What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

PREDICTION: 'Skins VS Broncos in SuperBowl XL (1 Viewer)

Purpulhippo999

Footballguy
Why has no one been talking about the Redskins and the Broncos!!! It's been Colts, Seahawks, and Bears. THis is ridiculous. The Redskins are a Grade-A football team, and here are my reasons that they will make it to the super bowl.1. Clinton Portis: THe guy is an ANIMAL...hes insanely good, top 5 RB in the NFL2: DEFENSE WINS GAMES: This Redskins D is monstrous....the DLine has picked it up, their secondary is a strength unlike most other teams, and it can take over a game.3: Joe Gibbs: Very professional coach, old school with a lotta running up the middle, which i like when u have a guy likke clinton portis. Also, with weapons like Santana Moss, he is not afraid to call a deep pass.XFACTOR: Sean Taylor: when he is in the zone, this guy is phenomenal, top 3 saftey. But when he makes stupid mistakes, like spitting at another player and getting ejected, he can bring his team down. He will put last game behind him and have a huge game.Broncos:1: Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell: Shanahan always finds a way to make running backs successful in his system. These guys are both yardage machines, and they are potent weapons in a dangerous offense.2: D-Line: All former Cleveland Browns, they lead the Defense and the Broncos had one of the best run defenses all year. 3: WR's - Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie are a very formiddable 1-2 WR punch. Lelie is always a threat with the deep ball, and Smith is still such a good all around wideout.XFACTOR: Jake Plummer: cut down tremendously on the picks this year, and with many weapons to work with, he is always capable of having a huge game. His mental lapses can also cause turnovers, which was shown in his interceptions the last couple of years.BOTTOM LINE: These 2 teams can take down the Colts/'Hawks and make for a very intriguing SuperBowl.

 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.

 
My guess is that the last seed in the playoffs does not make the Super Bowl too often. They have to win THREE straight road games in the playoffs. The Skins are not good enough to do that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
VERY insightful comment. Thanks for your expert input. It is extremely helpful to know that the Skins did not score more points simply because they did not want to score more. I am sure they were VERY comfortable with the Bucs moving the ball up and down the field all day and coming so close to tying the game two or three different times.I sure hope they DECIDE that they would LIKE to score more points this coming week, because the Seahawks offense is much better than the Bucs'.

:confused:

 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
VERY insightful comment. Thanks for your expert input. It is extremely helpful to know that the Skins did not score more points simply because they did not want to score more. I am sure they were VERY comfortable with the Bucs moving the ball up and down the field all day and coming so close to tying the game two or three different times.I sure hope they DECIDE that they would LIKE to score more points this coming week, because the Seahawks offense is much better than the Bucs'.

:confused:
I don't think they could have scored more on the Bucs, but there has been a recurring theme of the Redskins sitting on a lead this year. It cost them the Oak and SD games.
 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
Is that a page from the Joe Gibbs book of coaching genius? When you're up by 7 and trying to run out the clock, the best way to do it is to NOT get first downs?No wonder the guy made the hall of fame.

 
Why has no one been talking about the Redskins and the Broncos!!! It's been Colts, Seahawks, and Bears. THis is ridiculous.

The Redskins are a Grade-A football team, and here are my reasons that they will make it to the super bowl.

1. Clinton Portis: THe guy is an ANIMAL...hes insanely good, top 5 RB in the NFL

2: DEFENSE WINS GAMES: This Redskins D is monstrous....the DLine has picked it up, their secondary is a strength unlike most other teams, and it can take over a game.

3: Joe Gibbs: Very professional coach, old school with a lotta running up the middle, which i like when u have a guy likke clinton portis. Also, with weapons like Santana Moss, he is not afraid to call a deep pass.

XFACTOR: Sean Taylor: when he is in the zone, this guy is phenomenal, top 3 saftey. But when he makes stupid mistakes, like spitting at another player and getting ejected, he can bring his team down. He will put last game behind him and have a huge game.

Broncos:

1: Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell: Shanahan always finds a way to make running backs successful in his system. These guys are both yardage machines, and they are potent weapons in a dangerous offense.

2: D-Line: All former Cleveland Browns, they lead the Defense and the Broncos had one of the best run defenses all year.

3: WR's - Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie are a very formiddable 1-2 WR punch. Lelie is always a threat with the deep ball, and Smith is still such a good all around wideout.

XFACTOR: Jake Plummer: cut down tremendously on the picks this year, and with many weapons to work with, he is always capable of having a huge game. His mental lapses can also cause turnovers, which was shown in his interceptions the last couple of years.

BOTTOM LINE: These 2 teams can take down the Colts/'Hawks and make for a very intriguing SuperBowl.
First, let me say that virtually no one is giving the Bears a chance to do much of anything. So take them off of your list here.Second, the Broncos are definitely being disrespected right now, and that is largely because they are playing the defending champs this week (who should be the actual third team on your list of who everyone is talking about). The Broncos may very well be one of the teams in the SB, but since no one is giving them the chance to win this week, they get no love. We will see what happens if they win this week.

As for Washington, I think the real disrespect for them is coming this week because of the horrible offensive performance last week. And it seems that no one recalls the first matchup of these two teams this year, in which Washington won, and won pretty well. Granted, that was a long time ago.

Either way, both of these teams should probably be given more credit, but it will certainly take a win from each of them this week to get that credit.

 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
VERY insightful comment. Thanks for your expert input. It is extremely helpful to know that the Skins did not score more points simply because they did not want to score more. I am sure they were VERY comfortable with the Bucs moving the ball up and down the field all day and coming so close to tying the game two or three different times.I sure hope they DECIDE that they would LIKE to score more points this coming week, because the Seahawks offense is much better than the Bucs'.

:confused:
So you disagree that when a team with a great D goes up 14 points early that their offense suddenly becomes very conservative?
 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
VERY insightful comment. Thanks for your expert input. It is extremely helpful to know that the Skins did not score more points simply because they did not want to score more. I am sure they were VERY comfortable with the Bucs moving the ball up and down the field all day and coming so close to tying the game two or three different times.I sure hope they DECIDE that they would LIKE to score more points this coming week, because the Seahawks offense is much better than the Bucs'.

:confused:
So you disagree that when a team with a great D goes up 14 points early that their offense suddenly becomes very conservative?
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What I think the problem is that calling last week's performance "sitting on a lead" is simply ignoring what it REALLY was. Offensive ineptitude, plain and simple.Clinton Portis went 0/1 for 0 yards last week. His passer rating was 13.9 points higher than Mark Brunell's.

Mark Brunell rushed for -1 net yards over the final 39 minutes of the game. Which is good, because at least he wasn't passing. He passed for -8 net yards in that same span. After 4.5 minutes, Washington had 26 net passing yards. Over the final 55.5 minutes, Washington had -1 net passing yards.

Did Washington start "sitting on a lead" after 4.5 minutes? Or was their offense just INEPT, historically bad?

 
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
Let's not get carried away. Gibbs would have taken lots of first downs to eat the clock could he have reasonably got them. The reasons for the mere 120 yards, in order of importance were:

1) excellent defensive play by the Bucs;

2) Portis' injury (why this seems lost on everyone I have no clue - even the announcers didn't seem to get it);

3) conservative play calling by the 'Skins due to the lead;

4) poor execution by the 'Skins offense, particularly in the passing game.

5) ??? Brunell's knee more injured than we think???

Regarding the conservative play calling, it's not just a lame excuse. It happened. I saw many, many times where the Bucs put Santana Moss in one-on-one coverage. Not once did they try to complete a deep pass to him, despite taking shots when that happens all year long. This in turn meant that the passes they did attempt underneath were, first of all, more predictable, and secondly had less of a chance of being successful. Cooley, for example didn't catch a single pass after the first quarter and wasn't even targeted IIRC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Washington Redskins are a #6 seed, and had 120 yards of total offense last week. One. Hundred. Twenty.

They'll be a handful for anyone that plays them, but I can't see them making the superbowl.
Its called being superconservative to sit on a lead. If the situation had called for it, they could've put up more yards or more points. Don't forget, this team put up 35+ in weeks 16 and 17.
VERY insightful comment. Thanks for your expert input. It is extremely helpful to know that the Skins did not score more points simply because they did not want to score more. I am sure they were VERY comfortable with the Bucs moving the ball up and down the field all day and coming so close to tying the game two or three different times.I sure hope they DECIDE that they would LIKE to score more points this coming week, because the Seahawks offense is much better than the Bucs'.

:confused:
So you disagree that when a team with a great D goes up 14 points early that their offense suddenly becomes very conservative?
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What I think the problem is that calling last week's performance "sitting on a lead" is simply ignoring what it REALLY was. Offensive ineptitude, plain and simple.Clinton Portis went 0/1 for 0 yards last week. His passer rating was 13.9 points higher than Mark Brunell's.

Mark Brunell rushed for -1 net yards over the final 39 minutes of the game. Which is good, because at least he wasn't passing. He passed for -8 net yards in that same span. After 4.5 minutes, Washington had 26 net passing yards. Over the final 55.5 minutes, Washington had -1 net passing yards.

Did Washington start "sitting on a lead" after 4.5 minutes? Or was their offense just INEPT, historically bad?
No, what happened is this:Washington came out and was moving the ball pretty well on offense: First drive they got to the Bucs 35 before punting(could've tried a long FG). Second drive was after the turnover and the Skins scored on one play- a 6 yard TD.

Washington's defense scored giving them a 14pt lead.

Washington's offense went into "protection mode." And really I think it was a good decision. TB wasn't moving the ball at all in the first half.

TB scored quickly in the 2nd half and made it a close game. Then Washington tried to open back their playbook, but they had lost all momentum and could never establish anything. Luckily their D held on.

Its hard to ask an offense to switch gears like that during a game. TB's D played well, but Washington did look good on their first 2 drives, so I don't think its fair to say that Washington's O couldn't have done more if needed throughout the game.

 
I have been struggling with the common perception of this 120-yard performance all week. I watched the whole game (while imbibing, of course) and never really felt that the offense was "inept". As mentioned already, they weren't on the field that long and never really tried to go downfield in the second half. And the one time Brunell did take a shot, it was intercepted. I think going ultra-conservative is what they needed to do to beat the Bucs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, what happened is this:

Washington came out and was moving the ball pretty well on offense: First drive they got to the Bucs 35 before punting(could've tried a long FG). Second drive was after the turnover and the Skins scored on one play- a 6 yard TD.

Washington's defense scored giving them a 14pt lead.

Washington's offense went into "protection mode." And really I think it was a good decision. TB wasn't moving the ball at all in the first half.

TB scored quickly in the 2nd half and made it a close game. Then Washington tried to open back their playbook, but they had lost all momentum and could never establish anything. Luckily their D held on.

Its hard to ask an offense to switch gears like that during a game. TB's D played well, but Washington did look good on their first 2 drives, so I don't think its fair to say that Washington's O couldn't have done more if needed throughout the game.
Again, did Washington go into "protection mode" just 4.5 minutes into the game? Because between that point and the end of the game, they had -1 net passing yard.
I have been struggling with the common perception of this 120-yard performance all week. I watched the whole game (while imbibing, of course) and never really felt that the offense was "inept". As mentioned already, they weren't on the field that long and never really tried to go downfield in the second half. And the one time Brunell did take a shot, it was intercepted. I think going ultra-conservative is what they needed to do to beat the Bucs.
See, I got exactly the opposite impression. I felt that the offense's INEPTITUDE (i.e. total and complete inability to get yards, to get first downs, or to milk the clock) was all that was keeping Tampa in the game. If Washington could just get a first down, get a few yards, then maybe they could stop giving the ball back to Tampa in such GREAT field position. And maybe they could take some more time off the clock.The one driving force behind the whole "killing clock" concept is you HAVE TO GET FIRST DOWNS. Otherwise, you might as well just kneel the ball 3 times and then punt. And Washington wasn't getting first downs. They weren't getting ANYTHING.

Edit: I have to ask, are you a Washington fan? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I think my view was probably a lot more objective than yours.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, what happened is this:

Washington came out and was moving the ball pretty well on offense: First drive they got to the Bucs 35 before punting(could've tried a long FG). Second drive was after the turnover and the Skins scored on one play- a 6 yard TD.

Washington's defense scored giving them a 14pt lead.

Washington's offense went into "protection mode." And really I think it was a good decision. TB wasn't moving the ball at all in the first half.

TB scored quickly in the 2nd half and made it a close game. Then Washington tried to open back their playbook, but they had lost all momentum and could never establish anything. Luckily their D held on.

Its hard to ask an offense to switch gears like that during a game. TB's D played well, but Washington did look good on their first 2 drives, so I don't think its fair to say that Washington's O couldn't have done more if needed throughout the game.
Again, did Washington go into "protection mode" just 4.5 minutes into the game? Because between that point and the end of the game, they had -1 net passing yard.
I think I explained pretty well what happened- yes they did go into protection mode, then they tried to change out of it once the game got close, but they had already lost their rhythm.
 
I have been struggling with the common perception of this 120-yard performance all week. I watched the whole game (while imbibing, of course) and never really felt that the offense was "inept". As mentioned already, they weren't on the field that long and never really tried to go downfield in the second half. And the one time Brunell did take a shot, it was intercepted. I think going ultra-conservative is what they needed to do to beat the Bucs.
See, I got exactly the opposite impression. I felt that the offense's INEPTITUDE (i.e. total and complete inability to get yards, to get first downs, or to milk the clock) was all that was keeping Tampa in the game. If Washington could just get a first down, get a few yards, then maybe they could stop giving the ball back to Tampa in such GREAT field position. And maybe they could take some more time off the clock.The one driving force behind the whole "killing clock" concept is you HAVE TO GET FIRST DOWNS. Otherwise, you might as well just kneel the ball 3 times and then punt. And Washington wasn't getting first downs. They weren't getting ANYTHING.

Edit: I have to ask, are you a Washington fan? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I think my view was probably a lot more objective than yours.
I'm just trying to give my perception of the game after having watched every Redskins play this year. Just as in the Oakland and San Diego games, Washington got a lead and became absolutely terrified of turning the ball over. Their second half playcalling consisted of 16 rushes and 9 passes. One pass was fumbled by Cooley, and another intercepted by Tampa - after which the Skins ran the ball three straight times, even on 3 and 11. All in all, I don't think they opened the playbook enough to get first downs on the NFL's #1 first down defense (only 15.9 allowed per game). And honestly I don't think they were capable of it anyway. You probably would have seen some real ineptitude if Brunell had dropped back a few more times. Fortunately, the coaches knew that and just tried to milk the clock as much as possible. It worked. I know you probably think that's idiotic, but not every team has an offense as potent as your Broncos.

Now, Seattle's middle-of-the-road first down defense should be much more giving. I believe if the Redskins go into their "sit on the lead" mode, you'll see those runs that only went for 2 yards against Tampa produce more like 4 yards and put them in manageable third-and-shorts.

The Redskins are not a great team, but they are a smart team. They know their strengths and limitations and try to play within them. That's all we can ask for this year. Next year maybe some more pieces will be in place and we can have a serious discussion about a Super Bowl run.

 
I think I explained pretty well what happened- yes they did go into protection mode, then they tried to change out of it once the game got close, but they had already lost their rhythm.
So let's get this straight. Washington went into protection mode FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES INTO THE GAME. Just making sure we're absolutely clear on what you're saying here.
I'm just trying to give my perception of the game after having watched every Redskins play this year. Just as in the Oakland and San Diego games, Washington got a lead and became absolutely terrified of turning the ball over. Their second half playcalling consisted of 16 rushes and 9 passes. One pass was fumbled by Cooley, and another intercepted by Tampa - after which the Skins ran the ball three straight times, even on 3 and 11.

All in all, I don't think they opened the playbook enough to get first downs on the NFL's #1 first down defense (only 15.9 allowed per game). And honestly I don't think they were capable of it anyway. You probably would have seen some real ineptitude if Brunell had dropped back a few more times. Fortunately, the coaches knew that and just tried to milk the clock as much as possible. It worked. I know you probably think that's idiotic, but not every team has an offense as potent as your Broncos.

Now, Seattle's middle-of-the-road first down defense should be much more giving. I believe if the Redskins go into their "sit on the lead" mode, you'll see those runs that only went for 2 yards against Tampa produce more like 4 yards and put them in manageable third-and-shorts.

The Redskins are not a great team, but they are a smart team. They know their strengths and limitations and try to play within them. That's all we can ask for this year. Next year maybe some more pieces will be in place and we can have a serious discussion about a Super Bowl run.
There are several very fair points, and I agree that Washington was playing very conservative in the second half, and especially the 4th quarter. However, even when they WEREN'T playing conservative, they were doing nothing on offense... and even when teams play conservative, even against great defenses, if they're a quality offense they WILL still get first downs. Or, at least, positive yardage.
 
Double post, but I really feel bad for Washington fans. They're just now starting to get a quality team together, but they're about to face the biggest cap-hell any team has ever seen since the advent of the salary cap. Snyder has been playing fantasy football for YEARS, and delaying the signing bonus hits, but they're all due to come up over the next few seasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a collapse of SanFran 49ers proportions.

 
Double post, but I really feel bad for Washington fans. They're just now starting to get a quality team together, but they're about to face the biggest cap-hell any team has ever seen since the advent of the salary cap. Snyder has been playing fantasy football for YEARS, and delaying the signing bonus hits, but they're all due to come up over the next few seasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a collapse of SanFran 49ers proportions.
People have been saying this for years. The Redskins will not go into cap hell, sorry to break it you.
 
Double post, but I really feel bad for Washington fans. They're just now starting to get a quality team together, but they're about to face the biggest cap-hell any team has ever seen since the advent of the salary cap. Snyder has been playing fantasy football for YEARS, and delaying the signing bonus hits, but they're all due to come up over the next few seasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a collapse of SanFran 49ers proportions.
People have been saying this for years. The Redskins will not go into cap hell, sorry to break it you.
People haven't been saying it for years. Well, they've been saying for years that Washington's cap was due to crash in the 2006 and 2007 seasons.EVERYONE goes into cap hell when they spend that much money on signing bonuses. It's a fact of life in the NFL. I'd like to see a list of how far over the salary cap every team is, though.

 
Double post, but I really feel bad for Washington fans. They're just now starting to get a quality team together, but they're about to face the biggest cap-hell any team has ever seen since the advent of the salary cap. Snyder has been playing fantasy football for YEARS, and delaying the signing bonus hits, but they're all due to come up over the next few seasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a collapse of SanFran 49ers proportions.
People have been saying this for years. The Redskins will not go into cap hell, sorry to break it you.
People haven't been saying it for years. Well, they've been saying for years that Washington's cap was due to crash in the 2006 and 2007 seasons.EVERYONE goes into cap hell when they spend that much money on signing bonuses. It's a fact of life in the NFL. I'd like to see a list of how far over the salary cap every team is, though.
John Clayton in 2000
Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season.

While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002.
Warpathinsiders.com outlines the Redskins 2006 situation
So while on the surface the Redskins appear to be in cap hell, some closer analysis of the situation reveals that Washington is in fairly good shape cap wise for 2006.
Dannyboy is a moron when it comes to football, but not when it comes to business.
 
John Clayton in 2000

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season.

While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002.
Warpathinsiders.com outlines the Redskins 2006 situation
So while on the surface the Redskins appear to be in cap hell, some closer analysis of the situation reveals that Washington is in fairly good shape cap wise for 2006.
Dannyboy is a moron when it comes to football, but not when it comes to business.
Okay, then 2007. Brunell, Portis, and Arrington all got MEGABUCK deals. Washington and Springs were both over market price, too. I saw a list that showed Washington was tops in the league in spending over the cap this season, and there's no way to cheat the cap. If you spend OVER the cap one season, then you will have to spend an equal amount UNDER the cap in a coming season. It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
 
The reason they aren't getting "no love" is because they're simply not the best teams in their conferences. Indy is the clear favorite to win the AFC, because they are clearly the best team in the NFL. Seattle seems to be the favorite in the NFC but not as favored because 8 of their 11 wins were against awful competition. I like a Colts vs Bears superbowl, personally. Denver is a good team, but they'll have to play the Colts on the road so it isn't going to happen. Indy's fast and physical defense will shut their running game down and that will be that. See the colt's last 2 playoff games against Jake and Co. New England is the 'scary' team that nobody wants to play. I think the redskins are n't as good as the bears... They could definately beat seattle though.

 
It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
People have been saying that every year since Snyder bought the team. It hasn't happened and won't.
 
John Clayton in 2000

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season.

While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002.
Warpathinsiders.com outlines the Redskins 2006 situation
So while on the surface the Redskins appear to be in cap hell, some closer analysis of the situation reveals that Washington is in fairly good shape cap wise for 2006.
Dannyboy is a moron when it comes to football, but not when it comes to business.
Okay, then 2007. Brunell, Portis, and Arrington all got MEGABUCK deals. Washington and Springs were both over market price, too. I saw a list that showed Washington was tops in the league in spending over the cap this season, and there's no way to cheat the cap. If you spend OVER the cap one season, then you will have to spend an equal amount UNDER the cap in a coming season. It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
Actually, the fact that Brunell is actually playing servicable ball right now makes his eventual cap retirement/cut number much more managable. A team gets in cap trouble when they sign players to big deals AND then the player doesn't play out a majority of that deal (is cut/released or traded). This causes an acceleration of their prorated cap number (bonus divided by number of years in a deal) to hit all at once or, depending on when that player was released, part in one year, the rest the next. So let's take Springs as an example. He got a 10 million bonus for a 5 year deal (I'm not sure how long his deal was actually for, I am using 5 years here for ease of explanation). That would make his prorated bonus number 2 million. He's played for the Skins 2 years now, so that eliminates 4 million from his cap number (2 years X 2 million) if he's ever cut/released or traded. If Springs plays out, say 2 more years, that would make that number 8 million. If the Skins decide to part ways with Springs after this, it would cost them 2 million against the cap. If the Skins decided to part ways with Springs after this year (let's say if he was a bust or something like that), then it would have cost them 6 million against the cap. Of course, this discussion isn't factoring in annual salaries, which also will change the yearly cap number for a player. Salaries aren't guaranteed and not eligible to be prorated out over the number of years in deal. That's why teams convert salaries to bonus in order to lower a player's immediate cap numbers. Eventually, yes, the team will have to pay the piper on a player if they keep restructuring his deal. But by then, the cap limit goes up, more cap room is created by other restructures, releases, etc and the cycle repeats itself.

The Skins aren't ever going to be comfortably under the cap. They don't show the best way to manage cap either. But they do know what they're doing apparently and despite rumors of cap hell since 2000, they've been able to pay high draft picks and still be active in the free agent market. They had enough room this year to take all of Coles' cap hit (9 million +) and still pick up new players. Another factor for the Skins cap situation is that the team itself is a lot more stable, so spending on revamping the roster won't happen as much.

 
It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
This will happen when Al Davis pays the money he owes Mike Shanahan. :mellow:
 
Why has no one been talking about the Redskins and the Broncos!!! It's been Colts, Seahawks, and Bears. THis is ridiculous.

The Redskins are a Grade-A football team, and here are my reasons that they will make it to the super bowl.

1. Clinton Portis: THe guy is an ANIMAL...hes insanely good, top 5 RB in the NFL

2: DEFENSE WINS GAMES: This Redskins D is monstrous....the DLine has picked it up, their secondary is a strength unlike most other teams, and it can take over a game.

3: Joe Gibbs: Very professional coach, old school with a lotta running up the middle, which i like when u have a guy likke clinton portis. Also, with weapons like Santana Moss, he is not afraid to call a deep pass.

XFACTOR: Sean Taylor: when he is in the zone, this guy is phenomenal, top 3 saftey. But when he makes stupid mistakes, like spitting at another player and getting ejected, he can bring his team down. He will put last game behind him and have a huge game.

Broncos:

1: Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell: Shanahan always finds a way to make running backs successful in his system. These guys are both yardage machines, and they are potent weapons in a dangerous offense.

2: D-Line: All former Cleveland Browns, they lead the Defense and the Broncos had one of the best run defenses all year.

3: WR's - Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie are a very formiddable 1-2 WR punch. Lelie is always a threat with the deep ball, and Smith is still such a good all around wideout.

XFACTOR: Jake Plummer: cut down tremendously on the picks this year, and with many weapons to work with, he is always capable of having a huge game. His mental lapses can also cause turnovers, which was shown in his interceptions the last couple of years.

BOTTOM LINE: These 2 teams can take down the Colts/'Hawks and make for a very intriguing SuperBowl.
Not picking on anyone's post specifically, but I think it's kind of strange that everyone points to the Redskins' horrible 120 yard performance as evidence that they "suck" and there is no way they are going further in the playoffs. First, lets make one thing clear: that was a TERRIBLE offensive showing. No doubt about it. TB's # 1 rated D had something to do with it. Joe Gibbs' penchant for "sitting on a lead" had something to do with it. And lack of execution by the Redskins had something to do with it. That said, it's still only ONE game and as such is not any kind of evidence that the Redskins have no offense. After reading all these posts, I decided to look at the stats and see just where the Redskins offense ranked. Did you know they are actually # 13 in the league at 330 yards per game. Not Seattle elite, true, but certainly serviceable, particularly with the way the defense is being played.

Now, if you really wanted to judge how good Washington's offense was, would you:

a.) Judge them ENTIRELY by their performance in one game vs. the # 1 rated defense OR

b.) Judge them based on the totality of the season (which shows probably, that they had periods where they were good, periods where they made lots of mistakes, and toward the end, where pretty good by focusing on the running attack. All in all, # 13 sounds about accurate to me...not elite, but good enough to win).

I guess I had to write this because everyone just keeps talking about the 120 yards like you can judge the whole season on it. You can't. They had a crappy game; it's true. It doesn't mean they are going to go out next game and do the exact same thing though...

M

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every Superbowl in the last 11 years had a one seed play in the game except for 1997 when a 12-4 #4 seed Denver team beat #2 seed GB. There is a reason HFA and first round byes are so important.Doesn't mean Wash and Denver can't be the first but it will be a difficult road.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
People have been saying that every year since Snyder bought the team. It hasn't happened and won't.
No, it *HAS TO* happen. If the salary cap is 80 million dollars, and the Redskins spent 90 million worth of REAL money this season (something they've been ROUTINELY doing), then that means there is 10 million that HAS TO RESURFACE somewhere down the line as "dead money". It's absolutely unavoidable. You can borrow from the cap, but you have to pay it back eventually. That's why the Niners have been so bad. They kept borrowing from the cap, until this season they had 20-30 million in "dead money". Eventually, Washington's dead money will come due. They can use creative accounting to delay the hit, but the hit will come.
John Clayton in 2000

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season.

While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002.
Warpathinsiders.com outlines the Redskins 2006 situation
So while on the surface the Redskins appear to be in cap hell, some closer analysis of the situation reveals that Washington is in fairly good shape cap wise for 2006.
Dannyboy is a moron when it comes to football, but not when it comes to business.
Okay, then 2007. Brunell, Portis, and Arrington all got MEGABUCK deals. Washington and Springs were both over market price, too. I saw a list that showed Washington was tops in the league in spending over the cap this season, and there's no way to cheat the cap. If you spend OVER the cap one season, then you will have to spend an equal amount UNDER the cap in a coming season. It's unavoidable. Maybe it won't be 2006, but Washington's cap is going to crash at some point. It simply has to.
Actually, the fact that Brunell is actually playing servicable ball right now makes his eventual cap retirement/cut number much more managable. A team gets in cap trouble when they sign players to big deals AND then the player doesn't play out a majority of that deal (is cut/released or traded). This causes an acceleration of their prorated cap number (bonus divided by number of years in a deal) to hit all at once or, depending on when that player was released, part in one year, the rest the next. So let's take Springs as an example. He got a 10 million bonus for a 5 year deal (I'm not sure how long his deal was actually for, I am using 5 years here for ease of explanation). That would make his prorated bonus number 2 million. He's played for the Skins 2 years now, so that eliminates 4 million from his cap number (2 years X 2 million) if he's ever cut/released or traded. If Springs plays out, say 2 more years, that would make that number 8 million. If the Skins decide to part ways with Springs after this, it would cost them 2 million against the cap. If the Skins decided to part ways with Springs after this year (let's say if he was a bust or something like that), then it would have cost them 6 million against the cap. Of course, this discussion isn't factoring in annual salaries, which also will change the yearly cap number for a player. Salaries aren't guaranteed and not eligible to be prorated out over the number of years in deal. That's why teams convert salaries to bonus in order to lower a player's immediate cap numbers. Eventually, yes, the team will have to pay the piper on a player if they keep restructuring his deal. But by then, the cap limit goes up, more cap room is created by other restructures, releases, etc and the cycle repeats itself.

The Skins aren't ever going to be comfortably under the cap. They don't show the best way to manage cap either. But they do know what they're doing apparently and despite rumors of cap hell since 2000, they've been able to pay high draft picks and still be active in the free agent market. They had enough room this year to take all of Coles' cap hit (9 million +) and still pick up new players. Another factor for the Skins cap situation is that the team itself is a lot more stable, so spending on revamping the roster won't happen as much.
I understand that if there's no accelerated cap hit, there's going to be less sudden cap pain, but let's stick with Brunell as an example.Let's pretend that Brunell signs a 5 year, 48 million dollar contract. Let's say that 20 million is in the form of signing bonus, and 28 million is salary. Now, let's say that the salary is divided up to half a million in year 1, half a million in year 2, and 9 million each in years 3-5.

Dan Snyder pays 20.5 million in REAL MONEY in the first season, but only 4.5 million counts against the cap. That means that there is 16 million dollars worth of REAL MONEY that is floating out there and will come due eventually in the form of dead money. If Brunell gets cut after the first season, that 16 million all comes due immediately... but what happens if Brunell DOESN'T get cut? Let's examine.

In year 2, Brunell gets paid .5 million, and counts 4.5 million. That's 4 million worth of dead money. In year 3, Brunell gets paid 9 million, and counts 13 million. That's 4 million worth of dead money. Same scenario in years 4 and 5. As you can see, Brunell's contract STILL leaves dead money on the cap. Snyder spent 16 million more real dollars than cap dollars in year 1, and had to spend 16 million LESS real dollars than cap dollars in years 2-5. This isn't a problem with a normal contract, but with a heavily back-end loaded contract (such as... well, everyone's), a team is likely going to decide that at some point Brunell isn't worth his fast-escalating salary. So they force him to restructure, or they cut him. Either way, the dead money is accelerated, and cap hell comes on. For all the talk of Washington avoiding Cap Hell, that hasn't entirely been the case- just look at the players they've been forced to watch walk away in recent years.

Anyway, the whole point is, Washington spent OVER THE CAP this year, so they will be forced to spend under the cap in future years. There are possible ways to get through it without a cap crash (Denver just went through the quietest cap purge in the history of the NFL. They spent less real money than cap money, going 13-3 *AND* clearing the last of the dead money off of their books). Still, as far above the cap as Washington has been recently, I'm skeptical as to whether they'll be able to navigate cap hell as well as the Broncos. I think they remind me a lot of the Titans, who were on the brink of cap hell for 4 or 5 years, but managed to keep holding the team together by the very skin of their teeth, only to finally be put in a situation where they couldn't delay it any longer. You saw the results this season.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top