riggo said:
i was only pointing out the irony.
There is no irony. You are simply missing the point.
The article has nothing to do with whose strategy is better. It has to do with an old perception that renegotiating contracts to move SC dollars to future years is an effort to win big in the short term by potentially creating a problem down the road. The number of playoff wins amassed by the Cowboys or any other team besides the Commanders is irrelevant to the point.
The writer is simply arguing that, during the hypothetical window that is created by renegotiating, the Commanders have accomplished little (one playoff win), and that they will soon be forced to wreck the roster when all the prorated signing bonuses pile up in a given future year.
There are plenty of GOOD arguments against what this writer has said, but none of them have anything to do with how many playoff wins the Cowboys have since 1999. The Cowboys already spent their time in salary cap purgatory (with three Superbowl victories to show for it), and now everyone thinks it's the Commanders' turn (with one playoff victory to show for it).
Whether the Skins have or will ever spend any time in SC purgatory remains to be debated. The Skins have lost some important pieces of their team in the last couple of years, but my Commanders friends all assure me the team didn't want those guys anyway.