The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randal 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariota and Fromm battle for QB2 and so begins the Handsome Harem for Hartman

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

What a fun ride its been. 😧   If I had to sum up the post Gibbs 1 era -- its Dan the douche and comical inemptness at the QB spot.

 

As the Washington Football Team's QB quest enters Year 29, ESPN Analytics ranks its past 30 starters 

 

 

Would love for them to do an update of this article...curious where Wentz and Howell would have landed. Keim's takes were pretty strong.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

Would love for them to do an update of this article...curious where Wentz and Howell would have landed. Keim's takes were pretty strong.

 

Howell with one game, I don't think can be ranked.  Here are some others

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

 

19. Dwayne Haskins (2019-20)

Games: 16 | Record: 3-10 | TDs: 12 | INTs: 14 | Pass yards: 2,804

Washington had him rated as a third-round draft pick in 2019, but multiple sources said higher-ups made them give Haskins a first-round grade and the team drafted him No. 15 overall. It was a bad marriage: Washington's staff needed to win, but Haskins needed time to mature.

His game didn't improve, and his maturity level was an issue for two coaching staffs and the front office. He missed one victory formation snap because he was taking a picture with a fan; he didn't study the way the coaches wanted; he was fined multiple times in 2020 for violating COVID-19 protocols, stripped of his captaincy and eventually cut.

Keim's take: I would have slotted him at No. 25, but some of that ranking stems from the disappointing way he approached being an NFL quarterback.

Kiper's take on Haskins (2019 first-round draft pick, No. 15 overall): He's a pocket guy, big strong-armed guy. It made sense: local guy sliding down. He fell in their lap. It's like Mac Jones falling in New England's lap or Aaron Rodgers falling into Green Bay's lap. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I don't think you can look back and say it was a horrible pick. In hindsight, yeah, but not when it was made. There were always questions with Dwayne: Are you going to be the first one in the building, the last one out? How much does he love the game? Does he study the game? What kind of leader is he? How do his teammates feel about him?

---

18. Alex Smith (2018-20)

Games: 18 | Record: 11-5 | TDs: 16 | INTs: 13 | Pass yards: 3,762

The key stat: During his time in Washington, the team was 6-27 when he didn't start. Washington was 6-3 when he suffered his broken fibula and tibia in 2018, then lost 18 of the next 22 games.

"Take any franchise and take away Derek Carr, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and see what happens to them," Gruden said of losing Smith. "Not many teams can recover."

Smith's improbable return in 2020 helped deliver an NFC East title as the team went 5-1 in games he started (and 2-8 when he didn't).

Keim's take: I would have ranked him in the top five. He and Mark Brunell were similar, so this is way too low for Smith.

---

17. Heath Shuler (1994-96)

Games: 19 | Record: 4-9 | TDs: 13 | INTs: 19 | Pass yards: 2,403

Washington selected him at No. 3 in 1994 instead of Trent Dilfer (No. 6 overall) because of his mobility, even though it had Dilfer rated higher. Shuler's new teammates were not impressed.

Said Mitchell: "We played a game in Kansas City [in 1995], and we called a waggle pass. He called it the wrong way, and it got f---ed up in the backfield. I was asked by a coach why I didn't help him out, and I said, 'If you want to pay me quarterback money, I'll call plays and play quarterback.'"

After the 1996 season, the Green Bay Packers and New Orleans Saints called about a trade. The Packers were coached by Mike Holmgren, and Washington's front office told Shuler it would be a better fit: He could learn and rebuild his game. Shuler wanted to play immediately and chose the Saints and coach Mike Ditka. He started nine games, suffered a serious foot injury and never played again.

Keim's take: I would have ranked him No. 15, but this ranking by ESPN Analytics probably better reflects his performance. However, he should never be ahead of Smith.

Kiper's take on Shuler (1994 first-round draft pick, No. 3 overall): Second-guessing the Heath pick? You can't do it now. I got it wrong. I had no problem with Washington taking him at that point. If I was the Colts [at No. 5], I would have taken Trent Dilfer. Trent turned out to be a lot better than Heath, but I don't think you can question that pick.

---

16. Case Keenum (2019)

Games: 10 | Record: 1-7 | TDs: 11 | INTs: 5 | Pass yards: 1,707

He ended up starting in 2019 because McCoy was hurt and Haskins wasn't ready. He's a quality NFL backup with 75 career touchdown passes to 47 interceptions.

Keim's take: No problem with this ranking of Keenum.

---

15. Tony Banks (2001)

Games: 15 | Record: 8-6 | TDs: 10 | INTs: 10 | Pass yards: 2,386

He became the surprise starter when Jeff George was waived after two games in 2001. Banks helped turn an 0-5 start into an 8-8 finish under coach Marty Schottenheimer. He played three more seasons with the Houston Texans, starting three games.

Keim's take: Like Allen, he was better than several players ranked above him here, which is why I would have ranked him ninth.

---

14. Jeff George (2000-01)

Games: 8 | Record: 1-6 | TDs: 7 | INTs: 9 | Pass yards: 1,557

Washington signed George despite a stellar 1999 season by Brad Johnson. George's name had come up the previous offseason, but one source said it was a unanimous "no." The only change in 2000 was the new owner, Dan Snyder; George was signed. In 2000, coach Norv Turner resisted pressure to play George until Johnson was hurt.

Keim's take: I would have slotted him about No. 20 because he just wasn't good with Washington.

---

13. Rex Grossman (2010-12)

Games: 17 | Record: 6-10 | TDs: 23 | INTs: 24 | Pass yards: 4,035

After being benched in 2011, Grossman tried to limit risky throws. But he said he told himself, in essence, this is just who I am, so the "gutsy" throws returned.

"I really enjoyed Rex, but he could keep both teams in the game," Mike Shanahan said. "He could win a game; he also could lose a game."

Keim's take: Anywhere from No. 10 to No. 13 is good for Grossman.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

[Skinsinparadise]

I am not a Trubisky fan, among other reasons he doesn't come off like the sharpest tool in the shed.    But if he's cut as some suspect, I wouldn't hate him as a backup.  Ditto Mariota.  I don't think its crazy to add a QB with wheels as the backup.  I'd take that over 'redacted' who doesn't run. 

 

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

8 hours ago, method man said:

 

I think the recent pattern of new ownership is that it takes them time to figure it out and the first few years tend to be a struggle. Khan is just getting it together in Jacksonville, the Haslams still haven't really figured it out, Tepper is figuring it out and the Waltons are figuring it out. I think the very wealthy crowd that is coming in tends to want to make a big splash at the start that oftentimes doesn't work out and they need the time to learn from their mistakes. That is the upside with Josh Harris - having owned two teams, I get the sense that his learning curve will be a lot shorter than a Bezos who has not owned a team before

Yep.

It takes time.

 

Tepper in Carolina hasn’t got it right yet. The Pegulas in Buffalo started with Rex Ryan before getting it right. Haslams have owned the team for a decade and still haven’t got it right.  Khan has owned Jags over a decade and now it looks like he finally gets it.

 

 

New owners have to go thru trial and error and no gaurantee they get things right.

 

Given the new strength of the Nfc East; the new owner will have a tough task.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

55 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Howell with one game, I don't think can be ranked.  Here are some others

 

 

They ranked Mark Sanchez and his 14 pass attempts lol...and he only played in one game.

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

They ranked Mark Sanchez and his 14 pass attempts lol...and he only played in one game.

 

35 attempts in 2 games for Sanchez.  But agree it shouldn't warrant ranking.  Howell with 19 attempts. 

[88Comrade2000]

Also for any new owner to be successful they need to get it right at qb.

 

That’s why they haven’t succeeded in Cleveland or Carolina but have in Buffalo and looks like the finally will in Jacksonville.

 

Of course for us, that qb solution won’t be solved in 23 unless the Howellhive is proven right.

[HigSkin]

https://commanderswire.usatoday.com/2023/02/07/analyst-talks-washington-commanders-quarterbacks-and-the-draft-sam-howell-anthony-richardson/?taid=63e24f001b86500001ad3e94&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

 

“Washington is in a decent situation. They liked what they saw from Sam Howell at the end of the season. They could shoot the moon on Richardson’s upside, go into next year, and know that Richardson is not going to be starting. If one or both is a bonanza, then great! If one didn’t work out, hopefully, the other one did.”

 

 

In regards to Howell’s ranking as one of the top quarterbacks after the 2021 college season:

 

“The stuff regarding last year’s quarterbacks. I would love to see an investigative report on it someday. For the whole story to come out. Not only was it a shock to the media, but it was also a shock the NFL.

 

“Malik Willis and Matt Corral were two of the quarterbacks in the green room at the draft last year. The NFL did not believe that day that either QB would fall to rounds three and four or that Sam Howell would drop to round 5!”

 

Nystrom believes Washington really obtained great value in getting Howell as late as they did… in the fifth round. He also believes Richardson, if he falls to the third, would be of great value.

 

Notice how earlier Nystrom said coaches who have to win that year can’t be taking guys who may not contribute the very next season. Ron Rivera and Martin Mayhew must win in 2023 to ensure they are still here in 2024.

 

Consequently, I’d look for those two men to be looking for whom they feel can help the Commanders right away with their first and second-round picks.

[wit33]

13 hours ago, MartinC said:

Cap spending and cash spending are very different things. In fact one of the ways teams spend less on the cap (in the initial years of a players contract) is by spending lots of cash up front with big signing bonus payments that can be spread across the length of the contract lowering the cap charge in the initial years. Cash over cap.

 

Lower cash spending up front in big deals leads to higher cap spending.

@Conn @Skinsinparadise

It all will count against the cap at some point, no matter how far into the future you put it, right? 
 

The risk in spreading cap out long term is you end up with over priced aging veterans. My attempt is to understand if there are layers I’m missing to this argument, right now it seems to be more philosophical differences than a competitive advantage. For example the Rams manipulated Staffords contract to keep players, but he will now be locked in as a top 5 paid QB for next 2 seasons putting them at a disadvantage. Simarly to Donald, Cupp, and Ramsey all who project to be paid top 5 or so at their positions over the next two seasons. In a snap they’ve become a top heavy aging roster. The Buccaneers are suffering a similar fate, not wrong in the least both won SBs. 
 

Not saying using guaranteed money (cash) is right or wrong, I believe it’s more of a situational thing versus an advantage. It seems teams are more willing to manipulate the cap for the short term with use cash to win now. 
 

My push back is the idea Washington is at a competitive disadvantage due to Dan not using cash/guarantees and if this is different from what the majority of the league is doing or is it just outlier franchises “going for it”. Not at all bullish on this stance, just has always been my understanding and relationship with how the NFL hard cap works. It seems pretty cut and dry compared to other leagues. 
 

Appreciate the feedback and dialogue. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

35 attempts in 2 games for Sanchez.  But agree it shouldn't warrant ranking.  Howell with 19 attempts. 

I could have sworn he only played against the Eagles lol…

[Warhead36]

The issue with RIchardson is that we're very likely going to have a brand new coaching staff in 2024. When a QB gets new coaches that early in his career its often a death knell. I know there are exceptions like Goff and Hurts, but for the most part the best QBs have head coach stability right away to allow for proper development.

[Wyvern]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

I could have sworn he only played against the Eagles lol…

The Eagles game in which Sanchez appeared was on Dec 3, 2018, due to an injury to McCoy, who was subbing for an injured Alex Smith.   Sanchez didn't do much and they lost to the Wentz-led Eagles  13-28.  Since Mark was the only Skins QB left (they did bring  in Josh Johnson around mid-week) Gruden pencilled in Sanchez as the starter for the Dec. 9th game vs. the Giants.

 

Versus the Giants, Sanchez was even more ineffective: 6 of 14 for 38 yards with two interceptions, and didn't have a completion longer than 10 yards. He was sacked five times behind a patchwork offensive line.  Gruden pulled the plug on Sanchez with 5 1/2 minutes remaining in the third quarter, replacing him with Johnson. Redskins lost 40-16, their fourth loss in a row.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, wit33 said:

@Conn @Skinsinparadise

It all will count against the cap at some point, no matter how far into the future you put it, right? 
 

The risk in spreading cap out long term is you end up with over priced aging veterans. My attempt is to understand if there are layers I’m missing to this argument, right now it seems to be more philosophical differences than a competitive advantage. For example the Rams manipulated Staffords contract to keep players, but he will now be locked in as a top 5 paid QB for next 2 seasons putting them at a disadvantage. Simarly to Donald, Cupp, and Ramsey all who project to be paid top 5 or so at their positions over the next two seasons. In a snap they’ve become a top heavy aging roster. The Buccaneers are suffering a similar fate, not wrong in the least both won SBs. 
 

Not saying using guaranteed money (cash) is right or wrong, I believe it’s more of a situational thing versus an advantage. It seems teams are more willing to manipulate the cap for the short term with use cash to win now. 
 

My push back is the idea Washington is at a competitive disadvantage due to Dan not using cash/guarantees and if this is different from what the majority of the league is doing or is it just outlier franchises “going for it”. Not at all bullish on this stance, just has always been my understanding and relationship with how the NFL hard cap works. It seems pretty cut and dry compared to other leagues. 
 

Appreciate the feedback and dialogue. 

 

You are laser focused on part of the argument that isn't the thesis about his cash flow.   Even though I gave you the macro arguments that are being made.   The macro arguments aren't centered on guaranteed money.  It's a sidebar discussion.  It's the gravy.   The macro again is the buying out the minority partners, a big loan that's due in 3 years, and the need for a 2-3 billion stadium with no public funding help in sight.

 

Then on top of that, National Pultizer award winners for ESPN referenced Dan's finances.  Just about every local beat guy, multiple national repoters, etc. And its not them just using deductive reasoning.  It's them hearing from people in the know, just like any other report they give.  Then on top of that there are leaks about Dan cutting back, as I mentioned to you in a another post.  

 

It's not like a First Take argument where this thing can go either way and the sports world is divided on this.   I am not discounting anyone who want to believe differently, to each their own, -- I am just saying they are straggler-outliers and there aren't too many of them and none of them from what I can tell have any source about this. 

 

Standig is the one who started the discussion subtley last off season.  I didn't buy in right away but it didn't take me long when item after item and reporter after reporter kept adding layers to this where it was tough for me to ignore.  

 

Sheehan brought up a good point the other day which I keep forgetting.  It's not just the $450 million loan but that was on top of the $425 million he shelled out first.   

 

The pushback I noticed from some stragglers on this seems to center on Dan is rich so how can he be cash poor?   So the thread mocking the idea "is Dan broke" isn't even remotely on point.  The idea here isn't that Dan is cash poor in layman's terms.  But in the context of billionaire terms, a dude who needs to spend billions to tackle his current circumstances.

 

Dan's net worth is mostly tied into the Commanders which is worth 5 billion or so albiet might fetch much more in a sale.  But most of his net worth isn't liquid. He doesn't have full access of the 5 billion plus as for the Commanders net worth unless he sells it.  So after him expending almost half a billion to buy out the rest of the team and having to pay back almost a half billion in a loan.  And having to spend 2-3 billion on the stadium -- where is all of Dan's cash coming from to handle this?  Also, I learned there is only so much debt the NFL allows an owner for a stadium.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31173323/nfl-owners-approve-dan-snyder-buyout-washington-football-team-minority-owners-source-says

Washington Football Team owner Daniel Snyder's family has gained complete control of the franchise for the first time since buying it more than two decades ago.

NFL owners unanimously approved Snyder's purchase of the remaining 40.5% of the Washington Football Team from the franchise's minority owners, a source told ESPN.

The NFL also approved a $450 million debt waiver as well as the $875 million sale. Snyder bought out his three longtime minority investors, Fred Smith, Dwight Schar and Robert Rothman, who have been with Snyder since 2003.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[method man]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You are laser focused on part of the argument that isn't the thesis about his cash flow.   Even though I gave you the macro arguments that are being made.   The macro arguments aren't centered on guaranteed money.  It's a sidebar discussion.  It's the gravy.   The macro again is the buying out the minority partners, a big loan that's due in 3 years, and the need for a 2-3 billion stadium with no public funding help in sight.

 

Then on top of that, National Pultizer award winners for ESPN referenced Dan's finances.  Just about every local beat guy, multiple national repoters, etc. And its not them just using deductive reasoning.  It's them hearing from people in the know, just like any other report they give.  Then on top of that there are leaks about Dan cutting back, as I mentioned to you in a another post.  

 

It's not like a First Take argument where this thing can go either way and the sports world is divided on this.   I am not discounting anyone who want to believe differently, to each their own, -- I am just saying they are straggler-outliers and there aren't too many of them and none of them from what I can tell have any source about this. 

 

Standig is the one who started the discussion subtley last off season.  I didn't buy in right away but it didn't take me long when item after item and reporter after reporter kept adding layers to this where it was tough for me to ignore.  

 

Sheehan brought up a good point the other day which I keep forgetting.  It's not just the $450 million loan but that was on top of the $425 million he shelled out first.   

 

The pushback I noticed from some stragglers on this seems to center on Dan is rich so how can he be cash poor?   So the thread mocking the idea "is Dan broke" isn't even remotely on point.  The idea here isn't that Dan is cash poor in layman's terms.  But in the context of billionaire terms, a dude who needs to spend billions to tackle his current circumstances.

 

Dan's net worth is mostly tied into the Commanders which is worth 5 billion or so albiet might fetch much more in a sale.  But most of his net worth isn't liquid. He doesn't have full access of the 5 billion plus as for the Commanders net worth unless he sells it.  So after him expending almost half a billion to buy out the rest of the team and having to pay back almost a half billion in a loan.  And having to spend 2-3 billion on the stadium -- where is all of Dan's cash coming from to handle this?  Also, I learned there is only so much debt the NFL allows an owner for a stadium.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31173323/nfl-owners-approve-dan-snyder-buyout-washington-football-team-minority-owners-source-says

Washington Football Team owner Daniel Snyder's family has gained complete control of the franchise for the first time since buying it more than two decades ago.

NFL owners unanimously approved Snyder's purchase of the remaining 40.5% of the Washington Football Team from the franchise's minority owners, a source told ESPN.

The NFL also approved a $450 million debt waiver as well as the $875 million sale. Snyder bought out his three longtime minority investors, Fred Smith, Dwight Schar and Robert Rothman, who have been with Snyder since 2003.

To your point, it is basic math that Snyder is not seeing the cash flow he used to see. He does not have any more operating businesses as far as I can tell (Red Zebra Capital or whatever it was called is no more from the look of it). I know he is doing some real estate development in opportunity zones but those deals take a long time to payoff (10 years or so)

 

The difference between Snyder and other owners that don’t have operating businesses is that other owners don’t have a $450M amortizing loan with a big bullet payment a few years out to deal with

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, method man said:

To your point, it is basic math that Snyder is not seeing the cash flow he used to see. He does not have any more operating businesses as far as I can tell (Red Zebra Capital or whatever it was called is no more from the look of it). I know he is doing some real estate development in opportunity zones but those deals take a long time to payoff (10 years or so)

 

The difference between Snyder and other owners that don’t have operating businesses is that other owners don’t have a $450M amortizing loan with a big bullet payment a few years out to deal with

 

That's after paying 425 million to kick things off.  And with a 2-3 billion stadium looming.

 

As someone said here, maybe it was a devious plot when the fellow owners allowed Dan to buy out the minority partners.  Because the joke looks like it might end up on Dan because the combination of that and the failure to get public funding for stadium looks like has crashed down on him.  

 

I do think Dan's finances likely effects the off season especially at QB.  I'd be really surprised they swing big.   But I am OK with that.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You are laser focused on part of the argument that isn't the thesis about his cash flow.   Even though I gave you the macro arguments that are being made.   The macro arguments aren't centered on guaranteed money.  It's a sidebar discussion.  It's the gravy.   The macro again is the buying out the minority partners, a big loan that's due in 3 years, and the need for a 2-3 billion stadium with no public funding help in sight.

 

Then on top of that, National Pultizer award winners for ESPN referenced Dan's finances.  Just about every local beat guy, multiple national repoters, etc. And its not them just using deductive reasoning.  It's them hearing from people in the know, just like any other report they give.  Then on top of that there are leaks about Dan cutting back, as I mentioned to you in a another post.  

 

It's not like a First Take argument where this thing can go either way and the sports world is divided on this.   I am not discounting anyone who want to believe differently, to each their own, -- I am just saying they are straggler-outliers and there aren't too many of them and none of them from what I can tell have any source about this. 

 

Standig is the one who started the discussion subtley last off season.  I didn't buy in right away but it didn't take me long when item after item and reporter after reporter kept adding layers to this where it was tough for me to ignore.  

 

Sheehan brought up a good point the other day which I keep forgetting.  It's not just the $450 million loan but that was on top of the $425 million he shelled out first.   

 

The pushback I noticed from some stragglers on this seems to center on Dan is rich so how can he be cash poor?   So the thread mocking the idea "is Dan broke" isn't even remotely on point.  The idea here isn't that Dan is cash poor in layman's terms.  But in the context of billionaire terms, a dude who needs to spend billions to tackle his current circumstances.

 

Dan's net worth is mostly tied into the Commanders which is worth 5 billion or so albiet might fetch much more in a sale.  But most of his net worth isn't liquid. He doesn't have full access of the 5 billion plus as for the Commanders net worth unless he sells it.  So after him expending almost half a billion to buy out the rest of the team and having to pay back almost a half billion in a loan.  And having to spend 2-3 billion on the stadium -- where is all of Dan's cash coming from to handle this?  Also, I learned there is only so much debt the NFL allows an owner for a stadium.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31173323/nfl-owners-approve-dan-snyder-buyout-washington-football-team-minority-owners-source-says

Washington Football Team owner Daniel Snyder's family has gained complete control of the franchise for the first time since buying it more than two decades ago.

NFL owners unanimously approved Snyder's purchase of the remaining 40.5% of the Washington Football Team from the franchise's minority owners, a source told ESPN.

The NFL also approved a $450 million debt waiver as well as the $875 million sale. Snyder bought out his three longtime minority investors, Fred Smith, Dwight Schar and Robert Rothman, who have been with Snyder since 2003.

I appreciate the background information, but have zero interest in Snyders cash flow off the field. What I thought was presented by a few other posters is that Washington is at a  competitive disadvantage due to Dans money related issues. I’m attempting to identify how Washington is operating at a disadvantage via paying players and maximizing the cap.

 

My surface level scanning of cap allocated to players in relation to other organizations hasn’t provided any proof, though I fully acknowledge I’m not well read in some of the cap related stuff. Washington has consistently been at or near top ten each season the last few years in spending on a yearly cap basis. 
 

Again, no debate relating to off field money.

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I do think Dan's finances likely affects the off season especially at QB.  I'd be really surprised they swing big.   But I am OK with that.

 

It’s very likely they don’t swing big, due to wanting to build around a cheaper QB. 
 

Do you think they don’t maximize the cap this season due to the money related issues being reported? 

[Skinsinparadise]

39 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I appreciate the background information, but have zero interest in Snyders cash flow off the field. What I thought was presented by a few other posters is that Washington is at a  competitive disadvantage due to Dans money related issues. I’m attempting to identify how Washington is operating at a disadvantage via paying players and maximizing the cap.

 

My surface level scanning of cap allocated to players in relation to other organizations hasn’t provided any proof, though I fully acknowledge I’m not well read in some of the cap related stuff. Washington has consistently been at or near top ten each season the last few years in spending on a yearly cap basis. 
 

Again, no debate relating to off field money.

It’s very likely they don’t swing big, due to wanting to build around a cheaper QB. 
 

Do you think they don’t maximize the cap this season due to the money related issues being reported? 

 

Specific to FA if that's your point.    If I understood one of your posts correctly, you believe that Dan can land any coach or player just as easy as any other owner because money talks and that's all coaches-players care about?

 

If so, bringing it back to that.  As the PFF cap guy said today on 980, we spent less on FA than every team in the NFL but one.  You seems to suspect that its a tactic and Dan's cash flow has nothing to do wth it?  And what makes you think Dan is the dude who will outbid the league?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Specific to FA if that's your point.    If I understood one of your posts correctly, you believe that Dan can land any coach or player just as easy as any other owner because money talks and that's all coaches-players care about?

 

Yes, I think the weaker organizations are often able to grab the most sought after talent whether player or coach. This has and will continue to play out.

 

Weaker organizations that lack culture, principles, and identity are perfect prey or opportunity for the entitled coach or athlete. 
 

Man want power, man seek power. Man want money, man seek money. 

 

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If so, bringing it back to that.  As the PFF cap guy said today on 980, we spent less on FA than every team in the NFL but one.  You seems to suspect that its a tactic and Dan's cash flow has nothing to do wth it?  And what makes you think Dan is the dude who will outbid the league?

 

 

Did the PFF guy include the 27mil dropped on Wentz? Likely, not. A spin on numbers to invoke a response or more likely support a larger point he was attempting to make. Not saying he’s right or wrong as I have no clue about the context of the discussion. 
 

Is what I see in terms of cap spent per season not of value or real. What am I missing? I’m not being facetious or disingenuous with my questions or dialogue, but not seeing any proof that Dans lack of money is making a negative impact on the overall roster, especially if comparing to rest of the league as a whole. There appears to be outliers in both directions and most fall in the middle in how they manage spending. 

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Yes, I think the weaker organizations are often able to grab the most sought after talent whether player or coach. This has and will continue to play out.

 

Weaker organizations that lack culture, principles, and identity are perfect prey or opportunity for the entitled coach or athlete. 
 

Man want power, man seek power. Man want money, man seek money. 

 

 

So your point if I follow it, its BS when agents tell reporters or it gets leaked later that such and such player didn't want to go to Washington.  You think this is where the top players and coaches indeed want to go because ultimately they will be overpaid and or coddled?

 

 

23 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Did the PFF guy include the 27mil dropped on Wentz? Likely, not. A spin on numbers to invoke a response or more likely support a larger point he was attempting to make. Not saying he’s right or wrong as I have no clue about the context of the discussion. 
 

Is what I see in terms of cap spent per season not of value or real. What am I missing? I’m not being facetious or disingenuous with my questions or dialogue, but not seeing any proof that Dans lack of money is making a negative impact on the overall roster, especially if comparing to rest of the league as a whole. There appears to be outliers in both directions and most fall in the middle in how they manage spending. 

 

 The way the whole cash flow argument started is when Standig and then other reporters got the sense (part of it was from Rivera's own comments) that Dan gave them a budget and Wentz basically ate almost all of it.

 

Then later on you got Rivera referencing Richmond being too "expensive" as an option as to training camp.   Sheehan talking about them cutting back on travel expenses for players.  

 

Then if i recall it was Keim (I believe Standig too) who said they chased some FAs but said FAs, referencing money, choose elsewhere.   And the upshot was they did basically nothing in FA. 

 

Then a zillion local reporters talking about Dan's cash flow and it looms large in the rationale behind his sale -- Sheehan saying he's heard multiple times that the Snyders are "resigned" to selling.  And he cited finances as a big part of it.

 

Yeah cash flow can impact things including the timing.  As Mike Lombardi said the owners who rely more on the team as their income source (versus some like Kronecke who have plenty of outside income) care about when they get money from the league, the league money comes in increments.  So some owners wait for those increments and it effects decisions.  

 

You act like Dan's finances and the Commanders finances have nothing to do with each other.  Heck watch this week when they rerun the SB shows, if I recall it was the one about the 1991 Redskins team where Jack Kent Cooke said he just got some money coming in from business dealings and he will put it in the team so they can (jokingly) waste it on name that player. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Andre The Giant]

 

[FootballZombie]

Now the Carr situation can occur in the spotlight rather than The Raiders trying to keep everything in the dark. Makes everything easier to track.

 

The Saints will have to gut their team to facilitate a trade. I wonder if they can even look remotely the same after doing that.

[Skinsinparadise]

57 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Now the Carr situation can occur in the spotlight rather than The Raiders trying to keep everything in the dark. Makes everything easier to track.

 

The Saints will have to gut their team to facilitate a trade. I wonder if they can even look remotely the same after doing that.

 

From what I recall they have the worst cap situation in the league, I wonder how they'd swing this.

 

I am not married to any specific veteran but if this happens, I'd guess Dalton is gone.  Wonder about Dalton with Zampese? 

[Andre The Giant]

 

[RWJ]

Last year was our move for Carr.  Now that we have Howell we don't need to make the move.