scottb Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 ...have created a 2-3 window to win, but afterwards the team will have to start over. The lastest confirmation of this point came in an AM980 interview with Peter King this evening. Are these doomsayers right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Would you take 2-3 years of playoffs and Super Bowl contention over the crap we've been dealing with for the past decade? I sure would. I'm so hungry to see us back in it that I can't stand it when playoffs come. There's nothing to follow it for. But as long as we don't squander our draft picks in the coming two seasons and find a gem or two this year, we'll be o.k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Well, exactly three years ago they said the expenditures of 2000 would bankrupt the team capwise and we'd have to cut and give away players wholesale. Didn't seem to happen yet. There are a few players we would have liked but didn't go after, but we really haven't lost many that we wanted to keep and certainly haven't cut half the roster to get under. Only Davis didn't survive 2000 really because of cap spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Look, in 3 years we'll still have 7 of these 9 players; Ramsey, Samuels, Bailey, Arrington, Coles, Jansen, Trotter, Gardner, Thomas. That's our base to build on. Everyone around them is important, but replaceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevea Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 a 2-3 window to win, but afterwards the team will have to start over ... Are these doomsayers right? First, even if that were correct I wouldn't call it doom. But, moreso, I think it's a wild exaggeration. The window can definitely be extended to a 4th year (2006), and probably a 5th. After that there will be a setback during which a few really good players might be let go ... but we'll be able to keep several of the great ones. That is a long way from starting over. HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiplomat Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Eparadox Look, in 3 years we'll still have 7 of these 9 players; Ramsey, Samuels, Bailey, Arrington, Coles, Jansen, Trotter, Gardner, Thomas. That's our base to build on. Everyone around them is important, but replaceable. Hopefully we can keep all of them, but my 7 are as follows: Ramsey, Samuels, Bailey, Arrington, Coles, Thomas, and Trotter. Leaving out Gardner and Jansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Well, we clearly have a longer window than three years if you just take into account the ages of our key players. We have a team that is mostly in tact contractually for the next three years. If that team is not very competitive at that time we have the ability to cut our losses, still keep some key young players and retool. If, however, the team is productive and capable, you'll make some tough choices, but you'll find guys willing to stay around in such a case and you'll end up extending the competitive ability for some years after. Where the "doomsayers" are correct is that we have signed contracts that almost assure us no major losses for three years. They take that to mean we have a three-year window. Their not, strictly speaking, incorrect about that. But, the window is defined by the team. We can make moves after the third year and still be able to sign players, retain core guys and compete, IF we have identified the players already that are capable of competing at a high level. If not, then we'll go for three, cut a dozen or so guys, and start again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Another point to consider is the relative value of youth and signing bonuses. Much of the "doom" centers on "dead" cap money from signing bonuses -- salaries aren't guaranteed, so they don't figure into it. We would be facing doom, if, like the 1996 Panthers or us in 2000, we signed a bunch of old superstar mercenaries for top dollar and back-loaded the contracts. However, this time we spent on up-and-coming youth. Barring injuries, we should get enough years out of our young players to dilute the eventual effect on the cap. Who cares if you give a guy a 10 million bonus for 5 years if you can get 4 years out of him? There would only be 2 mill left. Basically, we're hoping to get the best years out of these guys for a fixed price. Having then proved themselves, they will be free to seek mega-bucks from some other sucker team. I think it's a great plan, and I'm looking forward to a lot of fun in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Originally posted by TennesseeCarl Would you take 2-3 years of playoffs and Super Bowl contention over the crap we've been dealing with for the past decade? I hear ya! Gibbs- 12 years 8 playoff seasons (with current playoff structure 10) 16 playoff wins 4 NFC championships 3 Superbowl championships A.G.-10 years 1 playoff season 1 playoff win I'll take the last wildcard over the $hit the last 10 seasons!:jump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.