WP The Insider: Is Bruce Allen to blame for the Redskins' current mess?

[KDawg]

How is Vinny still a fall guy for the current state of the roster?  It's been 5 offseasons since his departure.  Plenty of time has passed to remove his stench from Redskins Park. 

 

We could still have meaningful contributors on our roster from five off-seasons ago, and beyond, if we drafted and signed guys with a bit more diligence. Five off-seasons really isn't that far off. That makes a 22 year old 27. A 27 year old FA just now approaching his twilight at 32. You can't fully judge general manager's for a few years after they make decisions. 

 

We're still paying for his free-spending ways. As well as Shanahan, especially with the cap penalty for those two seasons. But at least Shanahan gave us something. Morris, Cousins (even if "just" a backup, he's a solid one at that) as well as a few others. He made some mistakes that we're going to pay for, but I think this team was in a lot better position for Gruden than it was when Shanahan came in. 

[Thinking Skins]

When you're ranked 24rd in yards and 26th in points on average over 5 years the turnovers DO matter much more than if you're ranked top 10 and give up 17-20 points a game.

 

To give up 27 points a game and then only get a turnover a week is BS. Bad defenses need to lead the league in turnovers if they are going to win. The defense was doing that during the 7 game win streak in 2012 and it may have been the primary reason we won.

 

During the 7 game win streak the Redskins gave up the ball 5 times. The opponents gave it up 15. That's 2 Turnovers a game for the defense and we won all 7 games.

 

Greg Williams had the 25th Ranked D in New Orleans the year they won the SB. They also had 26Ints and 8 more in the postseason. The next year his defense was ranked 4th but they had 9Ints and lost to the 7-9 Seahawks in the playoffs. I'm thinking a couple turnovers would have changed that.

 

Turnovers are definitely a way to judge a defense, especially one that can't stop teams from scoring 27-35 points a game.

I get that argument and I'm not saying Has should be a HOF candidate. I'm just saying (as is often the case here) people like to look at a simple stat like YPG or PPG and say (HE SUCKS) when in reality our problem is that we generally have a good defense, that's in most games but gets blown out in a few. So I can easily understand the arguments that its about personnel as much as anything. Its just like our offense, most games we're able to move the ball up and down the field, but when we play some of the better defenses we generally have lower numbers. It doesn't mean our offense sucks just that we have bad games.

But do I think he can be helpful to Gruden as he learns the ropes as a coach? Sure. Dude won coach of the year. He has experience as a coach. He has records of 10-6, 7-9, 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 3-13 and 2-10. You can look at the last two years as a head coach and say "awe he's not a good coach", but this was in New Orleans when his starting QB was Jeff Blake and Aaron Brooks. The guy has also worked with (and you can probably say helped groom) Mike McCarthy cause that was his offensive coordinator when he was in New Orleans and it was McCarthy's first OC job.

I think people just like to clown on Haslett as if he's the new Ron Lynn of defensive coordinators as if it'll make the losing easier to explain. But, while I'm not the biggest Has supporter, I can easily understand the decision to let Gruden decide whether or not to keep him, and Gruden's decision to have a knowledgeable former head coach on his staff.

[KDawg]

This is the point I was trying to make to KDawg -

 

That's not a point you had to make to me. I'm aware that we haven't drafted interior DL or OL. The point I'm trying to make is this: Everyone pretends like the NFL is simply a skill position league, and to an extent, I have to agree that skill positions are important. But your defensive and offensive fronts (DL, OLB, ILB and the entire OL) are extremely important. We've addressed OLB, perhaps a bit too diligently over the years. Keenan Robinson could be a nice little pick up and Perry Riley has given us some mileage. The interior DL hasn't been something we've drafted at all, really. Neither has defensive end (Jeremy Jarmon and Jarvis Jenkins). Jenkins turned out to be a contributor, which is nice. OL I posted the data for. 

 

You can say we've ignored other positions as well, and some of them I can't argue with. But, I still believe, that no matter how "spread" this league gets, you're only going to be as good as your offensive and defensive fronts. We've gotten some GREAT additions to the DL at least via FA. Hatcher, Cofield and Baker were outstanding pick ups and have helped us weather that storm. I can't say the same for the OL. We haven't put nearly the resources there that we could and in my opinion, should have. 

[TheLongshot]

Interesting you bring up turnovers, because one of the issues this team has had the past few years is that the offense turns over the ball a lot.

 

Rank for most giveaways:

 

2014 - Tied 7th

2013 - 3rd

2012 - Tied 31st

2011 - 2nd

2010 - Tied 7th

 

So, other than the playoff run (which is the only time we've had a positive turnover ratio the past 5 years), we give away the ball a ton.  That's always going to hurt the performance of the defense because it puts them in bad positions.  Really, we need to work harder at holding onto the ball.

 

Edit: it is also easier to play defense if you have a lead.

[Thinking Skins]

Ask yourself this; honestly.

 

 Haslett gets canned here. Can you name n NFL team right now that would be jumping for joy to hire him?

 2 teams come to mind.

 1. Raiders, because they will hire/sign anyone. Been doing it for years.

 2. Jaguars, because to them, Oakland is a role model.

 His COY award was an emotional victory more than anything. Hurricane Katrina had a weird effect on alot of people. And he always followed a decent year with a constant drop in ratings the following years, because he lacks creativeness; something that a constantly-evolving/changing NFL demands.

 Also ask yourself this; if Haslett WAS such a good DC, then why was he coaching some arena league before we made the mistake of hiring him?

His COY award was in 2000-2001, well before Katrina.

I'm not saying that he doesn't lack creativity, doesn't disguise his blitzes, doesn't do a good job developing players (at least not here). But in answer to your question, yeah the Jets wanted to interview him for DC back in January but the Skins said no. So he is still in demand.

What Has gives you is a DC who is pretty good at taking away a team's primary strength and saying if you're going to beat me, you'll have to find more creative ways to do it. He's not a Dick LeBeau or a Jim Mora where he'll come up with a new innovative scheme that OCs have to prep for and that'll change the whole game around. But he is a smart guy who can prepare well for his opponents and do a good job with the defense. In fact I'd say he's about what his teams say he is, a middle of the road defensive coordinator. One who can sometimes put up a top 10 unit, sometimes will get a bottom 10 unit, but most of the time will rank in that 10-20 range.

In fact, just cause I'm curious I want to see how this calculates

1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-32

0, 3, 5, 3, 2, 5

Averaged out, his defensive rankings is 18th in the league. Like I said, a middle of the road DC.

[chipwhich]

What Has gives you is a DC who is pretty good at taking away a team's primary strength and saying if you're going to beat me, you'll have to find more creative ways to do it. He's not a Dick LeBeau or a Jim Mora where he'll come up with a new innovative scheme that OCs have to prep for and that'll change the whole game around. But he is a smart guy who can prepare well for his opponents and do a good job with the defense. In fact I'd say he's about what his teams say he is, a middle of the road defensive coordinator. One who can sometimes put up a top 10 unit, sometimes will get a bottom 10 unit, but most of the time will rank in that 10-20 range.

 

 

You are one of the few that feel that way.  I will take my own eyes, and the opinions of ex Redskins and analysts over someone who can't look at the historical facts of his defenses and see the truth.

[TheLongshot]

You are one of the few that feel that way.  I will take my own eyes, and the opinions of ex Redskins and analysts over someone who can't look at the historical facts of his defenses and see the truth.

 

Louis Riddick, who actually played for him, still likes Haslett:

 

 

Louis Riddick: Depending upon what the level of interference was and depending on how knowledgeable Shanahan is about teaching and scheming and calling defensive football given that his background is offense. It's hard to know how much it will affect it in a positive way. I will say this, knowing Jim like I do and having played for him back in the early '90s when I played for him in the World League, I know he knows defense and I know what he believes in philosophically. I know he likes to pressure and I know he understands good coverage guys and wants safeties with good range and has a good feel for down and distance tendencies. He's not a guy overwhelmed by the moment on game day. He's a very good teacher and motivator. So I would think if the interference was a negative then, yes, this could be a positive. … Sometimes the communication issues you have between a coordinator and head coach can cause things to go off the rails because people are grasping at straws. Everyone thinks they have an answer when the best answer is to let the people who you hired do their jobs. But the calls weren't the problem for Washington, the players were the problem.

Only because there was so much chatter around the fact that the defense has underperformed since he's been there and there seemed to be a desire to make a clean sweep and start over, I was surprised they were keeping him. But knowing him like I do and believing in how he approaches a game philosophically I think it's good that they did keep him. He's more than capable and deserving of leading that defense. I'm not with the public opinion that he needed to go based on where they finished statistically because there's more to it than that. If he can do it the way he wants and teach the way he wants and call it the way he wants on game day, I think you'll see a tremendous improvement in that defense from a statistical perspective, provided they address areas that need to be addressed.

[chipwhich]

Louis Riddick, who actually played for him, still likes Haslett:

 

Another excuse blaming Shanny for the defenses poor performance. Good thing we had that Jacksonville game to make our defensive stats look better.  More relevant players are on the radio who disagree.

 

Oh well, it's good he has fans like you, hopefully we don't have to wait four more years for real change.  Fortunately for me, it's obvious Gruden is getting smart real quick on the state of the franchise.  With John whispering in his ear, I expect a major overhaul this offseason.

[Thinking Skins]

I also want to point out that (not sure how much this is Shanny vs Allen) we've done well with finding UDFAs (and cuts from other teams rosters and practice squads) to contribute to this team since 2010. Some can argue that this is inevitable with us having so few draft picks developed, and that needs to be considered as well.

Significant Contributors:

- Darrel Young - UDFA

- Tyler Polumbus - cut from Seattle

- Chris Baker - cut from Miami

- Kai Forbath - cut from Tampa

- Logan Paulsen - UDFA

- Tress Way - cut from Chicago

Other Contributors:

- Frank Kearse

- Trenton Robinson

- Jose Gumbs

- Nick Williams

- Lorenzo Alexander

- Brandon Banks

- Anthony Armstrong

- Graham Gano

And I will say that I'm very impressed with what we have with Kearse (25) and Baker (27), to go along with Hatcher (32) and Coefield (30) and possibly Bowen(30) / Jenkins (26).

So while we haven't addressed the DL position in the draft, we do have some young guys developing there and making themselves known there.

[Thinking Skins]

Another excuse blaming Shanny for the defenses poor performance. Good thing we had that Jacksonville game to make our defensive stats look better.  More relevant players are on the radio who disagree.

 

Oh well, it's good he has fans like you, hopefully we don't have to wait four more years for real change.  Fortunately for me, it's obvious Gruden is getting smart real quick on the state of the franchise.  With John whispering in his ear, I expect a major overhaul this offseason.

Good to know things are so cut and dry for you. I have no problem with replacing Haslett, but I don't think he's the reason why we've had a losing team 4 of the last 5 years. There are elements of his defense that need to improve, but people act like he doesn't belong in the league. I mean its like Cousins against Philadelphia where he had a great game but didn't make the throw in 4th down at the 41 so people are calling him a loser. Haslett had a defense that was stopping Seattle in the second half of that game consistently, but we allowed them to get that last first down to seal the victory and suddenly people act like our defense did nothing that game. Same goes for the Houston game where we allowed the FG at the end to make it a 10 point margin and people act like the defense allowed 30 points and 500 yards that game.

Could we improve if we hired a better defensive coordinator, sure. But this year isn't over yet and we can still improve this year with simply playing more games like we did against Seattle - with few penalties and forcing them to a lot of 3 and outs. Next up is Arizona and we have a legit chance to win, yes with Haslett.

[TheLongshot]

 

Another excuse blaming Shanny for the defenses poor performance. Good thing we had that Jacksonville game to make our defensive stats look better.  More relevant players are on the radio who disagree.

 

Oh well, it's good he has fans like you, hopefully we don't have to wait four more years for real change.  Fortunately for me, it's obvious Gruden is getting smart real quick on the state of the franchise.  With John whispering in his ear, I expect a major overhaul this offseason.

 

 

The article was from last Feb, so that was the storyline at the time.  But ignoring that, this is someone who has some personal experience with Haslett.

 

Just as a note, I'm not the biggest fan of Has either.  I do think we can get more out of our defenses than we have been getting the past few years.  That being said, I can't look at this talent this year and say that another coach would do much better.  Our secondary stinks, and that seems to be a combination of young guys learning the game and limited talent at the safety position.

[chipwhich]

Good to know things are so cut and dry for you.

 

When you do the same things over and over and they don't work......that's haslett.

 

BTW, it's not all cut and dry for me.  Our defensive makeup is lacking in personnel.  I will keep beating the same ol drum.  As long as the majority of your players are free agents and not groomed by you and drafter by you, you wont win a lot.

 

I can't think of any situation since Haslett has been here where I can say a player is an overachiever.  I can sure see a lot of people underachieving.

The article was from last Feb, so that was the storyline at the time.

 

I know.  And now that it's October and the defense plays just like it did last year we can safely say it wasn't all Shannys fault. 

[Thinking Skins]

When you do the same things over and over and they don't work......that's haslett.

 

BTW, it's not all cut and dry for me.  Our defensive makeup is lacking in personnel.  I will keep beating the same ol drum.  As long as the majority of your players are free agents and not groomed by you and drafter by you, you wont win a lot.

I put that more on the FO than Haslett. We need to invest in the draft, we're in agreement there, but who have they brought in for Haslett? Orakpo, Kerrigan, Riley, Gumbs, Robinson, Amerson, Thomas, Rambo, Murphy, Breeland and a bunch of UDFAs. That's a small set of players to have to develop in the first place and I like that lately we've been having more draft picks. When you start haveing 10, 11, 12 pick drafts then you wind up having more young talent to put into those positions. Thats what Allen has been doing since he got here and I expect it to continue.

I can't think of any situation since Haslett has been here where I can say a player is an overachiever.  I can sure see a lot of people underachieving.

So what would you call Baker and Kearse right now? What about Robinson? We saw Crawford developing nicely until he was hurt. Now we're going to learn a lot about Robinson and Chase, and its just 1 game but Breeland looked nice on Monday night.

But I agree that we need more players to develop, but he can only work with what he's given. Baker has turned into a nice find and I'd say its part FO in signing him, but part Haslett in developing him into a legit starter in this league. Hopefully Kearse turns out nice too, but he has looked good in his opportunities and is earning more playing time.

[Stormy]

The Redskins under Shanahan were a running and time of possession offense, and in at least one instance their special teams were historically bad. Both of those factors dramatically impact the number of yards a defense allows in the course of a game, or a season for that matter. Total yards allowed is a nice stat, but it's not universal. A quick strike passing offense with stellar special teams is going to put their defense in a position to surrender a lot more yards, than a ground a pound offense with a special teams unit that loses the field position battle.

You can't just discard lack of turnovers and sacks, and take total yards out of overall context and claim to paint a picture of a good defense. That's no more accurate than it would be to blame Haslett for Points Allowed, with an offense that turns the ball over constantly and a special teams unit that offers up scores and field position all day.

Above and beyond the statistical evidence that points to Haslett as a bottom 1/3 DC, there are numerous visible truths that all fans of this team have seen during his tenure...

His defenses are slow starters, starting games and whole seasons slow. We play from behind, whether that means down 17-0 early, or being down 4 games below .500, before improvements are made. It's often once it's way too late.

Adjustments are slow in being made, or often never come at all. Wilson rushes for 100 yards before we defend the read/boot. Donnell catches 3 TD passes on uncontested seam routes or terrible man to man matches. When adjustments are finally made, the game (or meaningful part of the season) is usually over.

The defense can't get off the field when it needs to. An interesting stat from last year was the one showing Haslett's defenses were given the worst starting field position to defend in the NFC thanks to our woeful special teams, which takes a lot of the scoring blame off his shoulders. The problem, when given a long field (great field position) his defenses yielded a higher percentage of scores than any defense in football. Sigh!

No turnovers, limited sacks, never getting sacks against our divisional foes, players out of position, no ability to disguise coverages or get blitzes home when the game is on the line.

It's time for him to go!

[Rufus T Firefly]

I have a feeling any plan that leads to an immediate losing record would be not a real plan to you.  Had your suggestions lead to the same results, you'd hate your own plan as well.

That's just pure straw man. You're taking what I said and claiming I meant the exact opposite. It's pathetic and I really hope you can do better.

 

 

In two years, some of those players either won't be on the team or will have their deals restructured.  Their deals are mostly cap friendly in that we can let some of those guys go without a horrible hit on the cap.  As for resigning players, there are going to need to be some tough decisions, but the cap does always go up, so that will help.  It is the reason why Orakpo probably won't be resigned (and I think we will miss him) and they prepared by drafting a potential replacement.  That's generally what good teams do.

Yeah, that's how we've always done things in the Snyder years- you structure contracts to keep the early year cap hits low by pushing cap hits into the future. Then you either release said player (taking a cap hit for a player who isn't on your roster anymore) or restructure (pushing some of that hit even more into the future). Either way, you're doing exactly as I described- stealing for the future to create cap room for the present.

 

Borrowing from the future to sign a bunch of stopgaps isn't a 'long-term strategy' just because you want it to be.

[Thinking Skins]

The Redskins under Shanahan were a running and time of possession offense, and in at least one instance their special teams were historically bad. Both of those factors dramatically impact the number of yards a defense allows in the course of a game, or a season for that matter. Total yards allowed is a nice stat, but it's not universal. A quick strike passing offense with stellar special teams is going to put their defense in a position to surrender a lot more yards, than a ground a pound offense with a special teams unit that loses the field position battle.

I spoke earlier about how I don't like using yards as the metric for stats, but they do give a general idea. And look at Philly right now, what happens with quick strike offenses is that either their defense is good and stops the other team repeatedly, or the other team winds up getting equal or more plays and staying on the field more because the defense is crappy and can't stop anybody. Not saying yards is the ULTIMATE stat, but its a good metric.

<side note>

You mention quick strike offenses and one of the reasons that they didn't work in the 90s and possibly why Seattle beat up on Denver in the SB is that in a quick strike offense, a) you really hurt your defense for the reasons you name, and if you get behind early, your quick strike offense goes from becoming a surprise to the expected. If you look at Pitt's reign, or Baltimore's reign, NY Giants reign, or Seattle right now, SF right now, they're all running offenses with strong defenses. The other side of that is the Indy's / New England / New Orleans / Green Bay, but New England's best years came from a team closer to the Balt/Pitt teams than the Indy teams, and you're seeing how Indy does in the playoffs. Same with GB and NO. People are saying that the league is changing and it is becoming easier for these 21st Century Run and Shoot offenses to win in this league, but I'm still in favor of the old fashioned running game with a defense and a QB who can win the game in the 4th quarter.

</side note>

You can't just discard lack of turnovers and sacks, and take total yards out of overall context and claim to paint a picture of a good defense.

All very important, but a lot of that winds up being luck, like the bounce of a ball a sack vs a hold vs a hurry, dropped ints, recovering our own fumbles. The only other stat I'd really put up there with yards is third down efficiency because that's a pressing stat and tells how well team defenses get off the field.

Above and beyond the statistical evidence that points to Haslett as a bottom 1/3 DC, there are numerous visible truths that all fans of this team have seen during his tenure...

Bottom third, vs mid tier - I guess it depends on your metric. I've shown that based on yards he's mid tier. If you want to base it on sacks or interceptions or even third down percentage then he's a bottom tier. But my contention isn't to argue his place in the league. Its more to say that he's a valuable assistant for Gruden because of their mentoring relationship. Right now our defense is not why we're 1-4. Based on the defense we should have won 2 more games (Houston and Philly), so I don't get people who say we can't win with Haslett.

His defenses are slow starters, starting games and whole seasons slow. We play from behind, whether that means down 17-0 early, or being down 4 games below .500, before improvements are made. It's often once it's way too late.

I don't get this, especially this year. We've had leads in I think 3 of our 5 games so it hasn't been some blowout city type environment. He's done a good job limiting the offense's main option and making them use a secondary resource to beat us. That's something he does well and has for a while.

Adjustments are slow in being made, or often never come at all.

This is his problem. Hopefully (if Gruden does keep him), Gruden recognizes this and helps prep for it.

The defense can't get off the field when it needs to. An interesting stat from last year was the one showing Haslett's defenses were given the worst starting field position to defend in the NFC thanks to our woeful special teams, which takes a lot of the scoring blame off his shoulders. The problem, when given a long field (great field position) his defenses yielded a higher percentage of scores than any defense in football. Sigh!

Another criticism of mine of Haslett.

No turnovers, limited sacks, never getting sacks against our divisional foes, players out of position, no ability to disguise coverages or get blitzes home when the game is on the line.

turnovers and sacks I don't blame him as much for because like I said earlier those are more difficult. But players out of position isn't something I generally see with Haslett, and this is one of the reasons that I was arguing about in January. Our problem last year was missed tackles, not players out of position. Against Seattle it was stupid Orakpo who continued to fail to keep contain. Earlier it was Rambo (then Meri/Riley) who couldn't cover the middle of the field.

[TheLongshot]

That's just pure straw man. You're taking what I said and claiming I meant the exact opposite. It's pathetic and I really hope you can do better.

 

 

Yeah, that's how we've always done things in the Snyder years- you structure contracts to keep the early year cap hits low by pushing cap hits into the future. Then you either release said player (taking a cap hit for a player who isn't on your roster anymore) or restructure (pushing some of that hit even more into the future). Either way, you're doing exactly as I described- stealing for the future to create cap room for the present.

 

Borrowing from the future to sign a bunch of stopgaps isn't a 'long-term strategy' just because you want it to be.

 

Yes, FA is expensive.  I've already said that.  That being said, the deals given out aren't bad at all and can be gotten out of after 2-3 years, which is when our young players start entering FA.  So, that 28m you talk about might not be that depending on our player situation.

 

I actually do see a good amount of young players with potential on this roster.  The problem is that because we don't have any of those players from over 5 years ago, many of those players still need to develop, which is why you need to bring in guys.

 

I'd be interested to hear what you'd do differently, given the amount of holes there were on the roster and the fact we have a brand new coach.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Yes, FA is expensive.  I've already said that.  That being said, the deals given out aren't bad at all and can be gotten out of after 2-3 years, which is when our young players start entering FA.  So, that 28m you talk about might not be that depending on our player situation.

 

No, it likely won't be. So you're 'long-term plan' is to sign players as FAs and have them be gone before the team will be good? And having them count as dead cap in 2016 to keep their 14-15 cap hits lower? Again, that is textbook short-term thinking.

 

I'd be interested to hear what you'd do differently, given the amount of holes there were on the roster and the fact we have a brand new coach.

I would have concentrated on fixing 4-5 holes well for the long-term rather than trying to plug like 15 of them now. And I would have given  contracts where the hits were more front-loaded, so we'd have more cap space when we needed it. Because long-term thinking is about setting yourself up fro the future, not stealing from it.

[Thinking Skins]

The top four FAs we signed this year (Jackson, Hatcher, Lauvao, Roberts) count 13.25 mil against the cap this year. In two years, they will cost a combined 28 mil.  That means we gave away a lot of future cap space for the sake of 2014, saving space for short-term "solutions like Orakpo, Porter, Hayward, Sharpton, Clark, Geathers, Meriweather, as well as the non-release of the likes of Bowen and Chester. The cost of having those players (who have brought us to 1-4) around now is reduced cap space in the future, at just the moment that we'll likely need it to re-sign some potentially curical big-money players (Griffin, Williams, Kerriigan, Morris, Robinson, Garcon, Reed, etc).

 

I really don't see the "plan" that I'm supposed to be impressed with.

I'm looking at overthcap.com at these salaries and I don't see what you're referring to. From what I see, this is totally different than in the past. (I think) Each of these players is on a deal where if we cut them we're not in a

DeSean Jackson - 4 years 24 Mil, 16 M Guaranteed; in 2 years he will have

- if we cut Jackson in 2015, it will cost us 2M

- if we cut Jackson in 2016, it will save us 6.75M

- if we cut Jackson in 2017, it will save us 8M

Jason Hatcher - 4 years 27.5 Mil, 9 M Guaranteed; in 2 years he will have 4.5 Mil left.

- If we cut Hatcher in 2015, it will cost us 4.5M

- if we cut Hatcher in 2016, it will save us 4.25k

- if we cut Hatcher in 2017, it will save us 7.5M

Shawn Lauvao - 4 years, 16 Mil, 5 M Guaranteed; in 2 years he will have 2 Mil Guaranteed left.

- if we cut Lauvao in 2015, it will save us 1M

- if we cut Lauvao in 2016, it will save us 3M

- if we cut Lauvao in 2017, it will save us 4M

Andre Roberts - 4 years, 16 Mil, 5.25 M Guaranteed;

- if we cut Roberts in 2015, it will save us 750k

- if we cut Roberts in 2016, it will save us 3M

- if we cut Roberts in 2017, it will save us 4M

If I have those numbers correct then we will not need to renegotiate any contracts in the future. And if you look at it, Allen hasn't really been renegotiating any contracts since he got here.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I'm looking at overthcap.com at these salaries and I don't see what you're referring to. From what I see, this is totally different than in the past. (I think) Each of these players is on a deal where if we cut them we're not in a

 

Because the way you're looking at those contracts is kind of silly. You're just saying that it's irrelevant what kind of a cap hit or dead hit any contract has, as long as you can cut him and it would cost less than it would to keep him, it's a smart deal.

 

So, if right now we signed Tyler Polumbus to a 1 year extension for $15 mil with $5 mil guaranteed. If we cut him before next season we "save" $10 mil.

[Thinking Skins]

Because the way you're looking at those contracts is kind of silly. You're just saying that it's irrelevant what kind of a cap hit or dead hit any contract has, as long as you can cut him and it would cost less than it would to keep him, it's a smart deal.

 

So, if right now we signed Tyler Polumbus to a 1 year extension for $15 mil with $5 mil guaranteed. If we cut him before next season we "save" $10 mil.

 

So its two things on that. First is that I was commenting on the idea that we would not need to restructure the deals if we wanted to cut them. For example, you said. 

 

Yeah, that's how we've always done things in the Snyder years- you structure contracts to keep the early year cap hits low by pushing cap hits into the future. Then you either release said player (taking a cap hit for a player who isn't on your roster anymore) or restructure (pushing some of that hit even more into the future). Either way, you're doing exactly as I described- stealing for the future to create cap room for the present.

 

Borrowing from the future to sign a bunch of stopgaps isn't a 'long-term strategy' just because you want it to be.

 

My comment is that this is not the case. There would not need to be a restructure here and there wouldn't be a cap hit. So its not "stealing from the future to create cap room for the present". Its signing guys to basically short term deals that get more expensive the longer the player is with the team.

The basic plan of action would be to keep the player until the return on investment isn't worthwhile. Its the basic plan of action for free agency that most teams use. Its why Baltimore will sign a guy like Bolden at a reasonable contract (and keep him for 2 years and then trade him), but let some of their own overpriced guys go. Same with Philly and Pitt. Now we're doing that too.

The TyPo contract you mention doesn't fit into this because there is never any point in time when he'd be worth that contract, and we'd never think that we could rationalize keeping him at that price. Most contracts, unless there's an explicit thing like in Jackson's contact that void's the 4th year, are at a rate where we project that even if this player plays to his best talent, the price is reasonable.

But I love the contracts we signed this offseason (not always the players) because if say LeRib beats out Lauvao, then we can cut Lauvao and save money. If not, we still have a starting guard at a reasonable price. This is how most teams use free agency as a stopgap for areas where our young guys aren't ready to come in and take over the position.

[AzSkinsFan63]

There's also 36 million reasons for this mess.....

[TheLongshot]

No, it likely won't be. So you're 'long-term plan' is to sign players as FAs and have them be gone before the team will be good? And having them count as dead cap in 2016 to keep their 14-15 cap hits lower? Again, that is textbook short-term thinking.

 

I would have concentrated on fixing 4-5 holes well for the long-term rather than trying to plug like 15 of them now. And I would have given  contracts where the hits were more front-loaded, so we'd have more cap space when we needed it. Because long-term thinking is about setting yourself up fro the future, not stealing from it.

 

How can you predict when we will be good?  I certainly wouldn't have predicted a playoff run in 2012.  That wasn't a great team, but they were able to get on a hot streak and make it into the playoffs.  There are no such things as "rebuilding" years in the NFL.

 

Your plans are still somewhat vague.  Fix these holes how?  Frontload contracts?  You mean like Desean Jackson's contract, which is guaranteed for the first two years?

 

Because the way you're looking at those contracts is kind of silly. You're just saying that it's irrelevant what kind of a cap hit or dead hit any contract has, as long as you can cut him and it would cost less than it would to keep him, it's a smart deal.

 

So, if right now we signed Tyler Polumbus to a 1 year extension for $15 mil with $5 mil guaranteed. If we cut him before next season we "save" $10 mil.

 

So, looking at the dead cap numbers for 2016, this is what I see:

 

Jackson: $2.5m

Hatcher: $4.5m

Lauvao: $2m

Roberts: $2m

 

Not exactly breaking our cap here.

 

Edit: Thinking Skins did a better job explaining it.  Good job.

[chipwhich]

There's also 36 million reasons for this mess.....

 

Gee and I thought it was Shanny's fault.  Excuses change nothing but make everyone feel better.

[Rufus T Firefly]

 

So its two things on that. First is that I was commenting on the idea that we would not need to restructure the deals if we wanted to cut them. For example, you said. 

 

I'll spell this out one more time and there's no reason to do it any further;

 

We signed 4 FAs to big, multi-year  contracts. The way we structured those contracts was to use future cap years to keep their current cap hits lower. You do that to make room to sign more players now at the expense of future years. Using 2016 as an example, at that point the 4 players can either be-

A) Kept on their current contracts, at a combined cap cost of more than twice what they cost now. Hence, the Redskins have a lot less cap space available in 2016 in exchange for having more in 2014.;

B)Released, in which case they will count a chunk against our cap in 2016 while no longer being here. Hence, the Redskins use their 2016 cap to pay for players to be here in 14-15;

C) Kept but restructured. In such case, the players will likely still have higher cap hits in 16 than 14, but will kept lower than it could have been by pushing some cap hits further into the future. Hence, the Redskins will probably have a little less cap space in 2016, but even less in future years, in exchange for having more in 14.

 

Any of those possibilities represents borrowing from the future to pay for the present. It's frankly just dumb for a team in our circumstance, but more to the point, it is the opposite of a 'long-term plan'.

Not exactly breaking our cap here.

 

Oh, wonderful. Another straw man. I never said a word about "breaking the cap". I said we are taking from the future to pay for the present and have spelled out how we are doing it.