Skins Cap Space 3/7/07 how do they do it?

[MossBurner]

Actually, to answer the question of how they do it:

They build a roster that is razor thin on depth.

Corollary: they have all their money invested in a handful of players.

They push money in the future counting on a rising cap.

They sacrifice flexibility. They would love to get out from under the contracts of Archuleta, Lloyd, Wynn, and Springs. But they can't afford to do so because of the cap hit.

It's pretty obvious that this is NOT a smart way to run the team. Want proof? No one else is doing it. There are 31 other teams that are run by brilliant people (for the most part). All of those teams know what the Skins are doing. They could all replicate if they want. But none of them do. Why? Because it is stupid and unproductive.

Actually, many teams are and have been copying the Skins strategy for the past 3 years, ESPECIALLY this offseason. Large signing bonuses with low base salaries over the first few years of the contract with great increases over the last few years. Like you said, planning on an increase in the cap and leaving room to restructure, trade, release before the cap hits get too high at the tail end of the contracts.

 

[sacase]

What teams are copying the skins?

 

[YosemiteSam]

One thing you notice is "guaranteed money" being a part of all these contracts you are seeing given especially this year. Teams used to never give out anything guaranteed except the signing bonus. Now teams can make any part of the contract guaranteed and that helps your cap figure from year to year.(don't no exactly how.....will have to ask adam on that one). An owner like Snyder who gives out guaranteed contracts doesn't mind losing money every now and then.

Well, I beleive (actually guess) it works like this. Davis has a $49.6M deal. He has $18.75M of it guaranteed. $49.6M/7 (years) = $7.08M/yr $18.75/$7.08 = 2.64 years. After Davis has played for 2.64 years every penny of his guaranteed money will have been paid and they should be able to cut him without cost. They can restructure contracts and guaranteed more money that whats left on their current guaranteed contract and lower the overall impact on the current cap.

I don't know, I'm just taking a logical guess!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What teams are copying the skins?

lol, yeah, I want to know that too

 

[5Stars]

lol, yeah, I want to know that too

Hello, mossbummer, can you hear me?



Can you hear me now? How about now?




Moss, can you hear me now?



Hello, can you hear me now?





Anyone home, mossbummer?

 

[cobra]

Leave Mossburner alone. This is his glory time: the off-season. The only time of year it doesn't completely suck to be a Skins fan. Let him enjoy his team's efforts to compete for the off-season championship again. Because we all know that once games start getting played again, they will just be losers again.

 

[riggo]

Actually, to answer the question of how they do it:

They build a roster that is razor thin on depth.

i think last year illustrated that point. they got a few injuries and a couple of walking wounded- specifically on D- and they go from finishing the previous season (over the last 6 games) as the best D in the league to 31st. add a couple of busts in archuleta and lloyd (carter was better down the stretch) and you have no room to sign quality backups.

it didnt help that they brought in a new O coordinator, but the lack of any semblence of a respectable D for 14 out of 16 games was what hurt.

in 05, they were relatively healthy down the stretch and made a nice run, but when a few starters go down, youre in trouble. so, the strategy can work, but only if your guys can remain on the field.

hopefully, the lack of huge contracts handed out this season are a sign the they've learned. smoot and fletcher are both pretty smart, relatively inexpensive pickups.

 

[superpunk]

Actually, many teams are and have been copying the Skins strategy for the past 3 years, ESPECIALLY this offseason. Large signing bonuses with low base salaries over the first few years of the contract with great increases over the last few years. Like you said, planning on an increase in the cap and leaving room to restructure, trade, release before the cap hits get too high at the tail end of the contracts.

That is flexibility all teams have allowed themselves with certain players' contracts. It isn't some new hotness the Commanders invented. That's like saying teams are copying the Skins strategy by signing free agents. Everyone does it.

It's the ridiculous signings, the disregard for the draft, trading away players you did draft, or letting them walk and replacing them with expensive options who are not as good - That's the Commander way.

Noone is copying that, because it doesn't work.

 

[riggo]

btw- i think moss was possibly referring to the pats, who have been a model of building from within and not spending excessively. theyve spent a lot of cash on free agents and may not be done.

 

[cobra]

hopefully, the lack of huge contracts handed out this season are a sign the they've learned.

Or.... they are a sign that the team couldn't afford to do more (e.g., compete for Thomas, Clements, a guard, etc.).




Fletcher was not inexpensive. You spent an extra $4 million a season to upgrade to Fletcher over Marshall... a move that was not necessary.

And word from Leonard Davis is that Washington tried to match what Dallas was offering but couldn't afford it. So, in other words, the team was trying to spend a lot, but just couldn't. That sure doesn't sound like they "learned their lesson." In fact, I would say them letting Dockery walk and then trying to outbid Dallas for Davis is pretty much firm evidence that the team hasn't learned a lesson.

 

[superpunk]

Fletcher was not inexpensive. You spent an extra $4 million a season to upgrade to Fletcher over Marshall... a move that was not necessary.

Marshall needed replacing. That guy sucks. Whether Fletcher is a better fit, and can play that deep middle better than Fletcher while supporting the run, remains to be seen.

 

[demdcowboys#1]

lol, yeah, I want to know that too

49ers

 

[cobra]

Marshall needed replacing. That guy sucks. Whether Fletcher is a better fit, and can play that deep middle better than Fletcher while supporting the run, remains to be seen.

Marshall wasn't that bad. He put up respectable numbers compared to other MLBs in the league. In fact, I heard that they are moving Marshall over to start at WLB over (the product of another *brilliant* Skins move) Rocky McIntosh.

Marshall had or assisted on over 100 tackles last year. That is good enough out of a MLB. So the question is: how much better is Fletcher? The cost differential between Marshall and Fletcher is like 1.5 million (Marshall) to 5 million (Fletcher). On a team with other major holes and with a questionable salary cap position, it's pretty expensive to spend an extra $3.5 million a year just to upgrade at a position that was alright with a thin-treaded player on the wrong side of 30. Not to mention that by doing so, they push their last year's pick down the depth chart that cost them 2 high picks.

 

[jackrussell]

What teams are copying the skins?

lol, yeah, I want to know that too

Check teams with 5 wins or less.

 

[cobra]

49ers

Just because they had some absurd amount of cap space and spent it doesn't mean they are being like the Skins.

The Skins are people who let their own players walk to sign over-priced over-the-hill veterans to absurd contracts and frequently give away their draft picks to do so.

The 49ers just signed some good prime-aged free agents.

That doesn't make them like the morons in the Commanders FO.

 

[riggo]

Or.... they are a sign that the team couldn't afford to do more (e.g., compete for Thomas, Clements, a guard, etc.).




Fletcher was not inexpensive. You spent an extra $4 million a season to upgrade to Fletcher over Marshall... a move that was not necessary.

And word from Leonard Davis is that Washington tried to match what Dallas was offering but couldn't afford it. So, in other words, the team was trying to spend a lot, but just couldn't. That sure doesn't sound like they "learned their lesson." In fact, I would say them letting Dockery walk and then trying to outbid Dallas for Davis is pretty much firm evidence that the team hasn't learned a lesson.

i'd disagree with you about clements- sort of. there was no other team that was going to pay him 80 mil- not even the skins. thomas is versatile and maybe could be a good D end, but at LB, fletcher was an obvious choice and he's the first guy greg williams wanted.

and while i love to see new additions where they need help, i applaud their decision to not sign davis (no sour grapes here- they guy is a risk). petitgout is also a risk with his back problems. they have money at the moment, but it appears that they are looking at bly and an extension provided they can work a deal out. that would also mean more draft picks if it happens the way its expected to.

dockery had one decent year- and he was the skins 4th best O lineman. no way the skins were going to pay him 49 mil.

back to fletcher and marshall- i think it was definitely necessary. warrick holdman did not work out last year. bringing in fletcher as the QB of the D (which is what he was in buffalo under williams) allows marshall or mcintosh to play another position.

 

[apickmans]

Marshall wasn't that bad. He put up respectable numbers compared to other MLBs in the league. In fact, I heard that they are moving Marshall over to start at WLB over (the product of another *brilliant* Skins move) Rocky McIntosh.

When did you talk to Gregg Williams?

 

[zrinkill]

Actually, many teams are and have been copying the Skins strategy for the past 3 years

I did not know there were that many 5 - 11 teams in the league.

 

[superpunk]

Marshall wasn't that bad. He put up respectable numbers compared to other MLBs in the league. In fact, I heard that they are moving Marshall over to start at WLB over (the product of another *brilliant* Skins move) Rocky McIntosh.

Marshall had or assisted on over 100 tackles last year. That is good enough out of a MLB. So the question is: how much better is Fletcher? The cost differential between Marshall and Fletcher is like 1.5 million (Marshall) to 5 million (Fletcher). On a team with other major holes and with a questionable salary cap position, it's pretty expensive to spend an extra $3.5 million a year just to upgrade at a position that was alright with a thin-treaded player on the wrong side of 30. Not to mention that by doing so, they push their last year's pick down the depth chart that cost them 2 high picks.

I was confused. It was Holdman who was terrible. I don't think Marshall was that great in coverage, the deep drops required of him in Williams' defense, though.

 

[cobra]

When did you talk to Gregg Williams?

Eh? Did you miss the article that said that Marshall was going to start at WLB, and Rocky was going to be stuck on special-teams duty until he can figure out how to play LB?