When will we EVER learn? Redskins fans, some of the biggest hypocrites around .....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Tomlin wasn't promoted from within, though I guess not much really changed in Pittsburgh during that transition.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Hell no, that would be beyond stupid to me bro. Sorry

Why?

If you are literally tens of millions of dollars below the cap, why is it dumb to pick up the one player who could start on any team in the leauge, no questions asked?

And for the record, none of you - and it breaks my heart to include SHF in this but he's guilty of some serious crimes against reason in this thread - have the faintest idea of why it is dangerous to over rely on free agency.

It has nothing to do with age or holding back the young guys.

It has everything to do with depth.

During the years that the Skins over-relied on free agency, their depth was the worst in the league. During the second Gibbs' tenure, the Skins probably had the most talented roster in the league from #1 to #22 on the depth chart. The problem was, no team goes a full year without losing significant minutes from starters. And that is when the whole house would fall down.

In the salary cap era, the most efficient way to build draft is via the draft. That is what the Kareem Moores of the world are supposed to be. Unless he is the ultimate diamond in the rough, Kareem Moore is not meant to be a starter on a 12-win team. He is meant - by God - to be the backup safety and special teams star on a 12-win team. Starting him over an extended period of time most likely means that your team is terrible.

The Steelers, Packers, and Pats all use free agency. They use it to fill their depth.

Each of those teams have 4 or 5 guys who are the best at their position in the league. The next 45 guys on their roster almost universally fall into the good, but not great category. But this is actually an advantage, because they can absorb the injuries, suspensions, etc. that cripple other teams.

The way to make this work is using the draft to get cheap, disposable players who are fine. And who you can happily dispose of when their rookie contract is up. If some team wants to double Kareem Moore's salary in two years, who gives a ****? Draft someone in the fifth round who plays just like him. Guys like him actually do grow on trees if you know how to find them. It's the London Fletchers who are difficult to find. And you need to acquire them by any means necessary (though I would be loathe to use draft picks unless the need and player matched up so beautifully that you had to a la the original Randy Moss trade).

The one thing Shanallen have done is - for the most part - stopped paying the Kareem Moores of the league like they are the London Fletchers. And that is why there is cap space galore. And that is why you get go get a "star" or two if you want.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 11:52 AM ----------

They weren't really regime changes in PIT/IND, they were more promoting coaches from within and retaining the same staff, I don't know enough about the BAL change. I don't think in any of these situations did the person in charge of personnel change though.

Tomlin was a hire from without and one that nearly split the team in two since the players wanted Whisenhunt to be promoted. Alan Faneca basically quit on the team because of the hire.

[addicted]

Why?

If you are literally tens of millions of dollars below the cap' date=' why is it dumb to pick up the one player who could start on any team in the leauge, no questions asked?[/quote']

My point is that as a rebuilding team there is no reason, ZERO reason in my eyes to be going after any older veteran player who would be at the top of the free agency pool

In my mind we need players, we need a lot of talented guys here

The best way to get the most bang for our buck is to not go after the Hanyesworths or prized guys at all, regardless of if you think they fit our scheme or not. The problem with going after top tiered players includes dumping too much money into a single player and not having enough for other guys

Call it a Walmart philosophy if you want. Getting a top paid player limits us from spending more money on other players.

Lining up guys as far as best to worst and from top to bottom for paychecks and then eliminating the most likely to get paid the most money also helps limit the "bust" factor in case that guy doesn't pan out

You want us to put it all in the same basket...that never works

Are we seriously one position player away from a championship? Of course not

My strategy means that we use our money wisely and cautiously. It also means more money to go around to other players. It means we can raise the floor on the talent level on the bench and starters

Or we can just load the boat up for someone like Holmes or Namdi and watch as once again we screw ourselves.

It's better to me to get 7-10 lesser talented guys here to help the team then to get 1-3 big name guys with the team we have,

And for the record' date=' none of you - and it breaks my heart to include SHF in this but he's guilty of some serious crimes against reason in this thread - have the faintest idea of why it is dangerous to over rely on free agency.

It has nothing to do with age or holding back the young guys.

It has everything to do with depth.[/quote']

What's sad to me is that I get that very well and what you said fits exactly into the reasoning behind not going after one or two players who eat all of the cap money up leaving us with no money for depth but I guess you missed what I posted

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What's sad to me is that I get that very well and what you said fits exactly into the reasoning behind not going after one or two players who eat all of the cap money up leaving us with no money for depth but I guess you missed what I posted

But Ashsomanlogaoga WILL NOT eat up all the cap money. I don't know where you guys are getting this. We are apparently $45 million from the FLOOR.

Someone on this team needs to be rich. That's the new rules. You need to sign a few huge dollar players. And it can't be rookies.

So, the question is, Who are you going to spend huge huge bucks on? This year. Right now.

Name the player that the Redskins give the $20 million signing bonus to. Because it HAS to happen. This is like Brewster's Millions. Danny has to spend the money or his old white uncle, I dunno, takes away his radio stations or something. I assume that if a team fails to make the floor they have to give the money to the players union in duffle bags or something. I assume there is an enforecement mechanism.

[AKM311]

But Ashsomanlogaoga WILL NOT eat up all the cap money. I don't know where you guys are getting this. We are apparently $45 million from the FLOOR.

Someone on this team needs to be rich. That's the new rules. You need to sign a few huge dollar players. And it can't be rookies.

So' date=' the question is, Who are you going to spend huge huge bucks on? This year. Right now.

Name the player that the Redskins give the $20 million signing bonus to. Because it HAS to happen. This is like Brewster's Millions. Danny has to spend the money or his old white uncle, I dunno, takes away his radio stations or something. I assume that if a team fails to make the floor they have to give the money to the players union in duffle bags or something. I assume there is an enforecement mechanism.[/quote']

I rather spread that $20M SB into 3 extra players. Handing out more $7M SBs than $20M.

I usually agree with a lot of what you write.

However, we do not 'have' to give a $20M SB. I want value, not premiums. Don't trade draft picks and acquire a good nucleus. To me, that is what this FA period needs to be. Even with the incoming class of players like Ryan Harris, we will still suck, yet allowing for less holes and able to draft the best picks in each draft vs. drafting on needs.

[KCClybun]

From 2001-2005, the Pats drafted Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Deion Branch, Jarvis Green, Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Vince Wilfork, Logan Mankins, Nick Kaczur, and Matt Cassel.

20 of their 22 starters this season were drafted by the Pats. It would have been 21 of 22 had Ty Warren not been injured in preseason. Wes Welker was the only preseason starter who was not drafted by the Pats.

I stand corrected, sir. I apologize, I didn't think things all the way through before I posted that.

[addicted]

But Ashsomanlogaoga WILL NOT eat up all the cap money. I don't know where you guys are getting this. We are apparently $45 million from the FLOOR.

Someone on this team needs to be rich. That's the new rules. You need to sign a few huge dollar players. And it can't be rookies.

Your over simplifying this and no one should actually buy into the idea that we are forced to spend a grip of money on any single player. You might think that but unless you can prove to me that this is the way it is I think your smoking something.

Could we spend 45 million on 1-3 big names - Asdulamongalla and Rice for example

Sure we could do that. If we needed just a corner and a WR I'd think that would be something we should do. Are we just 1-2 big playmakers from a championship? Hell no. So why would we put all of the money into 1-2 big names as you suggest?

Fact is no one says we couldn't spend that money and spread it around on a multitude of players. The pie shouldn't be split into just 1-2 guys as you want to say it "has to be done"...what has to be done is us spending money. How we do that is up to us.

So' date=' the question is, Who are you going to spend huge huge bucks on? This year. Right now.

Name the player that the Redskins give the $20 million signing bonus to. Because it HAS to happen. This is like Brewster's Millions. Danny has to spend the money or his old white uncle, I dunno, takes away his radio stations or something. I assume that if a team fails to make the floor they have to give the money to the players union in duffle bags or something. I assume there is an enforecement mechanism.[/quote']

In my eyes I hope no one. You can split 45 million into 9 players making 5 million each, or 7 players making 7.5 million a piece, or 5 players making 9 million each...on and on. No one said that we had to give any of those million dollar babies a 20 million dollar signing bonus. In fact to do so is in my opinion asinine with the past we have had.

Letme give you some easy examples of what I mean on how we can and should spread the money around...

The top WR's in this class are:

1. Santonio Holmes

2. Sydney Rice

3. Braylon Edwards

I would not spend a damn dime on any of those guys. Each one of them would not only cost us more money to get then the next best one - Santana Moss - but each of them have tons more question marks about them then Moss. We could and likely would get more bang for our buck giving Moss 5-6 million a year then to spend more money on those guys. Believe me they will cost more money then Moss. So we re-sign Moss and that eats up 5 million, but it doesn't eat up 10 million or 20 million like the top guys likely would. We got 90+ catches from Moss last year, and he would cost less leaving more money on other positions. Its a no brainer to me to get him

Here's the situation with RB's. The top of the class are:

1. Ahmad Bradshaw

2. Deangelo Williams

3. Cedric Benson

We could sink 20 million into one of those guys but really why the hell would we? One guys got a fumbling problem, another has an injury past, the other is older but still productive. We could spend the money on these top guys but it would be much smarter in my opinion for us to go after a lesser RB like Sproles who not only can be a RB but contributes to the return game, or someone not used very much but still productive like a Norwood or Brandon Jackon. We'd save money getting the lesser name leaving more money on the table for other areas. If we gave one of those guys a 20 million signing bonus then we have less money to improve the depth of the team

As for Corner the top guys are:

1. Namdi

2. Josh Wilson

3. Jonathan Joesph

You could give 20 million to one of those guys but right below them are guys like Antonio Cromartie, Chris Carr, and Ike Taylor. Why go after the top guy spending all that money on him when a lesser guy is still good enough for us but would cost millions less? To me the talent level is so deep this year that we shouldn't even remotely consider the top 3 guys at the position except for offensive linemen and our NT position. Every other position we can spend less and still improve.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Having had little to n interest in the school yard antics of both sides through the CBA crap, what's the rumour about this $20 million signing bonus thang L_k_b mentioned above?

Hail.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Spending big money on RBs is always a dumb move. Spending big money on CBs is usually a pretty smart move. Receivers are more hit or miss. If you get a motivated Santonio Holmes, he can single-handidly win one or two games for you. If you gets caught smoking pot or gains 15 pounds, things go south in a hurry.

[AKM311]

As for Corner the top guys are:

1. Namdi

2. Josh Wilson

3. Jonathan Joesph

You could give 20 million to one of those guys but right below them are guys like Antonio Cromartie, Chris Carr, and Ike Taylor. Why go after the top guy spending all that money on him when a lesser guy is still good enough for us but would cost millions less? To me the talent level is so deep this year that we shouldn't even remotely consider the top 3 guys at the position except for offensive linemen and our NT position. Every other position we can spend less and still improve.

I agree with everything. But am curious, is Josh Wilson really going to be paid as the 2nd best CB? I have no idea. I really am curious. He is the CB I wanted the Skins to get, but not at that price. Unless we go to a man press, Cromartie, Carr, and Taylor won't really fit our scheme. Josh Wilson would.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 06:06 PM ----------

Having had little to n interest in the school yard antics of both sides through the CBA crap, what's the rumour about this $20 million signing bonus thang L_k_b mentioned above?

Hail.

No rumor. We don't have to spend $20M SB. I think he means, since we have to spend $45M more this year to reach the salary cap floor, we have enough room to do so. But we do not HAVE to spend that much, like he actually said.

[MartinC]

Having had little to n interest in the school yard antics of both sides through the CBA crap, what's the rumour about this $20 million signing bonus thang L_k_b mentioned above?

Hail.

The rumors are that the new CBA will include a salary floor i.e a cash minimum you have to spend on salaries every year. That's as distinct to any salary cap. I have read we are about $45M under the cash limit that's being proposed.

If true that means we need to either pay some of our existing young core players more by giving them extensions with new bonus money or spend it on free agents. We don't need to give anyone a $20M bonus but we need to spend money somewhere.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

No rumor. We don't have to spend $20M SB. I think he means, since we have to spend $45M more this year to reach the salary cap floor, we have enough room to do so. But we do not HAVE to spend that much, like he actually said.

See, that makes perfect sense, thank you. In post 429 higher up this page he said it had to happen, which even for the clowns putting the new CBA together was a head scratcher.

Hail.

*Edit* And thank you Martin for adding some meat to those bones. Appreciated.

[GhostofSparta]

We are apparently $45 million from the FLOOR.

Someone on this team needs to be rich. That's the new rules. You need to sign a few huge dollar players. And it can't be rookies.

So' date=' the question is, Who are you going to spend huge huge bucks on? This year. Right now.[/quote']

#1: Does this take into account what the rookies will make? Sure Kerrigan was a middle 1st rounder so his hit won't be huge, and anybody after the 1st is really negligible, but that's still a few million between 10 guys plus any UDFAs we bring in that can chip away at that a little.

#2: Landry and Carriker are FAs after this year (at least if they go back to the 4 year for FA rule). While they might not demand top money, Landry will still cost a pretty penny and Carriker won't be nearly as cheap as he is now under his rookie contract (just under $2 mil). And of course these 2 can't resign until there's a new CBA. Again, this won't come close to $45 mil, but it'll chip away at it.

#3: And of course, there's the probability that McNabb and Fat Al could be traded, making this figure higher. Who the hell knows?

Basically all I'm saying is this team should take care of #1 and #2 before doing anything else, if they can. If not, take a few FAs like Nnamdi, Rice, or whoever while leaving yourself some room. It's not until the start of the season that it matters anyway, right? Get the rookies signed (I'm sure there's plenty of behind-the-scenes between owners and agents), extend our guys, pick up a few, maybe cut some fat to bring in a few late FAs.

There's no reason for this team to revert to old ways and sign Nnamdi, Rice, Jenkins, and every other FA in the market as soon as the new deal is signed so we can be within a Happy Meal of the cap again for the next decade.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

#1: Does this take into account what the rookies will make? Sure Kerrigan was a middle 1st rounder so his hit won't be huge, and anybody after the 1st is really negligible, but that's still a few million between 10 guys plus any UDFAs we bring in that can chip away at that a little.

#2: Landry and Carriker are FAs after this year (at least if they go back to the 4 year for FA rule). While they might not demand top money, Landry will still cost a pretty penny and Carriker won't be nearly as cheap as he is now under his rookie contract (just under $2 mil). And of course these 2 can't resign until there's a new CBA. Again, this won't come close to $45 mil, but it'll chip away at it.

#3: And of course, there's the probability that McNabb and Fat Al could be traded, making this figure higher. Who the hell knows?

Basically all I'm saying is this team should take care of #1 and #2 before doing anything else, if they can. If not, take a few FAs like Nnamdi, Rice, or whoever while leaving yourself some room. It's not until the start of the season that it matters anyway, right? Get the rookies signed (I'm sure there's plenty of behind-the-scenes between owners and agents), extend our guys, pick up a few, maybe cut some fat to bring in a few late FAs.

There's no reason for this team to revert to old ways and sign Nnamdi, Rice, Jenkins, and every other FA in the market as soon as the new deal is signed so we can be within a Happy Meal of the cap again for the next decade.

1. Rookie cap hit is always fairly negligible. It's usually in the $2 to $3 million range.

2. I'm always in favor of paying your own - a philosophy the Redskins have never followed.

3. Keep in mind, the $45 million is to the floor. The cap is higher than that. Operating under the theory that the cap is going to be around $130 million and the floor will be 95 percent of that. That means, the Skins actually have somewhere in the range of $58 to $65 million to spend. You could basically sign the 2010 Bengals for that amount. The idea that one player is going to screw that up is insane. Clinton Portis had the highest cap hit on the team last year at $12 million and that was because of all the bonuses they had given him over the years. Haynesworth was about an $8 million hit.

The Redskins could - theoretically - sign their rookies, re-up Landry, and then sign 5 Albert Haynesworth level contracts and still be under the cap.

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they could. So the idea that "Oh my God....we'll be trapped with bad contracts...." is foolish.

I'm fairly certain that Lamar Woodley is available next year. He is 26, a participant in two Super Bowls, and a 3-4 OLB who stuffs the run while still getting 10 sacks. I would blow away the market for him. Unless you think it's going to take 5 years for the team to be good at which he will be 31...and younger than James Harrison currently is.

[GhostofSparta]

1. Rookie cap hit is always fairly negligible. It's usually in the $2 to $3 million range.

2. I'm always in favor of paying your own - a philosophy the Redskins have never followed.

3. Keep in mind' date=' the $45 million is to the floor. The cap is higher than that. Operating under the theory that the cap is going to be around $130 million and the floor will be 95 percent of that. That means, the Skins actually have somewhere in the range of $58 to $65 million to spend. You could basically sign the 2010 Bengals for that amount.[/quote']

I understand that it's the floor, and they have to spend it. But I think it's time the Redskins take care of their own, even if Carriker is a new addition to that definition. I know with the floor being at 95%, there's not a hell of a lot of wiggle room (and boy are the Bengals and Bucs going to be pissed about having to spend that much), I'm just hoping for a priorities shift. We have to spend $45 mil, but it doesn't ALL have to be on 2-3 guys like in years past. Especially with some teams needing to spend way bigger than us possibly driving prices up. I know FA starts as soon as the new CBA is in place, but I'm hoping extension have been talked about with agents so that, if $50 mil gets spent 15 minutes after open season, at least a few million (maybe up to $10-$15 mil with rookies, Landry, Carriker, Davis, etc.) will be spent to keep young guys around.

It's not my money, so in all honesty my opinion isn't worth crap in this situation, but I'm hoping this team uses their reset they were given to not have to sit on the edge of cap hell for the next decade because of extension to older players while younger guys walk and flashy names are brought in.

[jflow78]

Could you quote me, please. Where did I make that statement?

That quote wasn't aimed at you either. However, I thought you said we shouldn't sign any players over 30 as starters, because the Pats never do that. If I misunderstood, my bad. Like I said though, this was something I've heard from a lot of people this year, so I decided to see how true it was, turns out it's not true at all. The Pats almost ONLY sign FAs over 30, and if they use the FA as a starter, the player is almost always over 30.

The place where the Pats seem to do better is that they DO sign FAs over 30, generally to less expensive contracts, and usually they don't play on the team as a long term solution, they're used as a 2-3 year stopgap, though about half the FA starters they signed were with the team for about 4-5 years, which I'd consider long term.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Total if somewhat related aside, this thing I read often about "it's not my money, so what the heck do I care ....."

Well, I kinda' indirectly is. Without YOUR money from merchandising and ticket sales, and within that advertising that wouldn't be there if there was no fans to watch the game; and TV money, again, indirectly in part both down to the fans that both attend (there would be NO TV without fans in the stadium. A football game with zero atmosphere is not conducive to good TV), and pay subscriptions for things like Sunday ticket; there'd be NO game, let alone franchises having the money to pay salaries.

So it really is our money in lots of ways, both how it comes into the coffers in the first place, and how it's then re-spent.

As fans, you really should care how the money's spent.

Hail.

[jflow78]

Kudos to you for creating and defeating your strawman. I responded to your response to OF's post about the Pats not signing and paying bigname FAm and not signing starters.

Sure you found some exceptions but by and large I think OF point stands.

You said the Pats didn't sign guys to start, you're wrong. Someone (though I don't recall who) said the Pats didn't sign guys over 30 to start, also wrong. Not sure where I was incorrect there. They sign 2-3 FAs as starters, on average, EVERY YEAR, and about 1 of those a year is a big name, and most of the guys they've signed to start are 30+. THAT is a fact, like it or not it's staring you in the face. The Pats use FA like most teams in the NFL, if not more than the average team.

Since apparently I don't understand your position sufficiently to comment on it (because no matter what I say you pretend that everything I've said can be nullified by one unenlightening statement ("most of those weren't starters" or "....strawman....", what exactly is YOUR proposal for filling the $45 million gap that we have, and what is your stance on signing FAs in general? I would love to hear it, because all I've heard from most people are these 3 positions: A) we stay out of FA completely, FAs are the devil, or FA is fine, but we shouldn't sign anyone over 26 because the Pats don't sign starters over 30, and C) We should sign FAs but no big names, starters, or anyone that might take playing time from a younger player, even if the younger player has an injury history worse than the FA who is 2 years older than him and even though the younger player has shown a lack of talent to play in the league.

My point is, signing a 30 year old FS who will be a 2-3 year stopgap isn't the end of the world. The Pats have signed 13 of them AS STARTERS over the last 4-5 years, and they didn't suddenly drop to the bottom of the league, in reality, I don't know that they dropped much at all. In fact, after two of the seasons they were MOST agressive in FA, they had the 19-0 season and lost the SB to a miracle.

I'm with those who say we shouldn't be signing 30+ y/o players as a rule, but I'm also not throwing a temper tantrum because we signed Atogwe because he fills EVERY desire you have for a FA, except that he's 2 years older than we'd like. Boo hoo.

[The Tris]

They sign 2-3 FAs as starters, on average, EVERY YEAR, and about 1 of those a year is a big name, and most of the guys they've signed to start are 30+. THAT is a fact, like it or not it's staring you in the face. The Pats use FA like most teams in the NFL, if not more than the average team.

Who were the 2-3 FA starters in 2010? 2009? or 2008?

[jflow78]

Total if somewhat related aside, this thing I read often about "it's not my money, so what the heck do I care ....."

Well, I kinda' indirectly is. Without YOUR money from merchandising and ticket sales, and within that advertising that wouldn't be there if there was no fans to watch the game; and TV money, again, indirectly in part both down to the fans that both attend (there would be NO TV without fans in the stadium. A football game with zero atmosphere is not conducive to good TV), and pay subscriptions for things like Sunday ticket; there'd be NO game, let alone franchises having the money to pay salaries.

So it really is our money in lots of ways, both how it comes into the coffers in the first place, and how it's then re-spent.

As fans, you really should care how the money's spent.

Hail.

For me, it literally ISN'T my money. I live in St. Louis, watch the games over the internet, and have bought 3 jersey's in my life (one of which was ST's and the money went to his family, the other 2 were Christmas gifts someone bought for me). Of course, I'm probably the exception to this rule. I understand what you're saying though.

I actually DO care how the team spends the money though, I don't want to see us locked into cap-hell like in the past, where we couldn't resign our younger talented guys, or where we were paying people who came for the paycheck and nothing more, because HOW they spend the money affects the product on the field, and the win/loss column in the end. So, even though I'm the exception, I agree with you.

[Going Commando]

Tomlin wasn't promoted from within, though I guess not much really changed in Pittsburgh during that transition.

I think he came from Minnesota. A HC change is a bit of a personality change for the roster on a day to day level but the drafters and team builders are basically the same. The only difference I can really detect between the Tomlin and Cowher eras is a seemingly greater emphasis being placed on the passing game and the evolution of the ILB in their scheme. Those could be and probably are functions of available personnel rather than anything drastically different in the way Tomlin schemes.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 03:08 PM ----------

The rumors are that the new CBA will include a salary floor i.e a cash minimum you have to spend on salaries every year. That's as distinct to any salary cap. I have read we are about $45M under the cash limit that's being proposed.

If true that means we need to either pay some of our existing young core players more by giving them extensions with new bonus money or spend it on free agents. We don't need to give anyone a $20M bonus but we need to spend money somewhere.

I'm a little skeptical of this high salary floor, but there could be something to the rumors about it.

If so, extend our own guys, target FAs on short deals that make sense (front heavy ones for 3 years or less), and only spend big and long term if the guy is:

1.) Good

2.) 26 or younger

FAs by their nature hurt depth even if they are good because they have short shelf lives. They block your long term drafted options and have short windows of performance themselves (the average has got to be less than three years of quality performance).

We're a team lacking depth because of our free agent spending in the past. Spending more money this year to meet a supposed salary floor only damage our ability to build depth down the line, not help it.

If you can't get to the floor, give Landry, Orakpo, Armstrong, Davis, etc. extensions.

And for the record, I'd be perfectly fine targeting old FAs who are still good if you do so on one and two year deals. If I needed to get to the floor I'd sign Matt Light to a sizable two year deal that pays his bonus up front.

[MartinC]

FAs by their nature hurt depth even if they are good because they have short shelf lives. They block your long term drafted options and have short windows of performance themselves (the average has got to be less than three years of quality performance).

We're a team lacking depth because of our free agent spending in the past. Spending more money this year to meet a supposed salary floor only damage our ability to build depth down the line, not help it. .

I would not disagree that signing FAs to big deals has hurt our depth given the cap space they soak up. I would argue though that trading draft picks for veterans is as much to blame for our lack of depth as you often find quality depth at reasonable cost from the 3, 4 and 5 round picks we have routinely been without up until this year.

Factor in as well the habit we have had of giving 2 rounders on one year rentals on 30 plus players with their best years already in the record books and it's not hard to see why we have been consistently mediocre at best.

[addicted]

Spending big money on RBs is always a dumb move. Spending big money on CBs is usually a pretty smart move.

For a team that already spent all that money on OJ and Hall and is looking at spending a grip more on Landry? How much money are you wanting us to throw at those positions while spending much less on other positions? You can't spend all that money there without knowing your ignoring other areas of the team

[jflow78]

If so, extend our own guys, target FAs on short deals that make sense (front heavy ones for 3 years or less), and only spend big and long term if the guy is:

1.) Good

2.) 26 or younger

FAs by their nature hurt depth even if they are good because they have short shelf lives. They block your long term drafted options and have short windows of performance themselves (the average has got to be less than three years of quality performance).

We're a team lacking depth because of our free agent spending in the past. Spending more money this year to meet a supposed salary floor only damage our ability to build depth down the line, not help it.

If you can't get to the floor, give Landry, Orakpo, Armstrong, Davis, etc. extensions.

And for the record, I'd be perfectly fine targeting old FAs who are still good if you do so on one and two year deals. If I needed to get to the floor I'd sign Matt Light to a sizable two year deal that pays his bonus up front.

Your plan is to the T what I think we should do. I think the high salary floor is pretty much a guaranteed because, as I understand it, it's one of the reasons the players dropped their 50/50 revenue split to 48%.

[addicted]

I agree with everything. But am curious, is Josh Wilson really going to be paid as the 2nd best CB? I have no idea. I really am curious. He is the CB I wanted the Skins to get, but not at that price. Unless we go to a man press, Cromartie, Carr, and Taylor won't really fit our scheme. Josh Wilson would.

The latest list of top free agents had him listed as the 2nd best on the market.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/07/11/top-51-free-agents/

It's impossible to know for sure but I've seen him listed as the second best availible on a few lists.