Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Goodell says uncapped year is "virtually certain"

texasthunder

By texasthunder
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Wyvern

Wyvern

Posted
Posted

Short term, it could be good for the Redskins. They need the wiggle-room to clean house. This also allows us to retool more quickly.

But long-term, this probably isn't good for NFL football. Maybe it looks good if you're the 'Yankees' of football --- but what happens if you're not? Right now, Snyder has deep pockets -- what if that taps out, and we're watching Jerruh's team and the Giants buying up all the talent, and we can't compete due to budget constraints? That wouldn't be much fun.

I hope the NFL can find a way to retain the more equal footing of competition in football, and avoid what happened to M.L. Baseball.

...And there's the not-so-trifling matter of a possible lockout in 2011. As a fan, I'm not looking forward to something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Posted
Posted
Just reading that on the League site. I really didn't think the owners would let it get this far.

Interesting times ahead, to say the least.

Hail.

theres still 4 weeks to get something done, and this stuff usually goes down to the wire. i just cant see them letting this happen, next year will be a huge issue if they dont sort this out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
Ok, I understand some of the "clean house" thoughts. But wouldn't they really only benefit us if there cap were to come back? If the cap doesn't come back, why not keep some of those guys as depth?

I think you have to be conservative and position yourself to succeed in either climate (cap and no cap). If we find that the cap is done for good, it won't take too long to stock up on high-paid reserves if that's our strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
I think you have to be conservative and position yourself to succeed in either climate (cap and no cap). If we find that the cap is done for good, it won't take too long to stock up on high-paid reserves if that's our strategy.

I just thought I heard awhile back that if the cap goes away, it will be hard for them to bring it back.

I don't mind releasing aging veterans to give the young guys a shot. But we shouldn't just cut everyone over 30 or so. We've seen that we don't have much depth, so let's not get rid of all of it if we don't have to.

Now if the cap was to come back in 2011 or 2012, then I'm all for cleaning house. But if the cap goes for good, what's the harm in keeping some of those guys around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
I just thought I heard awhile back that if the cap goes away, it will be hard for them to bring it back.

I don't mind releasing aging veterans to give the young guys a shot. But we shouldn't just cut everyone over 30 or so. We've seen that we don't have much depth, so let's not get rid of all of it if we don't have to.

Now if the cap was to come back in 2011 or 2012, then I'm all for cleaning house. But if the cap goes for good, what's the harm in keeping some of those guys around?

No, I see your point. A couple things:

1) You can't just fill out your roster with younger starters and aging depth. It makes you good now, but it's very short-sighted and limits your development of quality, young depth.

2) I don't know that teams will have the luxury of knowing the future of a salary cap. Therefore, I think it's more prudent to get yourself into a position where you could still acquire talent under a salary cap. If there is none, you're already ahead of most teams just given the owner's deep pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
No, I see your point. A couple things:

1) You can't just fill out your roster with younger starters and aging depth. It makes you good now, but it's very short-sighted and limits your development of quality, young depth.

2) I don't know that teams will have the luxury of knowing the future of a salary cap. Therefore, I think it's more prudent to get yourself into a position where you could still acquire talent under a salary cap. If there is none, you're already ahead of most teams just given the owner's deep pockets.

I agree with everything you've said. But there are some guys that would still be able to provide us with depth, Portis comes to mind. Like I said, I'm all for getting rid of some of the higher priced vets, ARE, but we shouldn't clear them our unless we know we have a solid alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
Clean house is right. At a minimum this should mean the end for Portis, ARE, Sellers, Daniels, Wynn, Collins.

I just will never understand the dislike for Daniels.

Also, it takes zero to cut him,Sellers, Wynn or Collins. They aren't exactly holding us back financially.:ols:

Portis I can see the point, but disagree and completely agree with ARE and would add Griff into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCSaints_fan

DCSaints_fan

Posted
Posted
There will be no new CBA until the very last minute prior to a potential lockout

So probably July 2011

And I am of the opinion that once this thing goes uncapped, the cap in the NFL is over. The union won't leave the table with a cap there

Why do you think this is the case? They accepted one in '87, I don't see why they wouldn't now. Because there really isn't a viable secondary league for football players, like in the MLB and NHL, I could very well see the NFL brining in replacement players like they did in '87, if the NFLPA refuses to accept a cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
Yeah, a lot of people are saying that. IDK if that would be a good thing or a bad thing for us.

It would be a good thing for the Redskins but a bad thing for the NFL. Even if we make bad decisions, no cap means that we can correct those mistakes immediately.

There would probably be 8-12 teams that have a distinct competitive advantage over the rest of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S.T.real,lights,out

S.T.real,lights,out

Posted
Posted
It would be a good thing for the Redskins but a bad thing for the NFL. Even if we make bad decisions, no cap means that we can correct those mistakes immediately.

There would probably be 8-12 teams that have a distinct competitive advantage over the rest of the league.

Yeah, i'd hate to turn into the Yankees of Football (b/c i hate the Yankees so much) but if it means winning all the time then im all for it. Sorry Buffalo!! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jflow78

jflow78

Posted
Posted

John Clayton, on an ESPN podcast, reported that teams are going to basically spend as if a cap were in place. As far as cleaning house, a lot of the guys we would dump are on the last year of their contract, Portis is one of those.

What I really hope hppens is that Snyder will find a way to count a signing bonus money this year. If he did that, our payroll would be ridiculously low next season and beyond (until he signed a bunch of high priced guys again). Imagine not having Haynesworth's bonus hanging over our heads.

Of course the problem with that is then where's the motivation to work hard each year when 80% of your contract has already been given to you up front. Hopefully that's not an issue.

The other thing Clayton said is that there are only going to be 7-10 franchise tags used on guys this year. Karlos Dansby can't be tagged but Vincent Wilfolk will be. Dansby would be a good addition, IMO, if we're moving in a 3-4 direction. He's about the same size as Orakpo (6'4" 250 lbs) and has the speed to cover a TE or RB. Arizona has been transitioning to a 3-4 and I assume they were going to use him outside, plus he's 28, not too old yet.

Interesting year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CommDownMan

CommDownMan

Posted
Posted

The guys for the "clean house" would be more like Samuels and Thomas. If a cap remained those guys would be huge cap hits (if they retire, which seems likely). Collins, Sellers don't have much of a cap hit. ARE is a good call though.

We've all been talking about RFA for guys like Campbell/Rogers. This news doesn't really surprise me. If FA drops, maybe we'll see move trade movement (and player-player swaps, not just for picks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan190

skinsfan190

Posted
Posted
John Clayton, on an ESPN podcast, reported that teams are going to basically spend as if a cap were in place. As far as cleaning house, a lot of the guys we would dump are on the last year of their contract, Portis is one of those.

What I really hope hppens is that Snyder will find a way to count a signing bonus money this year. If he did that, our payroll would be ridiculously low next season and beyond (until he signed a bunch of high priced guys again). Imagine not having Haynesworth's bonus hanging over our heads.

Of course the problem with that is then where's the motivation to work hard each year when 80% of your contract has already been given to you up front. Hopefully that's not an issue.

The other thing Clayton said is that there are only going to be 7-10 franchise tags used on guys this year. Karlos Dansby can't be tagged but Vincent Wilfolk will be. Dansby would be a good addition, IMO, if we're moving in a 3-4 direction. He's about the same size as Orakpo (6'4" 250 lbs) and has the speed to cover a TE or RB. Arizona has been transitioning to a 3-4 and I assume they were going to use him outside, plus he's 28, not too old yet.

Interesting year.

Good stuff here.

Dansby is a ILB tho, not a rush linebacker or OLB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...