Franchise sustainable competitiveness (1 Viewer)

[Portis 26]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.

This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.

i) Pay your studs.

Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.

BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers too

ii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positions

If you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.

For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short.

Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.

New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.

iii) Employ specific role players as your depth players

Guys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.

iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approaches

All these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.

v) Consistency, consistency, consistency

All these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

 

[Portis 26]

The Philadelphia Eagles also do a lot of the things mentioned above.

It's no coincidence these franchises are among the most successful in the league.

 

[code]

Some other teams to consider here are the Eagles and Chargers...

iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.

Watching the Patriots closely, this is less about age per se and more about maximizing the expected value in a players "contract lifecycle"...they tend to savor rookie contracts and late contracts, avoiding the costly "middle" contract where players hope to make the most money...essentially this (not unlike VBD) is about maximizing value, where you can expect to get the most return on your investment...

 

[code]

The Philadelphia Eagles also do a lot of the things mentioned above.

Some other teams to consider here are the Eagles and Chargers...

 

[Fullback Fro]

The Skins are the polar opposite.

 

[coolnerd]

interesting thread

 

[Assani Fisher]

no love for the Ravens?

 

[Portis 26]

no love for the Ravens?

The Ravens have in the main drafted great but followed a boom and then bust approach to managing the salary cap. They had a huge splurge leading up to the Super Bowl, then went on a huge cost-cutting exercise after they predictably landed in salary cap jail, and then having got out of jail have just embarked on another splurge.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It also helps that these teams keep winning year after year. It's self-sustaining, because the most valuable picks in the draft come at the very end of the first round. Having a top ten pick can be very difficult on your salary cap, and you get a player that's slightly better for three (or more) times the cost.

 

[Portis 26]

It also helps that these teams keep winning year after year. It's self-sustaining, because the most valuable picks in the draft come at the very end of the first round. Having a top ten pick can be very difficult on your salary cap, and you get a player that's slightly better for three (or more) times the cost.

I suppose the counter to that is smart (losing) teams could trade down every year if they're so concerned about the cap costs of high draft picks. They might not get a blockbuster deal to do it, but if it was such an issue for them then it would make sense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It also helps that these teams keep winning year after year. It's self-sustaining, because the most valuable picks in the draft come at the very end of the first round. Having a top ten pick can be very difficult on your salary cap, and you get a player that's slightly better for three (or more) times the cost.

I suppose the counter to that is smart (losing) teams could trade down every year if they're so concerned about the cap costs of high draft picks. They might not get a blockbuster deal to do it, but if it was such an issue for them then it would make sense.

Yes, they should.

 

[coolnerd]

It also helps that these teams keep winning year after year. It's self-sustaining, because the most valuable picks in the draft come at the very end of the first round. Having a top ten pick can be very difficult on your salary cap, and you get a player that's slightly better for three (or more) times the cost.

I suppose the counter to that is smart (losing) teams could trade down every year if they're so concerned about the cap costs of high draft picks. They might not get a blockbuster deal to do it, but if it was such an issue for them then it would make sense.

Yes, they should.

The problem for the bad teams is that for the reasons discussed, the other teams rarely want to trade up. I personally don't think it an accident that the Chargers have been involved with last two trade down from the top pick situations and have the most talented team in the NFL. Also, I suspect that some teams have become slaves to trade value chart and won't make a deal that is better for their roster and finances long term because it does not work with that silly thing. As a Texans fan, I assume that they could have traded down from 1, but the owner wanted something called a "Godfather" deal. Added to that fans understand that for the most part trading down is a good thing. Read the mock drafts and the fans specific threads. Fans think their team can always trade down when quite honestly, a decent trade down option is close to never available at the top of the draft. Ironically, once you get to the 2nd round (sometimes late in the first) and later in the draft, the trades seem to come faster than the picks do.

 

[beto]

They may not be following the Indi/Pitts/Ne model, but I like what is being done up in Seattle. Holmgren seems to have a good system in place after he let go of the GM reigns.

 

[Portis 26]

They may not be following the Indi/Pitts/Ne model, but I like what is being done up in Seattle. Holmgren seems to have a good system in place after he let go of the GM reigns.

I would question that a little, they erred in placing the transition tag on Hutchinson rather than franchising him and then they overpaid for Nate Burleson and Deion Branch.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.i) Pay your studs. Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers tooii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positionsIf you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short. Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.iii) Employ specific role players as your depth playersGuys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.v) Consistency, consistency, consistencyAll these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

very interesting breakdown.Nice work P26.

 

[Jous]

Good topic, although I agree with whoever said that the Eagles should be thrown into this mix as well. I noticed the same thing a little while ago about those teams. And it's almost as though parity doesn't really apply to them too much.

It's certainly no accident that the Patriots, Colts, Steelers, and Eagles have dominated this decade. Since 2001, they have all combined for 13 conference title game appearences, 6 Super Bowl appearences, and 5 Super Bowl wins.

 

[trader jake]

Nice list.

It may be missing the most important item...draft day success. That cheap labor helps the salary cap but, more importantly, it needs to help on the field. The teams mentioned in this thread consistently draft well.

 

[Portis 26]

Nice list. It may be missing the most important item...draft day success. That cheap labor helps the salary cap but, more importantly, it needs to help on the field. The teams mentioned in this thread consistently draft well.

Absolutely, and one of the reasons why they draft so well is because they go for players that fit their systems that other teams don't want. The classic example is Pittsburgh's OLBs. They consistently get guys in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds that are 250-260lbs, DE/OLB "tweeners", too small for full-time DE in the 4-3, too big for full-time OLB in the 4-3, but who work as outside backers in the 3-4. Then they coach them up and a year or two later they're good to go and often become impact players.

 

[Bri]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.i) Pay your studs. Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers tooii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positionsIf you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short. Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.iii) Employ specific role players as your depth playersGuys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.v) Consistency, consistency, consistencyAll these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

San Fran used to do this when they were good

 

[plymkr]

They may not be following the Indi/Pitts/Ne model, but I like what is being done up in Seattle. Holmgren seems to have a good system in place after he let go of the GM reigns.

What do you mean? Play in the NFC West? I think that would be a good strategy to maintaining a good w/l record for a few years.

 

[Portis 26]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.i) Pay your studs. Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers tooii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positionsIf you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short. Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.iii) Employ specific role players as your depth playersGuys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.v) Consistency, consistency, consistencyAll these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

San Fran used to do this when they were good

Not sure I agree with this, the 49ers used to binge on the salary cap in massive spending splurges and then undergo shock therapy to get out salary cap hell, rather like Elvis pigging out on his peanut butter, jelly and bananas sandwiches then being forced to lose weight to appear at Vegas.

 

[beto]

They may not be following the Indi/Pitts/Ne model, but I like what is being done up in Seattle. Holmgren seems to have a good system in place after he let go of the GM reigns.

What do you mean? Play in the NFC West? I think that would be a good strategy to maintaining a good w/l record for a few years.

IMO, Seattle has drafted well and put systems in place on both sides of the ball to make a run at the Super Bowl the last 4 years. I see them as a contender in the NFC again next year.

 

[Sabertooth]

Green Bay has had one losing season since like 1992. Just FYI.

 

[Portis 26]

Green Bay has had one losing season since like 1992. Just FYI.

Yes, but their personnel record is somewhat inconsistent. Certainly in the Ron Wolf era in the 1990s they did really well to attract players like Reggie White. My sense is that in more recent years they've been abused by the cap as much as used it and would have had more losing seasons if it hadn't been for Favre's presence.

 

[thecatch]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.i) Pay your studs. Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers tooii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positionsIf you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short. Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.iii) Employ specific role players as your depth playersGuys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.v) Consistency, consistency, consistencyAll these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

San Fran used to do this when they were good

Not sure I agree with this, the 49ers used to binge on the salary cap in massive spending splurges and then undergo shock therapy to get out salary cap hell, rather like Elvis pigging out on his peanut butter, jelly and bananas sandwiches then being forced to lose weight to appear at Vegas.

You must have missed the "when they were good part". At the end of the run they got desperate and starting throwing tons of money around on guys like Antonio Langham and Gabe Wilkens that destroyed their cap, and they've been trying to get out of that rut ever since.

 

[Sabertooth]

Green Bay has had one losing season since like 1992. Just FYI.

Yes, but their personnel record is somewhat inconsistent. Certainly in the Ron Wolf era in the 1990s they did really well to attract players like Reggie White. My sense is that in more recent years they've been abused by the cap as much as used it and would have had more losing seasons if it hadn't been for Favre's presence.

So they don't fit your idea so you exclude them? Also, they pay Favre a ton. He's their only stud.

 

[perry147]

They may not be following the Indi/Pitts/Ne model, but I like what is being done up in Seattle. Holmgren seems to have a good system in place after he let go of the GM reigns.

I would question that a little, they erred in placing the transition tag on Hutchinson rather than franchising him and then they overpaid for Nate Burleson and Deion Branch.

Yea I never understood the signing of Burleson - it almost seemed like the Seahawks were out for revenge against the Vikings after they got Hutchinson with the poison pill contract.

 

[Portis 26]

Green Bay has had one losing season since like 1992. Just FYI.

Yes, but their personnel record is somewhat inconsistent. Certainly in the Ron Wolf era in the 1990s they did really well to attract players like Reggie White. My sense is that in more recent years they've been abused by the cap as much as used it and would have had more losing seasons if it hadn't been for Favre's presence.

So they don't fit your idea so you exclude them? Also, they pay Favre a ton. He's their only stud.

I don't exclude them from a broader list of franchises who have been successful for a while. I do exclude them for this specific list of franchises who approach being competitive in the same way.

 

[crnerblitz]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does. However I have noticed a relavent mitagating fact. New england, Indy, and the Eagles all have what in common? Top 5 talant at the QB position. Could you remove those players from those teams then plug in Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, and Jake Delhomme and still get the same results? Hmm.

 

[Jous]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does. However I have noticed a relavent mitagating fact. New england, Indy, and the Eagles all have what in common? Top 5 talant at the QB position. Could you remove those players from those teams then plug in Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, and Jake Delhomme and still get the same results? Hmm.

Yeah. Remember back after the 2002 season and a bit into the 2003 season, when the media and a lot of fans started getting the opinions that "Hey, you don't need a good QB to win a championship, you just need a decent one." Looks like that's been proven wrong again. Great teams around the QB are a huge help, but it looks like you're not going to actually win a title unless you have a good QB.

 

[DrJ]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does. However I have noticed a relavent mitagating fact. New england, Indy, and the Eagles all have what in common? Top 5 talant at the QB position. Could you remove those players from those teams then plug in Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, and Jake Delhomme and still get the same results? Hmm.

I wouldn't say that Pittsburgh has had top 5 QB talent the time they've been successful. A good portion of the sustained success referenced in this thread happened with dudes like Neil Odonnell, Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox.The Eagles have managed to be rather successful in 2 of the 3 seasons that McNabb went down in.... AJ Feely led them to the playoffs...

 

[Jous]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does. However I have noticed a relavent mitagating fact. New england, Indy, and the Eagles all have what in common? Top 5 talant at the QB position. Could you remove those players from those teams then plug in Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, and Jake Delhomme and still get the same results? Hmm.

I wouldn't say that Pittsburgh has had top 5 QB talent the time they've been successful. A good portion of the sustained success referenced in this thread happened with dudes like Neil Odonnell, Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox.The Eagles have managed to be rather successful in 2 of the 3 seasons that McNabb went down in.... AJ Feely led them to the playoffs...

Well, how about if it's not nescessarily top 5 talent, but just QB's who play very well in specific years? Hell, even Kordell Stewart looked fantastic in a season or 2 throughout his career.

 

[Portis 26]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does. However I have noticed a relavent mitagating fact. New england, Indy, and the Eagles all have what in common? Top 5 talant at the QB position. Could you remove those players from those teams then plug in Mike Vick, Chad Pennington, and Jake Delhomme and still get the same results? Hmm.

I wouldn't say that Pittsburgh has had top 5 QB talent the time they've been successful. A good portion of the sustained success referenced in this thread happened with dudes like Neil Odonnell, Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox.The Eagles have managed to be rather successful in 2 of the 3 seasons that McNabb went down in.... AJ Feely led them to the playoffs...

Well, how about if it's not nescessarily top 5 talent, but just QB's who play very well in specific years? Hell, even Kordell Stewart looked fantastic in a season or 2 throughout his career.

And O'Donnell played great his first few years as a starter. Which underlines my point about excellent coaching. These guys were all coached very well and used in systems which fitted their talents.

 

[Portis 26]

And the Colts strategy this off-season has been exactly as predicted - they let players like June and Rhodes go who they think they can replace cheaply.

 

[Portis 26]

Strikes me that some of the most successful NFL franchises are employing similar models to sustain competitiveness in the salary cap era. By following a specific business model they can avoid the "bust" that follows the "boom" for other teams and be consistently competitiveness.This trend is most noticeable in the Patriots, Colts and Steelers.i) Pay your studs. Whether it's Manning, Harrison and Wayne for the Colts or Brady, Seymour and Wilfork for the Patriots, the principle is the same: pay your studs.BUT it's not that simple. The top franchises only pay top $$$ at positions they deem the most important - usually QB and DL. That means they must refuse to overpay at positions they don't consider so important - LB for the Colts and Steelers (who frequently let LBs go in FA), WR for the Patriots and Steelers tooii) Coach up cheap overachievers at other positionsIf you're paying top $$$ at certain positions, then you won't have much money to go around at others. The trick is to employ a coaching strategy that enables you to use guys other teams don't want successfully and to maximise coaching effectiveness.For example, Indy uses the Cover 2 and doesn't mind if their CBs are short. Pittsburgh uses DE/OLB tweeners in its 3-4 because other teams wouldn't use them.New England and Indy both pick up overachieving physically limited types on the OL and coach them into being solid players.iii) Employ specific role players as your depth playersGuys like Polian and Pioli pick up depth players with potential to play very specific roles. For example, Indy uses receiving TEs like Bryan Fletcher in its offensive scheme very successfully. New England is always apparently able to turn backups into competent starters when injury strikes.iv) Be ruthless when Father Time approachesAll these franchise refuse to pay $$$ to older players. That having been said, they are smart at picking up former greats for the veteran minimum if no-one else wants them.v) Consistency, consistency, consistencyAll these franchises have a philosophy they stick to with their coaching regardless of personnel. It means that they can pick players very precisely who "work" in their scheme - for example, speed DEs for Indy, pass-rush OLBs for Pittsburgh, possession WRs for New England

San Fran used to do this when they were good

Not sure I agree with this, the 49ers used to binge on the salary cap in massive spending splurges and then undergo shock therapy to get out salary cap hell, rather like Elvis pigging out on his peanut butter, jelly and bananas sandwiches then being forced to lose weight to appear at Vegas.

You must have missed the "when they were good part". At the end of the run they got desperate and starting throwing tons of money around on guys like Antonio Langham and Gabe Wilkens that destroyed their cap, and they've been trying to get out of that rut ever since.

They are out of that rut now, they just haven't learned from their past. For example, you can get great QBs for the WCO after the first round because the WCO places a premium on smarts rather than arm strength. Walsh took Montana in the 3rd - he would never have taken Alex Smith first.

 

[Bri]

They are out of that rut now, they just haven't learned from their past. For example, you can get great QBs for the WCO after the first round because the WCO places a premium on smarts rather than arm strength. Walsh took Montana in the 3rd - he would never have taken Alex Smith first.

I think you're off here a smidge. What you're missing is that they have 1 star player. At some point Davis or Smith or....long list...could be stars but right now they just have Gore. NFL world, the star gets overpaid then they need the bargains you spoke of and all that has a trickle down effect. Production wise I suppose one could argue the Texans, Lions, 49ers etc recently have all(or most is better here) been overpaid. Without that, all the fancy salary cap moves teams do is almost pointless and they're overspending. Re-Walsh, he would have taken the best QB in the draft if he liked him. Not just Walsh but the present 49ers staff too would have signed someone else if they didn't like Smith. It's not like they'd just go without a QB.

 

[Tom Servo]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does.

Just a small question...how come Washington spends and spends and spends and never seems to end up in salary cap jail?

 

[Bri]

Good topic, excellent insight. It makes me just want to barf when I think what Washington does.

Just a small question...how come Washington spends and spends and spends and never seems to end up in salary cap jail?

re-doing a contract doesn't get much press and LTBE incentives one year are not necessarily LTBE incentives the following year. A player's value against the cap includes LTBE incentives. So if they sign some DT to an incentive laden deal, but use him as depth, in year 2 his cap value is alot different than in year 1.clarify LTBE likely to be earnedIE 50 tackles=1 mil is reasonable for a probowler to attain but for a depth DL it's not....well probably not