WT: Failing caponomics

[bubba9497]

Failing caponomics
By David Elfin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050308-120841-3835r



The Washington Redskins will spend $9.3 million for Laveranues Coles not to play for them next season.

The disgruntled wide receiver was traded to the New York Jets last weekend -- a deal that should become official today or tomorrow -- but he still will make an impact on the Redskins after he is gone.

The $9.3 million figure, an acceleration of Coles' signing bonus, represents 11 percent of the Redskins' $85.5 million salary cap for next season -- and the latest example of how the Redskins continue to struggle with NFL caponomics.

The Redskins will spend more than 25 percent of their salary cap next season on players who won't be with the team, probably won't be with the team or will be with the club but not on the field playing.

One source with intimate knowledge of NFL players' contracts and team salary structures said no club has spent so much and gained so little as the Redskins.

Redskins coach Joe Gibbs was traveling yesterday and could not be reached for comment. Vice president of player personnel Vinny Cerrato did not return phone calls.

The trade of Coles back to the Jets means the Redskins will take a huge salary cap hit next season (Washington also lost a first-round draft pick when they acquired the restricted free agent in 2003).

Coles isn't alone.

The Redskins also must account for the final $4.8 million of the $7 million signing bonus they gave to linebacker Jeremiah Trotter, who they signed in 2002 and cut last June.

Departed defensive end Regan Upshaw will count $1.2 million against the cap and guard Dave Fiore $750,000.

That's $16.05 million spent on players who no longer are with the team, a figure that represents 18.8 percent of the club's cap space for 2005.

However, the situation gets worse.

Backup quarterback Mark Brunell, who likely won't play unless starter Patrick Ramsey gets hurt, will cost another $3.2 million against the cap.

The Redskins gave the aging and faltering Brunell, a free agent who was pursued by no other team in the offseason, an $8.6 million signing bonus last March.

The acquisition of receiver/punt returner Santana Moss from the Jets in exchange for Coles likely means the Redskins will get rid of diminutive return man Chad Morton -- a move that would cost another $833,000 against the cap.

Middle linebacker Michael Barrow, who is 35 and missed all of last season because of injury, might never play again. He would cost $2.1 million against the cap in bonus acceleration.

That totals more than $22 million -- more than 25 percent of the cap -- spent on players who already have departed the Redskins, likely won't be with the team next season or, as in Brunell's case, will be with the club but not playing.

Those kind of expensive mistakes explain why the Redskins likely will have to let top cornerback Fred Smoot leave as a free agent: They probably won't have enough room under the salary cap to re-sign him. The loss of Smoot would force the Redskins to gamble on Walt Harris as the new starting corner and leave them with no proven replacement for Harris at nickelback.

Those moves also explain why the Redskins settled for the cheaper and older David Patten at receiver instead of pursuing the top-end free agent wideouts, Derrick Mason and Plaxico Burress.

The likely departure of Smoot on the heels of that of middle linebacker Antonio Pierce -- one Redskins source said a deal for Pierce should have been done in December -- brings up another failure of the Snyder regime.

The Redskins of recent years have failed to re-sign their best players -- quarterback Brad Johnson and perennial Pro Bowl cornerback Champ Bailey, for example -- while treating other teams' over-the-hill players, such as Jeff George and Deion Sanders, as must-buys.

In 2000, the signing of George prompted Johnson -- the only Redskins quarterback to win a playoff game in the last 12 years -- to leave for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, for whom he won a Super Bowl.

Sanders cost the Redskins $8 million in bonus money for one so-so season, forcing still-productive cornerback Darrell Green to the bench.

The end of contract talks with Bailey in 2003 eventually forced his trade to the Denver Broncos, a move that necessitated signing older free agent Shawn Springs to replace him.

And the Redskins never have much cap room in the fall to use to re-sign their players before they hit the market.

While the Redskins have made some smart free agent signings -- particularly last year with linebacker Marcus Washington, defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin, Springs and Harris -- no other NFL team has gotten so little return on their big investments.

The Redskins were just 34-46 in their first five years following Snyder-driven offseasons. And only the Redskins, Arizona Cardinals, Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Detroit Lions and Jacksonville Jaguars have missed the playoffs in each of the past five seasons.

Other teams have spent heavily but realized some profit before being hit by salary cap problems.

The Baltimore Ravens won the 2000 Super Bowl, the Tennessee Titans won the 1999 AFC championship and the San Francisco 49ers reached the playoffs in 2001 and 2002.

The Redskins still have a glimmer of hope: They have two seasons left before their day of cap reckoning hits with full force.

Note -- Fullback Mike Sellers agreed to return to the Redskins for a three-year deal with a signing bonus worth an estimated $200,000. Sellers, 29, broke in with the Redskins in 1998 and moved on to Cleveland in 2001 and then to Winnipeg of the CFL before returning the next year. Sellers was second on the team with 29 special-teams tackles.

[Tae Bo]

Dan Snyder is a genius, what does this hack know, he is just jealous because he didn't think of putting ad posters in front of urinals.

[mhd24]

According to Peter King, Andy Polllin, and Steve Czaben, we should have been in cap hell 4 times since 2000. I have yet to see it.

[Dexter's Better]

Hard to argue.

[bubba9497]

this story like most lately has several flaws...and too any assumption presented as facts.

[Dexter's Better]

Originally posted by mhd24
According to Peter King, Andy Polllin, and Steve Czaben, we should have been in cap hell 4 times since 2000. I have yet to see it.


Ummm what? We lose our starting Middle LB, and probably our starting CB. Why? Because we have no cap room.

I guess its hard to see the forest from the trees.

[Hooper]

No kidding. Losing your starting MLB in his prime and most likely your best young corner may not be cap hell, but it's damn close.

[ohioskinfan]

i was under the impression cap hell is no longer an issue after this purging of players this year. am i wrong???

[mhd24]

No, cap hell means the Titans this year. We still upgraded the interior o-line, and speed on offense. Is Plaxico Buress THAT much better than Patten? Buress has had one great seaosn in 5 years. Patten is a more team oriented player who will cost a fraction of what Buress will cost. We still have not lost Smoot. Would you pay Pierce more than Marcus Washington? That was what the price was to resign him. You can't have three high priced linebackers.

[Sanders 83]

I'll take Springs and his contract over Bailey and his contract any day of the week.

As for this cap hell... I thought it was supposed to come in 2006, now they are saying 2007? They should really make up their minds.

[VaSkinsNut]

The funny thing is letting coles go fixed a lot of our future cap problems since his salary really starts to escilate in 2006.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by bubba9497
[B]Failing caponomics
By David Elfin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In 2000, the signing of George prompted Johnson -- the only Redskins quarterback to win a playoff game in the last 12 years -- to leave for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, for whom he won a Super Bowl.

Sanders cost the Redskins $8 million in bonus money for one so-so season, forcing still-productive cornerback Darrell Green to the bench.


The Redskins still have a glimmer of hope: They have two seasons left before their day of cap reckoning hits with full force.



:wtf: This guy is still talking about mistakes we made 4 years ago. Let it go man and move on. :laugh:

And notice how at the end of his article the Skins are not facing "cap hell in 2006," but now have a GLIMMER OF HOPE two seasons later which must mean 2007 or 2008. What happened to cap hell in 2006? This article is a waste of time. Instead why didn't he tell how much cap space we have left at the moment. :doh:

These WT and WP writers are getting to be a joke. :doh:

[33]

Thank you mhd24

They could have signed Pierce if they wanted. Gibbs decided the precedent would be that we wouldn't pay a guy more than someone who is obviously better than them. I love Pierce and Smoot, but they don't deserve more than Washington and Springs.

Besides our offer to Smoot is only 700,000 less than what Rolle got today.

I am sure no one at Redskins Park is thinking they are in a dire situation. They set a price for Smoot and Pierce and let them decide what team they most wanted to be a part of.

Do you really think G Williams doesn't think he can get this Defense to improve on last year. We actually have the same D Coordinator as last season. That hasn't happened since Mike Nolan. Remember him?

[The Wicked Wop]

My problem with most of these articles and supposed analysis........is that they assume the skins don't have a clue......and are just making deals without thinking of the next step.

In fact its many of these sports writers (hell they all said we would be in cap hell for the last 4 years, without realizing the basis of this is that you don't recognize that current contracts will likely be restructured) who are clueless and accordingly write, versus have any kind of background in accounting/finance/economics/and or business.

Yes the skins effectively took a 1 time cap hit of 6 mil (vs spreading out over a few years) to get rid of a player who didn't want to be here, which may cost them Smoot. The simple fact remains, don't you think the Skins knew that going in, and decided for better or for worse that this is going to cost us Smoot? Maybe the Skins think they can win without him? Maybe they said we got a replacement wideout in Moss, so we have Harris to replace Smoot, and we will target a CB in the draft....and thus need little extra cap room to worry about free agents.

Needless to say, I believe in my heart of hearts the Skins ultimately have a plan that either includes Smoot or does not.....if not, they already have a plan to replace him. Maybe it works out and maybe it doesn't.......but any dumb***** columnist who doesn't think so is fooling themselves.....along with any fool-hearted blind reader of their columns does as well.

[Ignatius J.]

I have a big problem with anyone who mentions that losing our third best linebacker is a major loss to this team who we should have signed to an expensive contract.

Also, many fail to recognize that we already gave this money to coles. By trading him, we gain all the base salary money in cap room over the next several years.

How many post juse first cuts is this team going to have?

Doesn't the release of an inflating contract THIS year set us up for the future?

Also, Fred smoot is our second best CB. Our offer is still on the table, and we're not about to pay him more than our top corner. Until someone signs him for more, it's hard to argue that we're in the wrong here.

[Chris "Touchdown" Cooley]

Incredible... It seems that no matter what we do in the off-season we will get criticized for it. What difference does it make if we overpay for our own player or one we bring from another team. We play it smart and choose not to bring back Bailey and Pierce for huge contracts; mistake. We choose to go for a WR with good character and proven skills(Patten) for cheaper than a attitude stricken Plaxico; mistake. What is it that we can do right during the off-season that won't be twisted by these reporters. We've even played our cards well so that Smoot cannot possibly demand a $14 mil. signing bonus when Rolle ended up with $11 mil... but don't worry some writer some where will say we should have given Smoot $14 million up front back in December... I'm sick of this constant bashing, I hope this season we can finally silence our critics... Go Skins!

[Califan007]

Originally posted by Chris "Touchdown" Cooley
...some writer some where will say we should have given Smoot $14 million up front back in December...
According to profootballcentral, we already did... ;)

[Chris "Touchdown" Cooley]

Haha... oh what a site. I love how not more than two days ago there lied the brief statement saying Rolle had agreed in principle with the Skins. Yet, today they report that the Ravens signed Rolle for bla bla amount. Such an accurate source I like to depend on.........:laugh:

[SkinsNatsFan]

Originally posted by bubba9497

The Redskins still have a glimmer of hope: They have two seasons left before their day of cap reckoning hits with full force.


Still two years away. Interesting. :rolleyes:

[scruffylookin]

So now the Redskins are in trouble because they couldn't "overpay" for Burress and Mason?

Let's see.

They address a weakness and sign an up and coming center guard.

They get rid of two malcontents who didn't perform up to their contracts at the wideout position and replaced them with cheaper and much faster players. Also if anyone paid attention to what Gibbs has said in describing the problems with the offense this year, it's clear he placed the blame first with himself but also with the two starting wide receivers.

They offered fair market contracts to their highest profile free agents but are finally practicing restraint by not offering them outrageous contracts. I thought that's what the media and Snyder haters always wanted?

So the cap hell of 2002,2004 and 2006 is now scheduled to actually hit in 2007, sure I'll believe when I see it.

If the Redskins had a press conference today announcing the signing of Burress or Mason to the type of contracts they got/will get, David Elfin and the rest of the "chicken little" types would be screaming.

They wanted the Redskins to overpay for Bailey when clearly Bailey isn't worth 18/20 mil signing bonus and we got a real bargain in Springs. Now they can't admit that they were wrong.

It's funny these people point to the Steelers or Eagles as the model franchises. Both franchises have let players walk instead of paying them more than they feel they deserve. This is what the Redskins are now doing and they're being ripped for it.

Gibbs is putting together his team. He's making some moves that are putting this team in better shape long term. I actually thought that Gibbs would do this type of thing last year and was surprised how many people he brought in.

At this point I give up. The Redskins will be criticized no matter what they do and there's nothing to do to stop it except winning on the field.

Last thing, enough with the 2000 offseason crap. Most of the money spent that year was on our own players, not free agents. We gave Stephen Davis a new contract, same with Larry Centers, Marco Coleman, Keith Sims and Andy Heck. We also had the 2nd and 3rd pick in the draft and thus both players had huge signing bonus'.

Here are our free agent signees:

Bruce Smith- clearly wasn't the player he once was but he had a good 2000 season and was a solid player except for his last season. He played long enough with the team that his cap hit was never really that bad. His contract was viewed as bad because the media types thought he was only going to play 1 or 2 seasons.

Mark Carrier- his contract wasn't too bad and was a solid player for the Skins. His career was cut short by the NFL and their making him an example and fining/suspending him for hits.

Deion Sanders- bad contract. No doubt. Snyder fell in love with "Prime Time". This was a huge mistake. Got rid of Mitchell, moved Green to back up and "negative aura" of having "Prime Time" on the team.

Jeff George- his contract really wasn't too bad. He was brought in as a backup. Just like he was brought into Minnesota the year before. But unlike Randall Cunningham who had a fantastic year in 1998 and didn't complain about George being signed, Brad Johnson was a baby and followed that up with an awful 2000 season. In the end, Jeff George was a mistake because he couldn't play but his contract was not a "cap killer"

That's it. There's your 2000 spending spree that Snyder continues to have to hear about from these lazy writers and talk show hosts.

Okay sorry folks, rants over.

Have a good day everyone.:cheers:

[The Dark Horse]

Year 1: 10-6

Year 2: 8-8

Year 3: 8-8

Year 4: 7-9

Year 5: 5-11

Year 6: 5-11

Yeah, Snyder kicks ass.

[Dead Money]

I thought next year was cap hell, now its 2007... :ha:

Its always 2 years away now (whoever said that above iis right)

[garg8050]

I didn't realize we were still on the hook for Trotter. A lot of the article makes sense. Everything but the last line about 'cap reckoning'.

[SkinsNatsFan]

Nice post scruffy!

[Buford]

The exact figures in this article appear to be off....but the concept is correct.

We've been making a lot of poor moves lately. period.

[TLusby]

The article should be titled, "BREACH OF CONTRACT AFFECTS SKIN'S CAP OUTLOOK". The truth is the players have not played IAW their contracts. Players like Coles, Sanders, etc. These players who threaten holdouts, retirements, etc. need to be suspended, or banded altogether. It is a shame when they can not honor their respective agreement.

[Shotgunner]

Thank god for our ability to restructure.:laugh: :laugh: The fact is we do have dead money and that happens when players don't pan out.:puke:

[Utah]

Winning solves all things.

It sucks when you lose.

[China]

Originally posted by bubba9497
Failing caponomics
By David Elfin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050308-120841-3835r


The Redskins will spend more than 25 percent of their salary cap next season on players who won't be with the team, probably won't be with the team or will be with the club but not on the field playing.

One source with intimate knowledge of NFL players' contracts and team salary structures said no club has spent so much and gained so little as the Redskins.



I guess their "one source" doesn't remember that last year the 49ers had $29M in dead money out of an $80M cap last year (36%).


Their adherence to that philosophy was largely behind the offseason purge of veterans that included the trade or release of such stars as Garcia, wide receivers Terrell Owens and Tai Streets, running back Garrison Hearst, and offensive linemen Derrick Deese and Ron Stone. It also figured in a substantial run-up of the team's dead money, with a league-high $29 million going to players no longer with the team.

From: 49ers Hit Rock-Bottom (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_5_34/ai_n8586909)


Somehow the Redskins are worse?

:rolleyes:

[DCMONEY]

Man I've been saying essenitally what this article is saying for years. The Skins while aggressive in free agent spending don't have a method to their madness. At some point in time their gonna have to start drafting players and doing their homework. Bottomline is the Skins have done a poor job managing the cap period. If it weren't for Marty Schottenheimer purging the roster the one year he was here, we'd be in cap hell right now instead of 2006. Its just ridiculous.

[Art]

The problem with this article -- other than the factual errors -- is that it doesn't seem to recognize the cap, in any given year, is made up of three portions that EVERY team has some money in. Signing bonus money is one portion. Dead money is another. And base salary is the third.

For some reason, all anyone talks about with Washington is higher than normal bonus and dead money which we carry. No one talks about lower than average base salaries that allow us to do what we do.

Marty also, by choice, took a massive dead money hit a few years back. The difference between then and now is we will have 18 or 19 starting players returning between last year and this year, and we project, right now, to only have 2 starters on both sides of the ball who are over 30 I think, though I'd have to check birthdays to be sure on this.

We have great flexibility next year as well and, importantly, we have draft picks THIS year we aren't yet even talking about, should any of them work out. In all, the team has managed to keep itself in tact, make some dramatic moves that do swell the dead hit, and still field what will predominately be the same team as last year, only with more knowledge of the systems, depth within the systems and possibly this matters.

[stburn]

I love how this clown bashes us for trading Bailey and signing Springs but then turns around and refers to Springs as a smart free agent signing.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by Dexter's Better



Ummm what? We lose our starting Middle LB, and probably our starting CB. Why? Because we have no cap room.

I guess its hard to see the forest from the trees.

If they were that important to us, Coles would not have been traded, and we could've been able to match whatever deal was given to them. I love what the front office has done. They're sending the message that we're not going to give a player more money than someone who's performed better than them. Isn't this exactly what their problem has been the last 5 or 6 years? Now the same people (not you Dexter, just in general) who have criticized the front office the last couple years for overspending on FAs are now criticizing them for spending wisely. If someone wants to overpay for our 2nd best CB and 3rd best LB, let them. They can be replaced. Just like Champ and Trotter and Armstead and Ohalete and all our other '03 starters who left were.

And for the record, what we're going through right now is not cap hell. Ask Titans and 49ers fans if we have it bad. We've lost 1 starter (may lose another) and have traded away a malcontent (and are going to trade one more away) for a capable starter. And we've upgraded our interior O-line. The Super Bowl isn't awarded for what's done in March, we should know. You'd think that with this little turnover, people might be actually happy after the last 5 years. :doh:

[jrfriedm]

:doh:

Another chicken little article. Barrow will play this year and be a major contributor. I think that we will resign Smoot, and we will get through this season just fine.

[RDSKNfaithfull]

Originally posted by mhd24
According to Peter King, Andy Polllin, and Steve Czaben, we should have been in cap hell 4 times since 2000. I have yet to see it.


Hello we are in a bit of it right now. We had to depend on a number of restructers and still can't afford all of our own players. If we do get Smoot and all our rfa signed it is by the skin off our #$#

[Neophyte]

While I grow tired of the continuous bashing, the auther makes one point that I cannot dispute. For whatever reason you want to point at (misuse by coaches, over the hill, not as talented as was thought, injury, you name it), the Redskins have not gotten the bang for the buck from our FA signings as a rule. For every Griffin type signing that has been good, there is a Sanders and Smith. For every Springs a Stubblefield. And this is not a recent development folks. It goes back to the first year of true FA and the salary cap. This team, under the Cookes and under Snyder, has been bad at the personnel game.

Last year was a good year for personnel in the offseason. Good FA signings (minus Brunell which was a collosal mistake) and what appears right now to be a solid draft class. I am hopeful that this time next year, I will be saying the same thing about this year. Once is luck, twice is happenstance, only after it happens three times does it become a trend.

[Henry]

Being up against the cap is not cap hell. Having to make some tough decisions is not cap hell.

Cap hell is being so far over the cap that you are forced to release, release, productive players with no hope of replacing them.

As far as I can tell, we have not been forced to release anyone to get under the cap this year.

Every team occassionally loses starters to free agency. That's the way of the NFL world. So far, we've lost one.

[Goaldeje]

Our problem has been free agents in the past, but I think those of us who believe in Gibbs feel he may have solved this problem. Our free agent class last year had to be one of the best, you can't count Brunell or Portis b/c they were trades. Instead, what we need to focus on is the draft, specifically, the late rounds of the draft. Our early rounds have turned out very well lately, but from rounds 4-up it has been hit and miss, mostly miss. Hopefully we have stopped the trend of going after too many restricted free agents, and having to give up compensation for them (Morton, Coles, etc), and Gibbs has realized we need depth through the draft. If we can get good value this year in the draft, and allow ourselves to trade down for multiple picks, I think we will be all right, not just next year, but in the years to come. I think the trend Gibbs and the FO is setting this year is encouraging.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Neophyte
While I grow tired of the continuous bashing, the auther makes one point that I cannot dispute. For whatever reason you want to point at (misuse by coaches, over the hill, not as talented as was thought, injury, you name it), the Redskins have not gotten the bang for the buck from our FA signings as a rule. For every Griffin type signing that has been good, there is a Sanders and Smith. For every Springs a Stubblefield. And this is not a recent development folks. It goes back to the first year of true FA and the salary cap. This team, under the Cookes and under Snyder, has been bad at the personnel game.

Last year was a good year for personnel in the offseason. Good FA signings (minus Brunell which was a collosal mistake) and what appears right now to be a solid draft class. I am hopeful that this time next year, I will be saying the same thing about this year. Once could luck, two could happenstance, only after it happens three times does it become a trend.

That's a good point. And trends only occur with continuity in the coaching staff. So at least now we'll have a CHANCE to see that trend.

[KevinthePRF]

The beginning of the article makes it seem like we let Coles go for nothing. It probably pained him so much to mention Moss later in the article, but he had to do it to prove his point in making Morton a liability and maintaining that 25% figure he's trying to scare the reader with.

[bubba9497]

Cap Hell =Tennessee Titans!!

:evil:

[kmd24]

Originally posted by China


I guess their "one source" doesn't remember that last year the 49ers had $29M in dead money out of an $80M cap last year (36%).



From: 49ers Hit Rock-Bottom (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_5_34/ai_n8586909)


Somehow the Redskins are worse?

:rolleyes:

His argument is that the 49ers' spending got them to the playoffs twice while the Redskins' spending under Snyder has yet to produce a playoff season. Thus, he thinks that the Redskins have recevied the least value for their spending.

There are some logical fallacies with that argument (for one, the 49ers have historically played in a weaker division than the Redskins), but the facts stand nonetheless.

[jrfriedm]

Originally posted by goaldeje
Our problem has been free agents in the past, but I think those of us who believe in Gibbs feel he may have solved this problem. Our free agent class last year had to be one of the best, you can't count Brunell or Portis b/c they were trades. Instead, what we need to focus on is the draft, specifically, the late rounds of the draft. Our early rounds have turned out very well lately, but from rounds 4-up it has been hit and miss, mostly miss. Hopefully we have stopped the trend of going after too many restricted free agents, and having to give up compensation for them (Morton, Coles, etc), and Gibbs has realized we need depth through the draft. If we can get good value this year in the draft, and allow ourselves to trade down for multiple picks, I think we will be all right, not just next year, but in the years to come. I think the trend Gibbs and the FO is setting this year is encouraging.

You say that it is your opinion that we've done well in the first day of the draft but are lacking on the second day. Okay, I can understand and partically agree with that. However, you then say that you think we should trade down (from our first day picks) so we can get more (second day) picks. Does this really make sence to you? :confused:

[goldenster95]

Originally posted by Dexter's Better



Ummm what? We lose our starting Middle LB, and probably our starting CB. Why? Because we have no cap room.

I guess its hard to see the forest from the trees.

Ummm, no. We could've signed Pierce but let him go due to our perception of his value. Whatever the merits of that perception may have been, the bottom line remains that it wasn't the cap that did him in.

Same for Smoot.

[MCnDaHouse]

I think we're moving in the right direction. I don't think any team is without some FA and/or Cap mistakes.

The one signing from last year I'm still scratching my head over is Brunell. Why give him such a large signing bonus and contract? I know he was anticipated to be better than he was but was he really in that much demand that we had to do that?

MC :rolleyes:

[goldenster95]

BTW, this Elfin guy is an idiot. He should stick to his day job making Keebler cookies.

Jeez, Dave, what's our current cap figure after Coles gets traded? That's right, around $5M under. It'll $7M when we trade Gardner.

And that's with all that dead money, all the other screw ups Mr. Keebler pointed out.

And I love how he breaks down all the figures to our cap hell this year, but he doesn't crunch the numbers for our "day of reckoning." And that day isn't the supposed cap hell we're supposed to be facing in 2006. No, it's now 2007.

What happens in 2007? Right now, it's an uncapped year. Funny how he didn't mention that. While it's unlikely that there won't be a cap that year, it's pretty damn likely that the union will be able to push the cap up $15M or so each year.

[ummagumma]

Originally posted by Dexter's Better



Ummm what? We lose our starting Middle LB, and probably our starting CB. Why? Because we have no cap room.

I guess its hard to see the forest from the trees.

Some would define that as cap hell. Some wouldn't and would say that's "normal." You know, you lose players no matter what. I like to inject the following statement into all these threads.

If we're aren't winning then we're in a worse hell called FAN HELL!

Who cares whether the pundits are right. What difference does it make? We're 6-10, coming off 5-11. It's hell to be a skins fan.

[GB81]

It really depends on what your definition of "hell" is. People here enjoy making fun of the Eagles (and they are quite easy to hate) for always having room left under the cap. But cap hell could also be constantly exhausting the cap, restructuring, being forced into releasing promising young talents, etc., yet continuing to lose.

[Art]

GB,

The Eagles have room under the cap and they are in cap hell by the same criteria idiots here say we are in cap hell. That being they lost their starting left tackle -- a Pro Bowler at that. Must be in cap hell, right?

There aren't varying definitions of cap hell. Teams lose players EVERY year to free agency for reasons of choice. We CHOSE to lose Pierce rather than match his contract. A tough decision, to be sure, but a choice.

Every move every team makes has a cap factor. Every single one. It is painful to watch moronic assessments that because we lost one starter and may lose another that we're in cap hell. If that's all it takes, then 32 teams in the league are in cap hell. It's a terrible world.

[bccdc]

These are the facts and they are undisputed:
*Since the arrival of Dan Snyder the Redskins have consistently lost.
*Our F.O. has frivolously spent money and garnered no results.
*We have an exorbitant amount of dead money under the cap.
*we have traded away draft picks for veteran players, thus undercutting much of the young, inexpensive depth that is realize through the draft

The loss of a certain player here and there doesn’t bother me. (MLB's are a dime a dozen) What does drive me crazy is a consistent pattern of mismanagement - not only in personnel but also in marketing, PR etc and an apparent lack of foresight in past off seasons.
I personally like the cautious, frugal approach we have taken this offseason, but it does not erase the past debacles which we can not be ignored.

[GB81]

My point, which I may not have expressed very clearly, is that any sort of cap troubles would be easier to digest if they happened within sight of a winning campaign of some fashion.

[AzSkinsFan63]

isn't 18% pretty much the norm for cap hits each year. I recall reading 15% a good bet for every team..

this article adds players being paid to sit the bench..

I think if you add that to everyone else also 20% would be an average number.

A Brunell restructure would help for sure.

[bccdc]

The article, the numbers, the percentages, the formula for coming up with these numbers - it is all semantics.

The only portion of this article that matters is the following: "The Redskins were just 34-46 in their first five years following Snyder-driven off seasons,” and the fact we have won ONE playoff game in TWELVE seasons.

The only constants over this period of time are SNYDER, CERRATO and Jon Jansen. Hello? Who do we hold accountable? Jansen?

[burger13]

Originally posted by bccdc
These are the facts and they are undisputed:
*Since the arrival of Dan Snyder the Redskins have consistently lost.
*Our F.O. has frivolously spent money and garnered no results.
*We have an exorbitant amount of dead money under the cap.
*we have traded away draft picks for veteran players, thus undercutting much of the young, inexpensive depth that is realize through the draft

The loss of a certain player here and there doesn’t bother me. (MLB's are a dime a dozen) What does drive me crazy is a consistent pattern of mismanagement - not only in personnel but also in marketing, PR etc and an apparent lack of foresight in past off seasons.
I personally like the cautious, frugal approach we have taken this offseason, but it does not erase the past debacles which we can not be ignored.

:notworthy

Finally someone here gets it!!!

[Art]

Originally posted by bccdc
The article, the numbers, the percentages, the formula for coming up with these numbers - it is all semantics.

The only portion of this article that matters is the following: "The Redskins were just 34-46 in their first five years following Snyder-driven off seasons,” and the fact we have won ONE playoff game in TWELVE seasons.

The only constants over this period of time are SNYDER, CERRATO and Jon Jansen. Hello? Who do we hold accountable? Jansen?

The people held accountable are those failing the team. Guys like Marvin Lewis who turn a dominant downhill middle backer like Trotter, into an average player with limited impact. Guys like Spurrier who believed his system would work with anyone, then, figured out it wouldn't work with anyone as he refused to maintain consistency, wouldn't prepare the team or game plan specifically for the opponent.

Joe Gibbs is to blame for last year, with is mismanagement, inability to correct simple flaws and an unwillingness to show any of the innovation he was known for in his first stint last year. Fortunately we have a thought Gibbs will continue to get better as he gets more and more accustomed to coaching again.

An owner who has consistently given his people everything they've asked for isn't to blame for his people being wrong. He'd only be responsible if he was picking guys who had no business being in charge of such decisions, but, fortunately, he's made three thoughtful, meaningful, good choices in this category and it just didn't work out.

[GB81]

Sure, Lewis probably misapplied Trotter's skills. That's one. I'm not ready to concede that the 9 or 10 different coordinators we've had in this era have made similar mistakes on a consistent basis.

"[T]houghtful, meaningful" choices that consistently don't work out might be an indication that you need to explore new thoughts and different meanings. Or better yet, put someone else in charge.

[AdamB]

Originally posted by bccdc
The article, the numbers, the percentages, the formula for coming up with these numbers - it is all semantics.

The only portion of this article that matters is the following: "The Redskins were just 34-46 in their first five years following Snyder-driven off seasons,” and the fact we have won ONE playoff game in TWELVE seasons.

The only constants over this period of time are SNYDER, CERRATO and Jon Jansen. Hello? Who do we hold accountable? Jansen?

I would like to point out that, over those 12 seasons in which we had only 1 playoff appearance, only 5 of those had Synder, Cerrato, and Jansen as a constant. Which means the majority of that period, with your argument, the blame laid with JKC, John Cooke, Norv Turner, and Charley Casserly, not Synder and Cerrato.

During those seven years, we drafted horribly (Shuler, Westbrook, etc), rarely kept young talent that ended up flourishing elsewhere, traded picks for underachieving talent (Wilkinson), and gave nice big contracts to one-season-wonders (Stubblefield).

Under Synder, starting in 2000, money was spent, at times very un-wisely, to bring in talent that the existing coaching staff felt they needed. Synder is often blamed for Sanders, yet I thought Turner was about to have an orgasm at the press-confrence. Was Sanders a bad signing? No doubt in my mind it was, but does the blame rest solely on Synder's shoulders, or is he opening the checkbook to get the players he is told by his coaching staff they need?

I am not saying Synder is blameless, but to make it sound like Synder and Cerrato are the only ones who should be accountable is silly.

[bccdc]

Art - valid point. But keep in mind who fired Schottenheimer after cap situation was turned around and brought in Spurrier.
As for Marvin Lewis, assistant coaches leave their former teams to become head coaches. It happens to other teams all the time. I don't think Marvin Lewis' handling of Trotter led us to 2 losing seasons under Spurrier.

I don't deny the fact that Snyder will spend his $ to get players. He certainly has done that. BUT TO WHAT END? Losing seasons.

It is under his management that the redskins charged for training camp, his management that put seats behind pillars, his management that tried to force fans to purchase tickets only with a redskin's MasterCard, his management which has become vindictive against the Washington Post for speaking the truth, his management that has players accusing the F.O. of lying. It all adds up to a perception of ineptitude.

Are we all to believe that recent criticisms by the Washington Times, the Post, Tony Kornheiser and sports talk 980, Steve Czaban are all unfounded?

I am as die-hard as anyone on this board. But let’s all take a step back and look at the skins for what they are right now, not what they were under JKC and the Gibbs of old.

[RDSKNfaithfull]

Originally posted by Art
GB,

The Eagles have room under the cap and they are in cap hell by the same criteria idiots here say we are in cap hell. That being they lost their starting left tackle -- a Pro Bowler at that. Must be in cap hell, right?

There aren't varying definitions of cap hell. Teams lose players EVERY year to free agency for reasons of choice. We CHOSE to lose Pierce rather than match his contract. A tough decision, to be sure, but a choice.

Every move every team makes has a cap factor. Every single one. It is painful to watch moronic assessments that because we lost one starter and may lose another that we're in cap hell. If that's all it takes, then 32 teams in the league are in cap hell. It's a terrible world.

So condescending:rolleyes:
What would have been the case if Samuels did not restructure? How about Randy Thomas, Noble, Ramsey restructuring? We are pressed for Cap room period. Are we in the Titans postion? NO Niners? NO but we are hard pressed for a team comming off 3 losing seasons. Their is no definiton in Websters on Cap Hell:laugh: I enjoy your post but why always so lordly?

[bccdc]

Adam - I should have focused only on the 34-46 number since Snyder’s arrival. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he is at fault for the previous 7 years of ineptitude.

[GB81]

Originally posted by AdamB


I would like to point out that, over those 12 seasons in which we had only 1 playoff appearance, only 5 of those had Synder, Cerrato, and Jansen as a constant.

Snyder inherited a team that went 10-6 and won a playoff game. As he had his opportunities to put his fingerprints on the team, they subsequently went 8-8, 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10. The shortcomings of his predecessors should not be used to diminish the ability of Snyder and Cerrato to produce the flashiest 34-46 campaign the NFL has ever seen.

And a slightly more austere approach to this offseason does not excuse the trangressions that got us here.

[DCMONEY]

I know I'm tired of the Stanley Richards, James Washingtons, Dana Stubblefields, Mark Carriers, Ethan Hortons, Dan Wilkinsons, Chad Mortons, Trung Canidates, James Haleys, Jerimiah Totters, Matt Bowens's, etc. If this method would've proven effective, there's no argument but it hasn't. Lets hope bringing back the same players next year create some chemistry. Paying a lot and the team not making the playoffs isn't working.

[AdamB]

Originally posted by GB81


Snyder inherited a team that went 10-6 and won a playoff game. As he had his opportunities to put his fingerprints on the team, they subsequently went 8-8, 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10. The shortcomings of his predecessors should not be used to diminish the ability of Snyder and Cerrato to produce the flashiest 34-46 campaign the NFL has ever seen.

And a slightly more austere approach to this offseason does not excuse the trangressions that got us here.

I was primarily responding to the idea that Synder should be blamed for this team's losing ways for 12 years when he has only been here for 5.

I am not saying Synder does not have a share of the blame, but to rest it solely on his shoulders as some have done and are doing is wrong imo.

Yes, he inherited a playoff team, and spent money to take that playoff team even further. Our defense went from the bottom of the barrel to near the top because of that. It is not Synder's fault that Norv Turner, who for once got his team to not choke away their chances and actually finish out a season (barely), reverted back to his old ways, and hence was fired (something Synder should have done first chance he got anyways).

Synder is to blame for the coaching changes which have occured since it took over the team. Marty was a mistake imo. Spurrier was a mistake, but one several other teams also were about to make, including Tampa Bay. Every time the coaching changes, the entire face of this team changes and personel also has to change.

But when all is said and done, it is the coaches responsibilty to get the wins on the field, not the owners. Other teams spend money and get wins (Oakland made the Superbowl doing this, as did Baltimore). All Synder has done is get the players the coaches want. There is no way Synder, Cerrato, or those of us who post on this board, could know that Coles would go from a top-flight receiver who had behaved himself at this level to a whiney malcontent with a damaged foot.

Also, remember when Synder basically cut Wuerfull, and was blasted for interfering with the coach? Joe Gibbs has full control, not Synder, yet he is the one catching hell for the Coles-Moss trade. Had he been against it (none of us know for sure), and said no, he would get pounded for interferring. Synder has become the focus point for those with an agenda in the press, whether it is a true hatred or simply reaching for a flashy headline, and in many cases, he does not deserve it.

Edit:

I wanted to add this without making a new reply -

I do not think Synder is the best owner in the NFL. I think he is a decent owner who is starting to get the hang of how things work in the NFL. Yes, its been 5 years, but when you consider he could very well own this team for another 30, 5 years is not all that long. And I would much rather have Synder than, say, Art Modell, Davis, San Fran's owner(s), etc. We are all fans, and we all want to see the 'Skins win, I just am willing to give Synder a chance to learn, vs. the media who have blamed him from Day 1 for everything from the 'Skins losing to reality TV and Rosie O'Donnell (or so it seems at times).

[GB81]

Unfortunately for Snyder, you cannot have it both ways. You can either be an owner who hires his football people and let's them work, in which case you shoulder little to none of the short-term blame/praise. Or you can be intimately involved in all aspects of the team while also constantly overhauling both the roster and the coaching staff. In this scenario, I think it is pretty hard to divorce yourself from the blame.

Further, where I work, when you hire someone and they fail to produce, you are responsible for that failure. (And "everybody thought he was a good hire...REALLY, I swear!!!" is not a viable or at the least professional response.) Moreover, if you consistently hire people who fail, you're gone.

Unfortunately, Snyder doesn't have to worry about that final step--which, in concert with his ego, has created the perfect storm of gross mismanagement that has led us to our current "laughingstock" status.

Edit: Modell, Davis and Denise DeBartolo York (although only partial owner at the time in her case) all have something in common that Snyder does not. They are all no where near the top of my list of desireable owners, but they are above Snyder.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by Dexter's Better



Ummm what? We lose our starting Middle LB, and probably our starting CB. Why? Because we have no cap room.

I guess its hard to see the forest from the trees.
No, we did not loose our starting MLB because we did not have cap room, we lost him because we did not value him as highly as the Jets. If we loose our starting CB, again it will not be because of cap limits, we could easily go as high as a $13M bonus and still fit him in under the cap (although as 10.5M there are fewer salary constraints). Question is, does he provide us that much value?

[GB81]

Originally posted by Darth Tater

No, we did not loose our starting MLB because we did not have cap room, we lost him because we did not value him as highly as the Jets. If we loose our starting CB, again it will not be because of cap limits, we could easily go as high as a $13M bonus and still fit him in under the cap (although as 10.5M there are fewer salary constraints). Question is, does he provide us that much value?

So, according to you, we could have signed Smoot and Pierce and made the Coles trade...and then signed all of our draft picks and filled the holes at receiver and center?

You know, if that were the case, it kind of seems like that's...you know...what we should have done. I'm pretty sure it's not.

[Califan007]

Originally posted by GB81


Snyder inherited a team that went 10-6 and won a playoff game. As he had his opportunities to put his fingerprints on the team, they subsequently went 8-8, 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10. The shortcomings of his predecessors should not be used to diminish the ability of Snyder and Cerrato to produce the flashiest 34-46 campaign the NFL has ever seen.

And a slightly more austere approach to this offseason does not excuse the trangressions that got us here.
It could be said that Snyder played a roll in that inherited team going 10-6 instead of 8-8...is it just a coincidence that Norv Turner turned in his best year of coaching the same year he got a new boss?

And Snyder's first attempt at putting a direct "fingerprint" on the Skins resulted in the team starting off 6-2 the very next season after going 10-6 and going to the playoffs...16-8 in the first year and a half as owner ain't too shabby. Snyder indeed played a roll in the nosedive after that successful start, but so did the Skins inability to make a field goal during the 2000 season. Snyder's biggest mistake was simply hiring Spurrier, but as others have mentioned he was HARDLY alone in that desire...

[Califan007]

Originally posted by GB81


So, according to you, we could have signed Smoot and Pierce and made the Coles trade...and then signed all of our draft picks and filled the holes at receiver and center?

You know, if that were the case, it kind of seems like that's...you know...what we should have done. I'm pretty sure it's not.
How do you know that the offers to both Pierce and Smoot would have been different if the Coles trade had not been done??...As I recall, Gibbs said that they didn't want to offer Pierce more than they gave Marcus Washington...not that they COULDN'T offer him more than they gave Marcus Washington.

[AdamB]

Originally posted by GB81
Unfortunately for Snyder, you cannot have it both ways. You can either be an owner who hires his football people and let's them work, in whihc case you should little to none of the short-term blame/praise. Or you can be intimately involved in all aspect of the team while also constantrly overhauling both the roster and the coaching staff. In this scenario, I think it is pretty hard to divorce yourself from the blame.

Further, where I work, when you hire someone and they fail to produce, you are responsible for that failure. (And "everybody thought he was a good hire...REALLY!!! is not a viable or at the least professional response.) Moreover, if you consistently hire people who fail, you're gone.

Unfortunately, Snyder doesn't have to worry about that final step--which, in concert with his ego, has created the perfect storm of gross mismanagement that has led us to our current "laughingstock" status.

Well, like I said, Synder is to blame for the coaching problems, yet why is it that Synder gets trashed for it (Norv was not his hire, Marty was and so was Spurrier), while other owners seem to get a pass?

I work in a field where there is a huge amount of turnover. My manager has hired, fired, replaced, etc. 10 people since I started working there 1.5 years ago. Does he get blamed by his boss? No. Why? Because, by it very nature, there is huge turnover in the industry (pest control). All companies face that.

The NFL, and most professional sports, are similar. Every year there is several teams replacing their coaching staff.

JKC and John cook did not get trashed like Synder does despite the fact they hired a coach who, in 7 years, had 1 playoff win, and several sub-.500 seasons? San Fran and Cleveland both will have be on their 3rd head coaches during the same span that Synder has owned the team, and one of San Fran's fired HC's had won a Superbowl and was fired after a playoff season if I remember correctly. Yet they do not take the heat like Synder does from the media. Modell had 1 Superbowl team in his 40 years as an owner, and ripped a team out of a fanatic football city and moved it to Baltimore, yet the media is holding him up as a great owner worthy of being in the hall of fame.

My stance since the begining is not that Synder is blameless, but that he is not solely to blame like people seem to think he is, nor does he deserve the venom that is spewed at him the minute anything happends with this team or some hack writer gets hardup for a story.

[goldenster95]

Originally posted by GB81


So, according to you, we could have signed Smoot and Pierce and made the Coles trade...and then signed all of our draft picks and filled the holes at receiver and center?

You know, if that were the case, it kind of seems like that's...you know...what we should have done. I'm pretty sure it's not.

Well, that is the truth. One reason we're not giving Pierce and Smoot what they wanted is because of benchmarks we gave to others like Washington, Trotter, and Springs.

[Goaldeje]

posted on March-8th-2005 03:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for jrfriedm Click here to Send jrfriedm a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote

quote:
Originally posted by goaldeje
Our problem has been free agents in the past, but I think those of us who believe in Gibbs feel he may have solved this problem. Our free agent class last year had to be one of the best, you can't count Brunell or Portis b/c they were trades. Instead, what we need to focus on is the draft, specifically, the late rounds of the draft. Our early rounds have turned out very well lately, but from rounds 4-up it has been hit and miss, mostly miss. Hopefully we have stopped the trend of going after too many restricted free agents, and having to give up compensation for them (Morton, Coles, etc), and Gibbs has realized we need depth through the draft. If we can get good value this year in the draft, and allow ourselves to trade down for multiple picks, I think we will be all right, not just next year, but in the years to come. I think the trend Gibbs and the FO is setting this year is encouraging.


You say that it is your opinion that we've done well in the first day of the draft but are lacking on the second day. Okay, I can understand and partically agree with that. However, you then say that you think we should trade down (from our first day picks) so we can get more (second day) picks. Does this really make sence to you?


I think our later round selections went very well last year, the first under Gibbs. Why not give him more to choose with. Cooley=great, Molinaro & Wilson are solid. Let him have some more picks to play with...

[OWUeagleMD]

Originally posted by Art
GB,

The Eagles have room under the cap and they are in cap hell by the same criteria idiots here say we are in cap hell. That being they lost their starting left tackle -- a Pro Bowler at that. Must be in cap hell, right?

There aren't varying definitions of cap hell. Teams lose players EVERY year to free agency for reasons of choice. We CHOSE to lose Pierce rather than match his contract. A tough decision, to be sure, but a choice.

Every move every team makes has a cap factor. Every single one. It is painful to watch moronic assessments that because we lost one starter and may lose another that we're in cap hell. If that's all it takes, then 32 teams in the league are in cap hell. It's a terrible world.


Umm, Jermane Mayberry plays left guard, Tra Thomas is left tackle. Jermane Mayberry didn't make the pro-bowl, and he is 32 years old with chronic elbow/triceps problems.

Just straightening out the facts.

[Phrozen Phil]

The NFL often appears as a chemistry experiment in which the experimentors (owners) often take the blame or credit to rather severe extremes. Jeff Lurie, (Philly owner) was often ridiculed and crapped on for not spending his cap money and having some fairly lousy teams. He's now become a darling of the media, and is being given credit for "building" the Eagles. Fact is, Jeff got lucky. He hired a good coach in Andy Reid, and they've made some decisions which have resulted in a better record. Robert Kraft of New England was not the "great guy" that he is now at the beginning of his ownership. The Redskins will gain respect and admiration when they win more games than they lose. It's as simple as that. I believe that Daniel Snyder has made more than his fair share of mistakes, but,like every other owner, he goes into next year undefeated. Only time will tell if this team will improve or regress. I'm not sure that this will be a better year for Washington or not. I do beleive that it takes more than one season for Gibbs to make the Skins into the team he envisions.

[Buster]

We can spin it all we want, but we are paying BIG money to guys who are now on other teams. Some of that is necessary in this market, but the Skins’ are dolling out a major part of their cap to the COMPETITION’S players.

Combine that with the nonchalant and cold treatment Snyder gives to us fans (seats behind pillars, Redskin MasterCard debacle, Landover Mall parking lot, paying to see training camp, etc…) and you have bad management, plain and simple.

I'm a big fan, always will be. However, that doesn't prevent me from admitting that this franchise has major operational issues and offers very little return on my financial and devotional investments.

[OWUeagleMD]

Originally posted by Phrozen Phil
The NFL often appears as a chemistry experiment in which the experimentors (owners) often take the blame or credit to rather severe extremes. Jeff Lurie, (Philly owner) was often ridiculed and crapped on for not spending his cap money and having some fairly lousy teams. He's now become a darling of the media, and is being given credit for "building" the Eagles. Fact is, Jeff got lucky. He hired a good coach in Andy Reid, and they've made some decisions which have resulted in a better record. Robert Kraft of New England was not the "great guy" that he is now at the beginning of his ownership. The Redskins will gain respect and admiration when they win more games than they lose. It's as simple as that. I believe that Daniel Snyder has made more than his fair share of mistakes, but,like every other owner, he goes into next year undefeated. Only time will tell if this team will improve or regress. I'm not sure that this will be a better year for Washington or not. I do beleive that it takes more than one season for Gibbs to make the Skins into the team he envisions.

Jeffrey Lurie recieves little to no credit for the Eagles success. All the credit goes to Joe Banner and Andy Reid, whether it be from the national or local media. The only thing that Lurie has been given credit for is realizing that he doesn't understand football, and subsequently giving full control to someone that does. Calling him a "darling of the media" is simply untrue.

[GB81]

Originally posted by OWUeagleMD



Umm, Jermane Mayberry plays left guard, Tra Thomas is left tackle. Jermane Mayberry didn't make the pro-bowl, and he is 32 years old with chronic elbow/triceps problems.

Just straightening out the facts.

Not signing players over 30 to large contracts...something both the Eagles and Patriots have long believed in that would have served this team well. It's not rocket science.

[Art]

Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull


So condescending:rolleyes:
What would have been the case if Samuels did not restructure? How about Randy Thomas, Noble, Ramsey restructuring? We are pressed for Cap room period. Are we in the Titans postion? NO Niners? NO but we are hard pressed for a team comming off 3 losing seasons. Their is no definiton in Websters on Cap Hell:laugh: I enjoy your post but why always so lordly?

Because very foolish people ought not be coddled. Every team in the league restructures deals with players. Every single team. We do it a bit more, sure, but, that's because we do cap management differently. Too few people actually appreciate the cap is made up of three parts. We maximize two parts and minimize another. Many teams maximize the one we minimize and minimize the others.

Any way you look at it, we've NEVER at ANY POINT in a season been projected OVER the cap for the following season. That's good cap management. No team that can WILLINGLY take a $9 million cap hit for one player is in serious cap warmth, much less hell.

I'm growing weary of people who apparently don't know what they are talking about and yet refuse to listen to those who do. I'm not saying YOU are one of them, but, there are too many of them here for comfort.

[Art]

Originally posted by OWUeagleMD



Umm, Jermane Mayberry plays left guard, Tra Thomas is left tackle. Jermane Mayberry didn't make the pro-bowl, and he is 32 years old with chronic elbow/triceps problems.

Just straightening out the facts.

Mayberry did make the Pro Bowl and I thought I wrote LG not LT, so, thanks for the partial correction. Fortunately, you read what I wrote and realize I don't think the Eagles are in cap hell, but simply stated if losing a starter is cap hell, all teams are in cap hell.

[Phrozen Phil]

Originally posted by OWUeagleMD


Jeffrey Lurie recieves little to no credit for the Eagles success. All the credit goes to Joe Banner and Andy Reid, whether it be from the national or local media. The only thing that Lurie has been given credit for is realizing that he doesn't understand football, and subsequently giving full control to someone that does. Calling him a "darling of the media" is simply untrue.

Actually, I was referring to the gushiness that came forth during the playoff games in which the commentators talked about how happy Philly fans and reporters were with Jeff Lurie as he had restored respectability to Philly franchises. The guy is going to have his critics, but they were pretty much in love with the guy at that point. Do keep in mind that one losing season and the same guys will turn on anybody and everybody.