better in a different offense, one that doesn't include 30 step drop backs. Besides, the fans treat him like garbage, the media...well, we know how they treat him. I think a lot of coaches have respect for him, and believe he would be a quality back-up. Some past coaches: Coughlin, Del Rio, Holmgren, Gruden, Mariuchi, Juaran, Reid, Rhodes.

He has a good rating this year, and if you look at the others who are starting, some are really struggling.

I know what y'all will say....let him go...good for us.

[Hooper]

What makes any of you think he'd want to come back? The guy probably wants to be on a team that will make a run, and let's face it, 2007 for the Redskins will see its ups and downs. He'd also fit better in a different offense, one that doesn't include 30 step drop backs. Besides, the fans treat him like garbage, the media...well, we know how they treat him. I think a lot of coaches have respect for him, and believe he would be a quality back-up. Some past coaches: Coughlin, Del Rio, Holmgren, Gruden, Mariuchi, Juaran, Reid, Rhodes.

He has a good rating this year, and if you look at the others who are starting, some are really struggling.

I know what y'all will say....let him go...good for us.

Oh please. The system didn't call for 30 step drops -- Mark did that on his own because he didn't like to get hit. All the problems he had here were EXACTLY the same problems he had his last year in Jacksonville. He doesn't trust his accurary anymore so he plays it ridiculously safe. Classy guy, but he's done.

That said, I think he's back next year and at a very high salary: I seriously don't think Gibbs can stomach asking him to take a massive pay cut.

[MABfan]

Oh please. The system didn't call for 30 step drops -- Mark did that on his own because he didn't like to get hit. All the problems he had here were EXACTLY the same problems he had his last year in Jacksonville.

:doh:

For one, I was clearly being sarcastic in regards to a 30 step dropback. Most are more like 12. He wasn't doing that to avoid being hit, the play determines the amount of steps. The further the routes by the receivers, the bigger dropback.

Secondly, I don't recall him having any problems in J-ville.

[Hooper]

:doh:

For one, I was clearly being sarcastic in regards to a 30 step dropback. Most are more like 12. He wasn't doing that to avoid being hit, the play determines the amount of steps. The further the routes by the receivers, the bigger dropback.

Secondly, I don't recall him having any problems in J-ville.

Whatever. Campbell doesn't drop back as far as MB, and also steps up in the pocket -- something Mark never did this year. Mark just wasn't comfortable in the pocket period -- why do you think Saunders was forced to call ten lame rollouts a game for him? Ain't doing the same for Campbell, is he?

And Mark did have problems in Jacksonville his last season. Basically he flat-out stopped throwing the ball anywhere other than the flats. You know, just like he did here most of the time.

Mark had an awesome career. But he's not a starter anymore. The physical skills have just declined too much.

[MABfan]

Whatever. Campbell doesn't drop back as far as MB, and also steps up in the pocket -- something Mark never did this year. Mark just wasn't comfortable in the pocket period -- why do you think Saunders was forced to call ten lame rollouts a game for him? Ain't doing the same for Campbell, is he?

And Mark did have problems in Jacksonville his last season. Basically he flat-out stopped throwing the ball anywhere other than the flats. You know, just like he did here most of the time.

Mark had an awesome career. But he's not a starter anymore. The physical skills have just declined too much.

We can argue all day long in terms of who did what better. Brunell was better at the short passing game and not making bonehead mistakes, and Campbell is a tad more mobile and throws the deeper routes better (which fits this offense better). Clearly, Campbell has the upside.

I think you'd agree that Brunell's abilities would fit better in a different offense. One with lesser drops and more shotgun.

However, to say that a QB can take any amount of steps in a dropback on any given play really shows your lack of football knowledge, especially when it comes to the QB position. You can even see them practicing it on the ES practice cam.

If you recall Brunell's final season in J-ville (you probably don't), he was w/o Jimmy Smith because of a little cocaine problem, he was injured in the third game vs. Indy (which by the way was pretty good), there was a new head coach with a new system, and everyone around him SUCKED, including his O-line and receivers. He should have won his 1st game vs. Carolina, but the D could not handle the last second heroics by some new guy named Delhomme.