Take the full cap hit for Smith in 2019

[sportjunkie07]

As of now we have without a doubt the worst qb situation in the entire league. We'll be lucky to win 5 games. 

 

I predict pain. 

[sempre_victrix]

Time to think 2020.

 

Personally, I think we need to trade any vet not earning his salary (Norman) for 2019 or 2020 pics.  If we cannot trade, then cut.  Trade any vet who realistically will not be playing at a good level in 2020/2021 for pics.  If we can do this, eat Smith's salary in 2019 if he agrees to retire.

 

The only way to right this ship is a large infusion of young talent. 

[Boss_Hogg]

I never root for the Redskins to lose, but having a 2-14 season with blowout losses and an empty FedEx stadium may be the best thing to happen for this team in 2019. 

 

This team needs an enema, badly. 

[NoCalMike]

2019 already sounds over with as far as any expectations go unless the front office pulls of something miraculous behind the scenes.  The bigger question to me is what is the time frame before Alex has a good idea of whether he will every play again or not.   The 2020 season, which would have been Smith's 3rd season as the 'Skins QB was what I had assumed would be his final season here anyway unless he decided to re-negotiate his contract.  Regardless of what the organization musters as a temporary fix for 2019/2020, the future QB is going to have to be sought out after sooner than later.

[Peregrine]

The only thing shaping up poorly for the terrible season we are about to have, is we still have the same schmucks making the draft picks instead of letting the inevitable new regime making them, setting us back another 2 years.  This next season is going to take a 7-9 team, who was 1-6 without their starting QB, and then play 16 games without that QB.  I think 5 wins may be celebrated this coming season.

[FrFan]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just caught up with Sheehan's podcast on the subject.  He said a source he has to the FO told him no way they'd take the full hit.  Here's what they supposedly are thinking:

 

A. They aren't ruling out that one day Alex returns

B.  They think they are really really close to the promised land so they want to have as much cap room as possible to make moves this off season

C.  If anything they are considering extending Alex's contract to spread out the cap hit further -- the old Vinny Cerrato move

 

 

[Idaho fan]

28 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just caught up with Sheehan's podcast on the subject.  He said a source he has to the FO told him no way they'd take the full hit.  Here's what they supposedly are thinking:

 

A. They aren't ruling out that one day Alex returns

B.  They think they are really really close to the promised land so they want to have as much cap room as possible to make moves this off season

C.  If anything they are considering extending Alex's contract to spread out the cap hit further -- the old Vinny Cerrato move

 

 

This FO really needs to enter a 12 step program.  Denial is so big with them.

[Burgold]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just caught up with Sheehan's podcast on the subject.  He said a source he has to the FO told him no way they'd take the full hit.  Here's what they supposedly are thinking:

 

A. They aren't ruling out that one day Alex returns

B.  They think they are really really close to the promised land so they want to have as much cap room as possible to make moves this off season

C.  If anything they are considering extending Alex's contract to spread out the cap hit further -- the old Vinny Cerrato move

 

 

Ugh! The last thing this off season needs is a spending spree. I mean I get that they want to "prove" to the fans that they are trying, but if they really believe that they're close than role with what you got, let the chips fall, and prove yourself right or get that super blue chip draft pick.

 

My position hasn't changed much. I would make Colt the starter and have Josh or a low round pick as a back up unless Smith makes a miracle recovery. I wouldn't shed salaries unless someone blows me away and offers first rounders like we're the Raiders for every good player on our team. For example, I'd be happy to trade Santana Moss for Dallas' number one pick (shh... don't tell Jerry that Santana's retired. He don't know.) Frankly, I think 2019 is a doomed season. I think Jay peaked at .500, Manusky's defense looks like it was figured out, and we don't have any game breakers with the possible exception of Guice (if he's an NFL player and if he comes all the way back from injury) or Peterson. That combo screams, "Pain" to me and I think we ought to take advantage of it. Time to call and not raise. In other words, let Jay give 2019 is best shot with the hand dealt and if he draws to the inside straight him and Bruce are vindicated... if it turns out to be garbage and a bluff... then everyone walks away from the table.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Ugh! The last thing this off season needs is a spending spree. I mean I get that they want to "prove" to the fans that they are trying, but if they really believe that they're close than role with what you got, let the chips fall, and prove yourself right or get that super blue chip draft pick.

 

My position hasn't changed much. I would make Colt the starter and have Josh or a low round pick as a back up unless Smith makes a miracle recovery. I wouldn't shed salaries unless someone blows me away and offers first rounders like we're the Raiders for every good player on our team. For example, I'd be happy to trade Santana Moss for Dallas' number one pick (shh... don't tell Jerry that Santana's retired. He don't know.) Frankly, I think 2019 is a doomed season. I think Jay peaked at .500, Manusky's defense looks like it was figured out, and we don't have any game breakers with the possible exception of Guice (if he's an NFL player and if he comes all the way back from injury) or Peterson. That combo screams, "Pain" to me and I think we ought to take advantage of it. Time to call and not raise. In other words, let Jay give 2019 is best shot with the hand dealt and if he draws to the inside straight him and Bruce are vindicated... if it turns out to be garbage and a bluff... then everyone walks away from the table.

 

I agree with most of this.  But the irony is its pretty clear Bruce and Jay saved their jobs by convincing Dan he'd be a fool to break up the band right before they become the Beatles so to speak.  I like Jay, i don't like Bruce.  But I don't blame either one for trying to sell Dan on this.  Otherwise, what's the point in bringing them back?    So Bruce and Jay played that hand and it sounds like they will play it to the max to prove it to Dan.

 

Guess we should buy our SB tickets now?  😀

 

But yeah I think this team goes down in 2018 with the disclaimer of them surprising with an unexpected off season move.    

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I never for a second expected them to pay off Alex Smith and tank the next season.  My hope is really that Bruce truly believes they can win with Colt and Josh Johnson and remains frugal in FA.  But I expect him to inflict further damage on the future of the franchise, because he has nothing to lose nor any fear of repercussions.

[veteranskinsfan]

Today they say Allen is attempting to sign Josh Johnson.   How hard could that be, really?

[tibbidoe]

Burn it to the ground and get a 3-4 year plan in place:

 

Trade any player currently over 25 we get a decent offer for. I don't care if that means getting 15 picks in the 7th round over the next 3 years.

Give TW71 and RK91 the choice of staying. They've earned it.

Any player left that doesn't get traded, can stay, unless they have a bad contract.

Eat ALL the bad contract money ASAP, specifically AS11.

Draft as usual, since that only adds young guys on cheap deals.

I wouldn't trade '19 picks for '20-'21 picks, unless you get a great offer. We'd just have too many rookie deals ending at the same time.

Let PS94, JC80 and any other pending free agent walk, unless they are under 25 and sign cheap (and worth keeping, of course).

Stay with the theme for UFA signings, collect all the comp picks we can get.

 

AS11 and his injury/contract should the the breaking point and the final sign that the #RedskinsPurge needs to begin.

[JSSkinz]

I'm all for tanking but don't expect them to say they want to tank, I don't think I've ever heard an NFL coach or any coach say they wanted to tank a season, it's hard to do that openly when you have to appease veteran players and sponsors.

 

We just have to see what happens in FA and with the QB situation, if we go into the season with Colt and JJ and we continue to shop from the $1 rack in free agency then you know the team is tanking.

 

 

[Tay]

13 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just caught up with Sheehan's podcast on the subject.  He said a source he has to the FO told him no way they'd take the full hit.  Here's what they supposedly are thinking:

 

A. They aren't ruling out that one day Alex returns

B.  They think they are really really close to the promised land so they want to have as much cap room as possible to make moves this off season

C.  If anything they are considering extending Alex's contract to spread out the cap hit further -- the old Vinny Cerrato move

 

 

Sheehan also mentioned the potential cap ramifications if Smith's situations meets the terms of their insurance contract.

 

They wouldn't see a payout prior to this season, so they'd have to delay the cap hit to see the potential benefit.

[FrFan]

8 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I'm all for tanking but don't expect them to say they want to tank, I don't think I've ever heard an NFL coach or any coach say they wanted to tank a season, it's hard to do that openly when you have to appease veteran players and sponsors.

 

We just have to see what happens in FA and with the QB situation, if we go into the season with Colt and JJ and we continue to shop from the $1 rack in free agency then you know the team is tanking.

 

 

They're too dumb to tank, remmeber in 2012 they could have tanked and get RG3 without selling the farm.

[wit33]

This idea of tanking is lost on me. NFL teams don’t tank. Sure, if out of playoff hunt then you’ll see teams begin macro thinking. 

 

 

[OVCChairman]

What do you consider tanking? 

 

Losing on purpose?  No i don't see that

 

Playing younger talent, moving on from older players to acquire assets, playing an inferior player at the position... That's the way to do it.  It's willfully playing inferior talent with the emphasis on building for the long term.  That's not going out there and 'losing on purpose'.  That's not actively calling bad plays, or benching Trent Williams and playing an undrafted rookie who has no shot at making the team, just because you know he'll get beat. 

 

What the evil owner in Major League did was Tank

 

What Billy Beane did was rebuild for the future.  

 

I feel like the two get lumped together when they're not the same.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Make no mistake about it, Bruce and the gang are capable of tanking without knowing they are tanking.

 

Unfortunately for us, we will win enough games to be out of the race for the top QBs.  

 

[Skinsinparadise]

On 2/2/2019 at 10:44 AM, wit33 said:

This idea of tanking is lost on me. NFL teams don’t tank. Sure, if out of playoff hunt then you’ll see teams begin macro thinking. 

 

 

 

Teams don't tank on purpose but they can set it up organically.  Coaches-GMs have nothing to gain and everything to lose typically to do it -- and that goes double when they have some longevity like exists here.  The way you tank is the way some people say the Dolphins plan to do it.  You don't reload in the off season and let things unfold organically.  Now do they actually do so?  Will see.  I think you need some serious emotional fortitude to tank.  It was funny reading the article from ESPN about the inner workings of the Browns and how they decided tanking was good to rebuild but then their owner couldn't emotionally deal with it in real time during the season.  Nonetheless, they tanked anyway. 

 

I don't think our owner can emotionally deal with it either.  My pessimism about this season is almost all QB-passing game related.  I think we got maybe the worst QB-WR situation in the league.  And although I was underwhelmed with Alex's performance -- I still thought give him a season and give him some real weapons and he'd have improved.  I don't have any faith in that regard about Colt.  Colt I think is Colt.  He's a backup.  But even if I rode with more optimism about Colt, the shopping list I think is too long to set it all up in one off season.

 

We've disagreed on some points.  But I do agree with your prime thesis as for how this team can win quick -- I do agree that a QB with serious wheels coupled with a strong running game might do it.    And Kyle Murray is likely that guy -- with the disclaimer that with his slight build it wouldn't shock me that he's not long for this league. 

 

Considering how sold you are on a franchise QB being the be all and end all -- and I mostly agree with that point.  I am surprised you wouldn't like a fall down to climb back up.  If its always some other team that gets the top QB in the draft -- wouldn't it be nice if its us for a change?  Clinton Portis who is a pal of Dan's was asked why can't he win and one of his fallback answers was they have never been bad enough to get that top player in the draft. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

What do you consider tanking? 

 

Losing on purpose?  No i don't see that

 

Playing younger talent, moving on from older players to acquire assets, playing an inferior player at the position... That's the way to do it.  It's willfully playing inferior talent with the emphasis on building for the long term.  That's not going out there and 'losing on purpose'.  That's not actively calling bad plays, or benching Trent Williams and playing an undrafted rookie who has no shot at making the team, just because you know he'll get beat. 

 

What the evil owner in Major League did was Tank

 

What Billy Beane did was rebuild for the future.  

 

I feel like the two get lumped together when they're not the same.  

 

Yeah I don't think anyone defines tanking as losing on purpose.  I don't see how that would even be physically possible?  Players are playing for keeps and their future -- and if anything most players don't want some new hot shot that's drafted who might replace them.  Players have nothing to gain from tanking.  Coaches, ditto.

 

So its purely how you build the roster in the off season.  Shed salary, don't play FA aggressively, etc. 

 

On a scale of 0-100 what chance do the Redskins do it with Jay and Bruce supposedly on a last year prove it deal -- I'd say about 0. 

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah I don't think anyone defines tanking as losing on purpose.  I don't see how that would even be physically possible?  Players are playing for keeps and their future -- and if anything most players don't want some new hot shot that's drafted who might replace them.  Players have nothing to gain from tanking.  Coaches, ditto.

 

So its purely how you build the roster in the off season.  Shed salary, don't play FA aggressively, etc. 

 

On a scale of 0-100 what chance do the Redskins do it with Jay and Bruce supposedly on a last year prove it deal -- I'd say about 0. 

 

 

I'm likely just quibbling with the term and it's likely just my own personal interpretation.  I feel like "tanking" means the front office and coaching staff are making moves with the idea that losses are the priority.  That feels different (and it's likely not) than understanding that the team is looking long term making moves in order to do so.  Cutting Josh Norman in order to free up space to and move more money from Alex into next season doesn't feel like 'tanking' to me.  It would be a move that MAY result in more losses, but it means the team is better for it.  Winning or losing in 2019 is not the purpose of the move.  It MAY happen as you said 'organically.'  

 

Like i said, i'm probably speaking toward the 6 in 1 hand, half dozen in the other type conversation where it's all the same thing.  

[wit33]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Teams don't tank on purpose but they can set it up organically.  Coaches-GMs have nothing to gain and everything to lose typically to do it -- and that goes double when they have some longevity like exists here.  The way you tank is the way some people say the Dolphins plan to do it.  You don't reload in the off season and let things unfold organically.  Now do they actually do so?  Will see.  I think you need some serious emotional fortitude to tank.  It was funny reading the article from ESPN about the inner workings of the Browns and how they decided tanking was good to rebuild but then their owner couldn't emotionally deal with it in real time during the season.  Nonetheless, they tanked anyway. 

 

I agree with most of what you say. In no way do I think tanking isn’t possible or even become more prevalent, especially if a team like the Dolphins succeed in doing so. As we know, the NFL is a copycat league. 

 

For me, it’s difficult to conceptually see how an NFL team can do it, due to extra variables in relation to other sports team that have done it. 

 

-Limited guarantees in player contracts for players 8-53, thus providing motivation to play well, give max effort, and earn a salary next year (roughly 65-70% of your roster is ready to roll based on surviving)

 

-Parity in NFL. A bad team will have a chance to win 10-12 games. Meaning, be in game until end

 

-limited number of games (16) makes it difficult for a tanking team to not be within a game of 5-8 other teams

 

-A generational type QB is the only reason to do it. So if Dolphins have locked in on this “opportunity window” to get their generational QB, then I can roll with it. 

 

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't think our owner can emotionally deal with it either.  My pessimism about this season is almost all QB-passing game related.  I think we got maybe the worst QB-WR situation in the league.  And although I was underwhelmed with Alex's performance -- I still thought give him a season and give him some real weapons and he'd have improved.  I don't have any faith in that regard about Colt.  Colt I think is Colt.  He's a backup.  But even if I rode with more optimism about Colt, the shopping list I think is too long to set it all up in one off season.

 

Yes, it’s difficult to spin next season in way of 10 wins with current QB situation. If the defense can hit on a free agent pass rusher, some optimism will return. That unit isn’t too far from being able to lead a team for a season. 

 

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We've disagreed on some points.  But I do agree with your prime thesis as for how this team can win quick -- I do agree that a QB with serious wheels coupled with a strong running game might do it.    And Kyle Murray is likely that guy -- with the disclaimer that with his slight build it wouldn't shock me that he's not long for this league.

 

 

In the moment, value still exists in having a mobile QB. The NFL is beginning to shift and value these guys much higher in the draft, so window is closing to get amazing value, but it’s still there. 

 

Example being, a team 2-3 years ago could’ve gotten a Murray type talent in the 3rd or later. Unbelievable value. 

 

Also, as the true dual threat QBs get sprinkled throughout the league, the surprise element and lack of experience in game planning for these guys will go away. With that said, window of opportunity still exists. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Considering how sold you are on a franchise QB being the be all and end all -- and I mostly agree with that point.  I am surprised you wouldn't like a fall down to climb back up.  If its always some other team that gets the top QB in the draft -- wouldn't it be nice if its us for a change?  Clinton Portis who is a pal of Dan's was asked why can't he win and one of his fallback answers was they have never been bad enough to get that top player in the draft. 

 

I’m not against it, just don’t think percentages are in favor to receive the rewards of the plight at the end. Too many uncontrollable variables for me to endorse. 

 

Clinton is regurgitating what the masses are now beginning to say and report. This will begin to catch on more and more (not Saying in a jerk way, just how I feel). The Skins now don’t know how to lose right lol

 

For example, the Giants went all in on year prior to getting Barkley and this year, but now are credited with tanking to get elite talent. A false narrative.

 

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

 

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

Stay put with Alex and evaluate his comeback up to the Draft. Draft a QB but don't force it. Don't be desperate..no trades for a QB

 

I haven't given up hope yet...we went 6-3 with CONSERVATIVE QB play..nothing special except low turnover with GOOD running game. Ya we went 1-6 when Alex went down but Colt went down right away and had to go to scrubs..OL too..went with Scrubs (a couple of keeper scrubs which is a pleasant surprise)

 

So my *hope* is based on

1) A MUCH Better running tandem with AP and Guice

2) A BETTER OL with Return from IR and competition with the replacements (Draft OL)

3) Colt is protected with #2 and plays healthy and can do what Alex did..no turnovers

4) Better LB play with + Foster, Draft and Rex coaching/helping Manusky get agressive

5) Teams will take the skins lightly and not prepare

6) The Dl line Payne and Allen start crushing it

7) We solve the safety issue and the CB's step up AND Manusky quit playing soft and blitz..force QB hurries (solve the ILB cover issue..geez)

 

I Like Colt....I think he can be a game management QB and lest AP&G feed play action.

 

IF we for once keep starters on the field..I think we can compete. BUT the Coaching staff needs to step up accountability, "Get Creative" and ADJUST the flow of the game. If Jay can't call a better game..bye - bye

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

 

For example, the Giants went all in on year prior to getting Barkley and this year, but now are credited with tanking to get elite talent. A false narrative.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is crediting them with tanking. I think it happened for them organically and non intentionally.  I think it can happen here too that way depending on this off season. 

 

But some (me included) think the Giants have gotten lucky to be bad in recent years instead of mediocre. They get Barkley and now are best position to get the top QB in this draft in back to back years.   I recall reading an article goofing on Garrett for celebrating Dallas' last second win at the end of the season against the Giants -- saying congrats Cowboys you won a meaningless game and in turn likely handed the Giants the franchise Qb they so covet.  So who is the real winner?

 

And granted the Giants aren't losing on purpose.  But for the last two years once the Giants were out of the playoff hunt, I wanted them to win not lose to avoid landing elite talent.  If back to back years they get Haskins and Barkley they are likely set for the next decade.  Hope am wrong. 

 

I don't think its an accident that two years in a row (this 2019 season too thus far) the Giants are picked whether its by Vegas or the national media as the better team than the Redskins.  It's because in theory the Giants are loading up more.  Can they screw this up?  Sure.  Lets says they draft Haskins and he's a bust.   But its all about playing the odds. 

 

We all used to joke about Vinny but even he for the most part couldn't screw up a high pick in the draft.  

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I'm likely just quibbling with the term and it's likely just my own personal interpretation.  I feel like "tanking" means the front office and coaching staff are making moves with the idea that losses are the priority.  That feels different (and it's likely not) than understanding that the team is looking long term making moves in order to do so.  Cutting Josh Norman in order to free up space to and move more money from Alex into next season doesn't feel like 'tanking' to me.  It would be a move that MAY result in more losses, but it means the team is better for it.  Winning or losing in 2019 is not the purpose of the move.  It MAY happen as you said 'organically.'  

 

Like i said, i'm probably speaking toward the 6 in 1 hand, half dozen in the other type conversation where it's all the same thing.  

 

Yeah letting Norman go would be right on point as to tanking.  I don't think there is such a thing as teams losing on purpose.  It's about what roster you enter the season with.  It's talked about in depth in an ESPN article about the Browns, where they didn't lose on purpose but let their FA's go, built draft capital, dumped salary, etc.