RandyHolt Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 /Rant (falls off soap-box, sprains ankle) Hilarious. Yeah my post was purely speculative, and it was a rude wake up call. There are different ways to build a team, and spending to max, burying bad contracts to the max, was simply not working. Agreed let's give credit to Allen instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 lmao @ Voice of Reason, I feel you. Just trying to find a silver lining in this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repo_4 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 lmao @ Voice of Reason, I feel you. Just trying to find a silver lining in this nonsense. Me too. I think nothing comes out of the court case and we are definitely not getting any compensation from the league. Guess someone (VOR) had to rain on my parade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think the real compensation that comes out of this for us is that this was the event that finally made us get away from signing all of the big flashy names and back to blue collar "team" guys. The penalty kept us from hurting ourselves in a way as we didnt have the money to spend. It helped get us a true GM and Dan out of the football operations. For so many years we (and Dallas) could not get out of our own way. The penalty pushed us to do something we wouldnt do ourselves. I think in the end, the 2 years of penalty ends up being a bargain because of our long term gains as an organization. So while trying to hurt us, I think Mara actually ended up doing the opposite. Even so, **** Mara... No, hiring Bruce Allen did that. We stayed away from "big, splashy" FA signings for the two years prior to the penality. In fact, it was precisely because of Allen's fiscal mentality that we were able to survive a literally $18 million last-minute reduction to our cap space and still wind up with Pierre Garcon. No this doesn't mean every FA signed during Allen's tenure was a "hit", and no, it doesn't mean that every contract Allen drew up for FAs during those two years always equalled the production we got from the players signed. What it does mean, though, is that the ridiculous notion that, before the cap penality "luckily" came along, the "same ol' Redskins" were wheeling and dealing with big name free agents and throwing cash around like they've always done is completely false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Seeing the league punished as a whole would be compensation to the Redskins for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Seeing the league punished as a whole would be compensation to the Redskins for me. My concern with this is that if the league as a whole is punished, the 'Skins are going to be punished along with them. Which will be double jeopardy, AND insult to injury, since the REASON this lawsuit exists is because of the injustice TO the Redskins. I actually don't really think anything is going to come of this, no way there is any retribution. My only concern is that that 'Skins are not additionally punished for collusion, when they were clearly the victim. But, I wouldn't be at all shocked if they have to pay part of the price as well. Me too. I think nothing comes out of the court case and we are definitely not getting any compensation from the league. Guess someone (VOR) had to rain on my parade... lmao @ Voice of Reason, I feel you. Just trying to find a silver lining in this nonsense. Hilarious. Yeah my post was purely speculative, and it was a rude wake up call. There are different ways to build a team, and spending to max, burying bad contracts to the max, was simply not working. Agreed let's give credit to Allen instead. Sorry guys for raining on the parade. But, sadly, there just is no silver lining, imho, to the cap penalty. HOWEVER, if you want a silver lining, I'll give you another possibility. (I'm reaching here, but I'm trying to do a public service.) I think that MAYBE the AH contract debacle, when Dan had to pay AH $40+ Million dollars for no productivity was the fiscal slap across the face he needed to understand that he needed to change the way he was running the team. I don't think there's a person out there that doesn't think Dan had a lot to do with bringing AH in. Dan's a smart guy. You don't build a billion dollar enterprise by the time you're 34 if you're stupid. I'm guessing he was smart enough to figure out that he just blew it, big time. I'm going to say that the amount of money paid to that schlep was the monetary slap that taught him that he might need to just stay out of things, and hire somebody who knows the value of players. Which is how we got Bruce. I'm REALLY reaching to give you all a silver lining, since I kinda tried to shoot the other one down. But if you want a silver lining, there isn't one for the penalty, but for the AH contract, MAYBE it taught Dan something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I wonder if this helped since the NFLPA released a statement about it lol http://httr24-7.com/blog/roger-goodell-lies-to-fans-about-capgate-video/ http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/02/26/roger-goodell-on-the-redskins-cap-penalties-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Huly reps me/I hope all of us. Hail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Mara sucks and all but people keep forgetting this was lurie too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If NFL gets caught confessing to collusion in court, wouldn't Snyder, Jones, and others who didn't go along with it and then got fined by the NFL for not going along, be free of collusion charges? How can people who disobeyed collusion be found guilty of collusion? Wouldn't they be exempt? If collusion is found it is a criminal charge, a federal offense. In both this lawsuit and a potential criminal investigation the attorneys for the Redskins should be able to get them out of the pool of defendants since their actions show they did not participate in collusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rskin72 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Graziano posted a good read on this topic today. I agree with manyt of his thoughts here.... http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11124038/nflowners-acted-collusion-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-did-wrong-uncapped-2010-season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If collusion actually gets proven, draft picks should certainly be rewarded. 2nd for Skins, 3rd for Dallas. There's no telling how we would have approached FA with the 18 mil each year, but I agree that BA has been fiscal and no doubt we would have improved with some of the money. I feel very strongly we should get two 2nd rounders because not only did this set franchise back, it coincided with biggest franchise drafted player in teams history (edit, outside of DG) Compensatory picks should not be debated, where they are at is only question. If indeed this thing has legs Further, GAINING draft picks over this would be final FU to Mara. POS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I agree that nothing will come out of it for the skins/boys, but I'd be all for compensatory picks being awarded for the next couple yrs. then again they could take 1.6m away from 29 teams (one team didn't get the money) and given back to skins/boys. I think I'd rather have a couple draft picks .......... The giants and eagles draft picks as they were both involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsInFebruary Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Sheesh I hope the league doesn't base not compensating us on a review of the complacency and resignation of Redskins fans regarding the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderDOOM Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 You could argue that the penalty forced us to not have a better line and/or receivers thus making RG3 and others more susceptible to being injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Mike is on record as saying our defense suffered most from the cap penalty. I tend to agree our D was lacking more than our offense in terms of viable players acquired. Lets face it, cap penalty aside, the offense got basically 4-5 firsts spent on Robert and Trent, and the big FA signing was on offense, Garcon. The defense got Carriker Bowen, Merriweather. Injured, injured, injured. Tanard Suspended. Rambo. Amerson. Rookie DBs feet to the fire starting in week 1. London was simply a shell of his former self yet remained a starter. Aka, Slim Pickens was our captain on D. Sure RG3s life was more at risk but Mike's stubbornness to try a single sub on the OL (if we had even added more), nor a willingness to adjust the playbook to a quick pass offense, were far more dangerous to his health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markmills67 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I agree that nothing will come out of it for the skins/boys, but I'd be all for compensatory picks being awarded for the next couple yrs. then again they could take 1.6m away from 29 teams (one team didn't get the money) and given back to skins/boys. I think I'd rather have a couple draft picks .......... The giants and eagles draft picks as they were both involved. Great point about taking money off the 29 teams, but taking just 1.9m is nowhere near enough, I would say a minimum of 7.5m should be taken which is 2 good signings away from each team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Only way something can come out of this, is by our own accord, win the Superbowl this year. Boom! Slap in the face to the NFL for this cap penalty, and the PC Police on the name nonsense. It can be done folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Great point about taking money off the 29 teams, but taking just 1.9m is nowhere near enough, I would say a minimum of 7.5m should be taken which is 2 good signings away from each team. To compensate for the 36 mil we lost and the 10 mil the boys lost they gave 1.6 mil to those 28 or 29 clubs. That's how I came up with that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 You could argue that the penalty forced us to not have a better line and/or receivers thus making RG3 and others more susceptible to being injured. You could argue the single biggest reason we did not sustain success into 2013 with Shanahan was the cap penalty. I blame a huge portion of last season on that penalty, and everything ultimately unraveling. I think without that penalty...we are looking at a totally different situation right now, because we would probably have had a better team and better record from top to bottom. Which would not have caused all the internal strife that we ultimately had. I'm looking forward...but that cap penalty was huge and damn near impossible to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 There is no way that the 'Skins are going to see any compensation for the penalty. Not going to happen. Ultimately, the legal fight is between the NFLPA and the NFL. In truth, the 'Skins and 'Boys are defendants in the case. Which is completely back-assward, but it's the truth. The real question is going to be if this goes to discovery, are the 'Skins and 'Boys going to line up with their friends and say there wasn't collusion? It's an interesting question. The way I see it, and I'm no lawyer, but just logically, if the NFLPA wins the case and proves that there is collusion, what they are in fact saying is that the NFL and it's 32 owners colluded to keep compensation for the players down, denying them of salary. So, there could be some type of a decision to give more money to the players, in some way. Not sure how they would do that, but that's a possibility. I can't see how a court could rule in favor of the NFLPA, and then turn around and make any ruling about the 32 teams. A ruling for the NFLPA would state that there was collusion by the owners, and the evidence of that was the punishment of 2 teams for not going along with it. But the NFL is the loser here, and the players would be the winner. I'm not sure that the court would be interested, or even able, to mandate restitution for the 'Skins/'Boys. And the NFL themselves certainly won't do it on their own accord. I think the best case scenario is that the NFL loses, and is forced to give money to the players, but the 'Skins and 'Boys are exempt from the penalty. However, more likely, they'll have to chip in along with the other 32 teams. The ONLY way that the 'Skins/'Boys receive any compensation is that if the NFLPA wins, and then the 'Skins/'Boys file a lawsuit of their own against the NFL stating that since there was collusion, and they didn't participate, they were unfairly subject to somethingorother. But neither team is going to do that. So, what I'm hoping for is legal action against the NFL, and naming Goodell and Mara as key contributors to collusion, with them having to answer for breaking Federal employment laws. Hell, I'd love to see this become a criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Extra cap space would hurt us wouldnt it? We would have a bloated roster that would just need to be cut down whenever the cap returned to its normal level. We wont get any cap space back, but if we did i dont think it would help. Id rather have the cheap high round draft picks instead if any compensation is given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 No way we ever see any compensation we should stop talking about it Yeah, but I would still like some retribution with that piece of ****, Mara! So we should keep talking about it just to remind everyone what a piece of **** Mara is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 There's lots of things the league can do, that are "judgement calls". How'd you like to not get any comp picks, for however long Dan owns the team? You weren't planning on any drug suspensions getting reinstated, were you? How about scheduling? Is there any rule against scheduling a Monday night game and a Thursday Night Game, the same week? And Thursday on the road? (Against a division opponent?) What a coincidence! We play four games in a row against teams who have a bye, the week before they play us. ---------- I'm just saying that, while fantasizing about Dan really getting even for getting screwed is really nice, that, if he voluntarily chooses to implicate them all for felonies? There's going to be retribution. They never did this sort of thing to Al Davis and he was suing the league for most of his tenure. It's been a while, can someone please remind me of why the Redskins lost their lawsuits challenging the cap penalties? Wasn't it because the NFLPA went along with the penalties at first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Extra cap space would hurt us wouldnt it? We would have a bloated roster that would just need to be cut down whenever the cap returned to its normal level. We wont get any cap space back, but if we did i dont think it would help. Id rather have the cheap high round draft picks instead if any compensation is given.How could it hurt? Just make the contracts so that players get paid more in the higher cap years and less afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.