Miguel et al - Colts 2008 Salary Cap

[eom]

Its not hopeless. Nobody knows what the next 2.5 years will bring.

But thanks to our depth, we haven't been grooming many potential stars of the future, and in 2008 we won't have any compensatory picks.

Pioli will have to perform some magic if we are to overcome these odds. Turning the SF draft pick into three quality first round players would be a good start.

yeah, I was just going to say they could trade that for more picks, plus don't we have an extra pick, or two, in the early rounds?
also, wouldn't it be possible that some of the big ticket guys become expendable, or just get their deals extended?

it just seems like looking a couple years ahead on the cap is like looking at a 7 day weather forecast.

 

[solman]

They are a missed FG away from being 12-1, their only loss was to the best team of all time. How are they not handling the injuries?

Since your injuries started, you're 1-2 against winning opponents.

By the Jacksonville game (which you only won by a missed field goal) you were only missing three starters.

If injuries forced you to play 42, 40 or 45 different starters (like the Patriots did in 2003, 2004 and 2005) do you seriously think you could be competitive?


EDIT: He Ban Me and JoePats should read this as an answer to them. I have to run now.

 

[eom]

Moss is the difference maker. <-- period

Teams have to scheme and account for him on every play, on most plays he has the attention of 2 defenders. Welker is a very good player who is made great because of the attention Moss receives. Review the tape of the Indy game this year for just one of the many examples, without Moss in that game the Patriots lose.

As far as last year, it is done, over, finished, time to move on. Please no more coulda, shoulda woulda, it sounds like something a stupid Steeler fan would say "The best team didn't win", "if we played them tomorrow we would win", nothing but pathetic whining.

I bolded some more lines for you.

how about you review the tape from last year and see how many drive killing balls caldwell drops.

put welker on that team and we win. <----period

 

[He Ban Me]

Since your injuries started, you're 1-2 against winning opponents.

By the Jacksonville game (which you only won by a missed field goal) you were only missing three starters.

If injuries forced you to play 42, 40 or 45 different starters (like the Patriots did in 2003, 2004 and 2005) do you seriously think you could be competitive?


EDIT: He Ban Me and JoePats should read this as an answer to them. I have to run now.

Booger was a starter before he was injured at seasons start, he counts, no?
Morris was a starter when he went down, does he count?
Freeney was a starter when he went down, does he count?
Harrison was a starter when he went down, does he count?
Because Harrison was out, Morehead became a starter, and he went out, does he count?
I'm pretty sure Diem did not play versus Jax, does he count?
Brock, IIRC, was injured pretty early in the Jax game, can we count him??

That's a solid 5-6 guys, with 1 seeing few snaps. I guess we are not looking at this the same way?? Would you place a "value" on starters? Is losing Freeney a bigger blow than say losing a guy like Ed Johnson (UDFA starting DT)? Does surviving the Donks game (where a lot of these injuries started) count? What about the following week versus the Bucs, when guys like Addai, Harrison, Sanders, Morris, and others were out (IIRC, 7-8 starters out). True, we lost to SD, and perhaps the ST's gaffes DID have something to do with a thin line up. But let's face it, Vinny missed a chip shot FG in the closing minute to put us ahead. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, I guess I would have to respectfully disagree.

EDIT: Did you also know that there currently are only 14 teams above .500. AND, before this past week, removing the Colts from the equation, there were only 11?? Did you know that both the Eagles and Ravens are both SUB-.500 teams, and pretty much OUT of the playoff hunt, yet the Awesomes had more than a little trouble with them. And your team was apparently at what you would consider "full strength". Wins and losses in the NFL are a pretty fine line, and to discount what the Colts have done for the year, especially given the circumstances, is as perplexing a concept as I have come across in a long time.

 

[Metaphors]

One of the team's current strengths, its veteran depth, will come back to hurt us in 2009-2011, since we will have few quality young players who are ready to step in and play at a high level.

Since a good number of the "young players who are ready to step in and play at a high level" during the 2009-2011 seasons are still in college, I'm not sure how you can offer a fair judgement of how many will find their way onto the Pats roster.

Add in the number of "young players" that are currently on other rosters who the Pats will sign in free agency during the 2008-2010 off-seasons...

and add in the "young players" that the Pats already have on the roster (Maroney, CJ, D.Thomas, Meriweather, Lua, Richardson)...

and add in the players already signed through this period who will be in their primes (Brady, Koppen, Welker, Warren)...

and ... well you get the idea. A healthy team will turn over 10-20% of its roster every year. At least 1/2 of the roster in 2011 is going to be different than today almost by definition. By saying that 50+% will NOT be quality young players, you are tapping into some sort of insight that the rest of us don't have.

 

[PatsSteve1]

32.Washington 45 -$20.72 million

Minus 20 million. That Dan Snyder really knows how to deal with the salary cap, doesn't he?

 

[Miguel]

A couple of thoughts

Booger McFarland has a $6.85 million cap hit in 2008 and it is 100% salary. So, the Colts could release him freeing up over $6 million in cap space without having a dead money hit for him. Given how he has not played a down in 2007 and given how the Colts defense has performed in his absence, that's what I expect the Colts to do. His release would then "pay" for Clark and Sanders.

Metaphors brought up an excellent point. Teams turnover their roster each and every year in part to make room for their draft picks. So I do not get why people make a big deal about teams not keeping all of their players.

 

[Miguel]

(Are any of the Indy contracts with voidable years timed so they can avoid the franchise tag?)

I doubt it since Freeney's rookie deal was not set up that way.

 

[Miguel]

And the NFL Player's Association might have some pressure on that also.

Players have been taking paycuts/giving up money each and every year. If Manning is amenable to accepting a paycut, I seriously doubt that the NFLPA will step in.

 

[Metaphors]

Teams turnover their roster each and every year in part to make room for their draft picks. So I do not get why people make a big deal about teams not keeping all of their players.

Yeah, even if an elite team could keep all their players under the cap, I doubt they would choose to do so. In addition to draft picks (still the best way to build a roster long-term), bringing in new players keeps the environment fresh and allows a team to grow year-to-year. The greatest threat to excellence is not failure...it is stagnation. If you aren't moving forward, you're falling behind.

Since you don't have unlimited roster spots, someone has to go. The Pats and Colts (and others as well) don't fear losing veterans that are still producing. Better to lose them a year early than a year late. It is all about have a system and solid talent evaluation for that system. No surprise that the top teams are the best at maintaining this type of environment.

 

[Miguel]

Minus 20 million. That Dan Snyder really knows how to deal with the salary cap, doesn't he?

I failed to include this part - "And yes, you read it right. The Washington Redskins are $20 million over the projected '08 cap, a number that will be reduced once the 'Skins convert some bonuses assigned to the '08 cap (including a hefty one paid to tight end Chris Cooley) to signing bonuses, which can be pro-rated over the life of the contract."