No Shanahan doesn't deserve a free pass because of the cap penalty

[Burgold]

No, he did not bring the cap penalty on himself. The team was victimized in what is understood to be a criminal act. There is and can be no spirit of the cap. There can not be a contract the league approves then post facto deems unapprovable. The Redskins did nothing wrong and were screwed. Other teams took advantage of the uncapped year to gain advantage in different ways, but skated.

That said, Shanny's coaching, discipline, and player acquisition deserve to be questioned, but what Mara and the NFL did was wrong. They cheated and played dirty off the field of play.

Don't give them a pass on it. That's not on Mike. It's on them.

[chipwhich]

The team was victimized in what is understood to be a criminal act.

 

The NFL Owners are a fraternity.

 

32 guys in a frat playing fantasy football.

 

All the owners know legally they can't stop teams from cheating during an uncapped year so they agree not to take advantage of the situation.  I equate it to me being in a fantasy football league.  A couple of teams play the game anyways knowing its really not illegal.  Well the frat brothers got pissed off as I would in my fantasy football league when a couple of owners attempt to violate the spirit of the league.  They all voted to penalize the Skins and Cowboys who violated the spirit of the league and the comradery.  Everyone on this board would do the same when they feel like their "friends" somehow tried to get one over on them.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

.....

Don't give them a pass on it. That's not on Mike. It's on them.

 

Not once has the OP given the League/ Mara whomever a 'pass' for the B/S penalty. 

 

He's just objective enough to admit the self inflicted part we played in bringing that around. 

 

Hail. 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I could be wrong but didn't the bears basically violet the spirit of the rule as well bumping a massive amount of Julius Peppers contract into the uncapped year?

 

The Bears didn't attempt to purge ALL of Peppers signing bonuses in the uncapped year. 

 

The acted within the boundaries forewarned by the league. We, on the other hand, gambled and lost heavily by doing the opposite. 

 

Hail. 

[Ghost of]

Don't support the premise.  Don't support the poster.  Don't support the epic ****ing and whining about the Shanahan's.  Let's see this thing through and if you can't hang then take 2 Pamprin and head off to bed.

Posts like these add nothing to the debate, are insulting and waste everyone's time (and are a reason why many quality posters fled to other forums.)

[Rufus T Firefly]

Where are you getting that we were going to pay Royal $6 mil per?

 

He signed a 3 year deal with the Chargers for 13.5 mil and only 6 of that was garunteed...

 

So he took less money to leave his home state and go to California?  Especially after that delicious brulee from Morton's?

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/3/14/2870455/eddie-royal-signs-2-year-deal-12-million-deal-with-redskins

[Taylor703]

The Bears didn't attempt to purge ALL of Peppers signing bonuses in the uncapped year. 

 

The acted within the boundaries forewarned by the league. We, on the other hand, gambled and lost heavily by doing the opposite. 

 

Hail.

Are you sure? I'm fairly certain did.

[Redskins Diehard]

Posts like these add nothing to the debate, are insulting and waste everyone's time (and are a reason why many quality posters fled to other forums.)

they aren't the only ones that waste people's time.

[MrJL]

The Bears didn't attempt to purge ALL of Peppers signing bonuses in the uncapped year. 

 

The acted within the boundaries forewarned by the league. We, on the other hand, gambled and lost heavily by doing the opposite. 

 

Hail. 

 

The league's warning should have brought the government crashing down on the league like a ton of bricks.  You are  wrong for condemning the Skins for violating it

[Laron Burgundy]

The dead cap on Russell was near 18 mil, the hit on Haynesworth was near 26.

 

There was no rule about not exceeding the cap. The spirit of the cap that we violated was dumping cap from contracts into the uncapped year. AH's cap hit would have been near 27 mil in 2010 and like 6 in 2011. That's what they considered a competitve advantage. That's what the league told us not to do and what we did.

 

 

I could be wrong but didn't the bears basically violet the spirit of the rule as well bumping a massive amount of Julius Peppers contract into the uncapped year?

 

 

The Bears didn't attempt to purge ALL of Peppers signing bonuses in the uncapped year. 

 

The acted within the boundaries forewarned by the league. We, on the other hand, gambled and lost heavily by doing the opposite. 

 

Hail. 

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/julius-peppers/

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/miles-austin/

 

Rufus, just in case you were wondering.  Chicago put 12.8 mil on the uncapped year for Peppers.  The league didn't seem too pissed about it.  The miles austin contract, however, is the reason the cowboys were punished and is nearly the same thing Chicago did with Peppers.  Note the huge base salary the uncapped year and tiny salaries the rest of the years, the difference is that the cowboys were egregiously high spenders.  The saints used a completion bonus loophole in 2009 to push 2009 money into 2010 while avoiding the 30% rule (and coincidentally had the 3rd highest salary in 2010), but were unpunished.  To think we were punished for simply violating the 30% rule rather than egregiously going over an imaginary cap number is unbelievable.  The cowboys didn't violate the 30% rule, but they violated that unspoken salary cap.  Furthermore, if it was for violating the 30% rule, logically our punishment would be the difference in his salary and the 30%, which was 16.8 mil, and Hall's at 9.5 for a total of 26.3, almost 10 mil short of our actual punishment.

 

To go over it, Fat Al's contract hit in 2010 was 25.6 mil (21 mil option bonus, 1 mil signing bonus, 3.6 mil guaranteed p5 salary).  A trade would have been a 34 mil cap hit (21 mil option bonus, 4 mil remaining signing bonus, 3.6 mil guaranteed 2010 p5 salary, 5.4 mil guaranteed 2011 p5 salary).  Basically had we done that AND renegotiated Hall we'd probably be looking at a 49 mil penalty rather than just 36 mil.

 

Haynesworth was untradeable, uncuttable, unrenegotiable, and unplayable.  There was no great solution to our $100 million problem.

[Laron Burgundy]

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/3/14/2870455/eddie-royal-signs-2-year-deal-12-million-deal-with-redskins

 

PFT also ran a story of the Lions signing Deangelo Hall.  I wouldn't really rely on FA stories as facts until after a contract has actually been signed.  Why would a player take 25% less per year AND move away from his hometown?

[Commander PK]

 

Haynesworth was untradeable, uncuttable, unrenegotiable, and unplayable.  There was no great solution to our $100 million problem.

 

game set match

[Koolblue13]

Great OP. I don't completely agree, but whatever.

 

However, what is wrong with some of you people posting in this thread? You have different opinions, so people are morons and plenty of other things? What does that add?

 

Lighten up, we are all angry about this season, but childish insults are childish.

[RandyHolt]

I disagree that he was unplayable.  Would he undoubtedly been worse in a 4-3 used to his strengths / fav techniques, than what we have seen since?

 

In accessing the situation Mike inherited, there was the option of making the best of a bad situation. Lets say, randomly picking something out of a hat, using your players / biggest cap hits to their strengths. Or at least, trying for a few games/year to access. Mike pushed all in on the 3-4 with his 4-3 DC and 4-3 personnel immediately, and our defense remains among the leagues worst. Mike switched him to nose, and the rest is history. It was a high drama train wreck and remains as such. 

 

While many will argue what Mike did was without a doubt best for our team, making him look bad was the ultimate way to improve our team, making an example out of him, and then trying to ditch his hit and living with the penalty, I can't say he was wrong.  Yeah, **** Al!

 

But I for one don't pretend that Mike has proven he always knows whats best when it comes to defense. This is the result of his priorities in year 1.

[DC9]

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/3/14/2870455/eddie-royal-signs-2-year-deal-12-million-deal-with-redskins

 

Ah, gotta love Kevin E. and Grant Paulsen all getting the jump on that one.  The next two weeks of that years FA thread was "did Eddie Royal sign yet?" lol.

 

So, I know I don't have to tell you this, but the 12 not being garunteed means it's not an outright 6 mil per.  Would've needed to see what the garuntee was to know what the base cap his was.

 

Being that he signed with San Diego for about $4mil per, I'm guessing it was substantially lower than that and not 6 mil.

[Tyron Biggums]

I disagree that he was unplayable.  Would he undoubtedly been worse in a 4-3 used to his strengths / fav techniques, than what we have seen since?

 

In accessing the situation Mike inherited, there was the option of making the best of a bad situation. Lets say, randomly picking something out of a hat, using your players / biggest cap hits to their strengths. Or at least, trying for a few games/year to access. Mike pushed all in on the 3-4 with his 4-3 DC and 4-3 personnel immediately, and our defense remains among the leagues worst. Mike switched him to nose, and the rest is history. It was a high drama train wreck and remains as such. 

 

 

QFT.

 

Haynesworth was a bum, but he probably was top 2 or 3 talent wise on the defense. Mike's biggest mistake was wanting to control the defense. He forced a 3-4 scheme onto his own DC, and players. Mike still hasn't learned his lesson about defense. Why would a person have to be so involved with the defense when it was his offensive mind that got him his head coaching job, and later GM and Vice president? The answer is ego. He thought he could reinvent the wheel. He failed the Denver fans now he is failing us. I do believe Mike would be a great HC, but he is probably one of the worst GMs/EVP for us. If he can't self evaluate and make the proper adjustments then he needs to be relieved of those duties IMO.

 

 

HTTR

[Commander PK]

so in a organizational culture where the inmates were running the asylum, the best course of action would have been to cater to the biggest prima donna on the team?

 

Say what you want about Shanahan, but he handled Haynesworthless perfectly. 

[RandyHolt]

so in a organizational culture where the inmates were running the asylum, the best course of action would have been to cater to the biggest prima donna on the team?

 

Say what you want about Shanahan, but he handled Haynesworthless perfectly. 

Fat Al was playable just the year before. To say he was unplayable, /discussion???

 

Perfect was building a successful defense, or trading him. Perfection is not overseeing a playable player, and rendering him unplayable.

 

At what expense are we willing as fans to say it was the correct move though. 5 years with a lame duck defense is acceptable... maybe 10 is cool because we really showed Al. We all laughed at his special training camp olympics.

 

A big part of the entire drama was moving to the 3-4. That is the issue at its root. Mike let him know before camp he was a nose, and the drama drama took high stage. 

 

In the end, Mike is graded on wins and losses. Take his personal vendettas into play when grading him, and set yours aside. At least, that is what I try to do.

 

Fat Al was not running the prison. He just had the biggest cell. Mike wanted that cell empty, even if it meant overcrowding / disaster in the prison yard. It was his priority and today, THIS, is the result.

 

I am not defending Al at all. I am just saying Mike and any and all moves he makes on D, usually result in failure. I refuse to call our defense a success and the root of grading it starts with mike actions on day 1, moving to a 3-4 and trying to shoehorn fat al to nose.

 

Part of being a coach, is managing ego's. Is it not?

[Tyron Biggums]

so in a organizational culture where the inmates were running the asylum, the best course of action would have been to cater to the biggest prima donna on the team?

 

Say what you want about Shanahan, but he handled Haynesworthless perfectly. 

He handled him perfectly once it was decided this was going to be a 3-4 defense. 

[Commander PK]

He handled him perfectly once it was decided this was going to be a 3-4 defense. 

 

that's fair.  The 3-4 has not brought the results we hoped for.  Maybe in hindsight that was a mistake, because we did not have the right coordinator to bring the 3-4 to the team.

 

With that said, Haynesworth was paid a king's ransom to play a child's game.  It shouldn't matter what defense the new head coach decided to use...Haynesworth was paid to do a job.  The honorable thing to do was do that job.  Instead he acted like a petulant child who just had his binky taken from him.  Let's be honest, it's not like Haynesworth was playing all that great in 2009 either.  I wager no matter what happened with the style of defense, he would never have been worth half of the money he was paid here.   

 

The nail in the coffin for Snyderatto was Haynesworth.  I really believe he was a blessing in disguise. 

[Commander PK]

 

Part of being a coach, is managing ego's. Is it not?

 

it is.  I think anything short of keeping the 4-3 and letting Al choose what packages he wanted to play in was not going to "manage" him.  Haynesworth came here for the money, and never intended on being what he was paid to be.  An incredibly disruptive force of nature.

 

His career has turned into a sad story of what could have been through nobody's fault but his own, BUT his pocket's are straight, so I guess that's all that matters.

[Tyron Biggums]

that's fair.  The 3-4 has not brought the results we hoped for.  Maybe in hindsight that was a mistake, because we did not have the right coordinator to bring the 3-4 to the team.

 

With that said, Haynesworth was paid a king's ransom to play a child's game.  It shouldn't matter what defense the new head coach decided to use...Haynesworth was paid to do a job.  The honorable thing to do was do that job.  Instead he acted like a petulant child who just had his binky taken from him.  Let's be honest, it's not like Haynesworth was playing all that great in 2009 either.  I wager no matter what happened with the style of defense, he would never have been worth half of the money he was paid here.   

 

The nail in the coffin for Snyderatto was Haynesworth.  I really believe he was a blessing in disguise. 

Haynesworth acted like a spoiled child for sure, but Im not sure thats what caused Vinney to get axed. The chance to get Mike S. was the main reason. I have said before that hiring Mike S. was a good move at the time even at GM/EVP. But I thought he surely would have learned from his mistakes in Denver. It's time we move forward and hire a real GM imo. Not a numbers cruncher like Allen or Smith. If we see Slowik promoted to DC, then I will know for sure Mike hasn't learned ****ing thing.

 

Hail

[Rufus T Firefly]

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/julius-peppers/

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/miles-austin/

 

Rufus, just in case you were wondering.  Chicago put 12.8 mil on the uncapped year for Peppers.  The league didn't seem too pissed about it.  The miles austin contract, however, is the reason the cowboys were punished and is nearly the same thing Chicago did with Peppers.  Note the huge base salary the uncapped year and tiny salaries the rest of the years, the difference is that the cowboys were egregiously high spenders.  The saints used a completion bonus loophole in 2009 to push 2009 money into 2010 while avoiding the 30% rule (and coincidentally had the 3rd highest salary in 2010), but were unpunished.  To think we were punished for simply violating the 30% rule rather than egregiously going over an imaginary cap number is unbelievable.  The cowboys didn't violate the 30% rule, but they violated that unspoken salary cap.  Furthermore, if it was for violating the 30% rule, logically our punishment would be the difference in his salary and the 30%, which was 16.8 mil, and Hall's at 9.5 for a total of 26.3, almost 10 mil short of our actual punishment.

 

To go over it, Fat Al's contract hit in 2010 was 25.6 mil (21 mil option bonus, 1 mil signing bonus, 3.6 mil guaranteed p5 salary).  A trade would have been a 34 mil cap hit (21 mil option bonus, 4 mil remaining signing bonus, 3.6 mil guaranteed 2010 p5 salary, 5.4 mil guaranteed 2011 p5 salary).  Basically had we done that AND renegotiated Hall we'd probably be looking at a 49 mil penalty rather than just 36 mil.

 

Haynesworth was untradeable, uncuttable, unrenegotiable, and unplayable.  There was no great solution to our $100 million problem.

If you look at the cap hits, the only thing that would be remotely out of line is 2011, which I believe that site has wrong. Apart from that, why would the league punish the Bears for that? Because his cap # was 15% higher in the uncapped year than another year? There's no reason for the league to do anything there.

 

If you trade Haynseworth, the new team takes on his salary. He becomes a 3 year, 16 mil contract for that team (plus some other years that were never going to be paid anyway) which is a very attractive contract given what he was commanding on the market. The dead cap we were left was the 4 mil proration on the SB plus the 21 mil= $25 million.

[Rufus T Firefly]

PFT also ran a story of the Lions signing Deangelo Hall.  I wouldn't really rely on FA stories as facts until after a contract has actually been signed.  Why would a player take 25% less per year AND move away from his hometown?

I never claimed it was fact, but that it was reported. I just chose 1 report, there were many (including some of our insiders at the time) that that's what we offered. I do remember Royal supposedly thought the San Diego offense was more of a fit for him, yada yada yada.

 

The inverse of the above, of course, is why would we offer him significantly less than we did Josh Morgan?

[TheGoodBits]

I never claimed it was fact, but that it was reported. I just chose 1 report, there were many (including some of our insiders at the time) that that's what we offered. I do remember Royal supposedly thought the San Diego offense was more of a fit for him, yada yada yada.

The inverse of the above, of course, is why would we offer him significantly less than we did Josh Morgan?

What he meant by more of a fit was that he had more guaranteed playing time IMO. He was probably ready to sign until we got BOTH Garcon and Morgan. Of course, as it turns out he definitely would have been starting over Morgan/Hank but that was before everyone realized how much Morgan had lost coming back from injury.