2013 Cap Issues

cmd34(work) · Jan 7, 2013

Bob Sacamano said:
Didn't I say that? Gaw, learn to read.

My apologies then.

Who do you like (players) in tonight's game?

superpunk · Jan 7, 2013

I was just thinking man you know we haven't had a thread where bob stalks cmd in a while glad we took care of that.

Bob Sacamano · Jan 7, 2013

superpunk said:
I was just thinking man you know we haven't had a thread where bob stalks cmd in a while glad we took care of that.

So you were stalking the forum to find me stalking cmd posts?

Who is stalking who?

superpunk · Jan 7, 2013

I guess it's better than the "Is it pedophilia" posts.

dbair1967 · Jan 7, 2013

Sheik said:
With this cap mess, I can pretty much save you guys the kick in the dick next year.

Last in NFC east. 6-10, but we did go 4-0 in preseason. Orlando Scandrick hangs himself in the equipment room. Team bonds together to get on a little run. Garrett is saved again.

There's no way we finish 6-10 with Gruden as HC

junk · Jan 7, 2013

I'm guessing they cut Free (designated a June 1 cut), restructure Romo, restructure Carr and sign Spencer to a long term deal.

Ratliff is the one I'm not sure about. If he's cut, you are forced into a drafting a NT early and/or signing someone to replace him.

Cutting Free means you really don't have a back up tackle on the roster.

So, you're pretty much going into next year having to address NT, T and RB because you wouldn't have depth to play the game. Then you'd be maintaining status quo at S, DE and G/C since you'd have little to no cap space.

So, instead of building the roster and getting better, you are essentially filling new holes that have been created.....or basically the same thing Dallas has been doing the last couple of years.

The only youngsters I have much hope in maybe stepping up are Crawford, Lissemore and maybe...maybe Matt Johnson.

UVAwahoos · Jan 7, 2013

junk said:
I'm guessing they cut Free (designated a June 1 cut), restructure Romo, restructure Carr and sign Spencer to a long term deal.

Ratliff is the one I'm not sure about. If he's cut, you are forced into a drafting a NT early and/or signing someone to replace him.

Cutting Free means you really don't have a back up tackle on the roster.

So, you're pretty much going into next year having to address NT, T and RB because you wouldn't have depth to play the game. Then you'd be maintaining status quo at S, DE and G/C since you'd have little to no cap space.

So, instead of building the roster and getting better, you are essentially filling new holes that have been created.....or basically the same thing Dallas has been doing the last couple of years.

The only youngsters I have much hope in maybe stepping up are Crawford, Lissemore and maybe...maybe Matt Johnson.

True. This cap situation is really going to limit our FA spending. They'll have to strike bigtime in the draft. This is part of the reason I really hoped for a coaching change. We can't provide Garrett with the 22 all-pro starters that he requires in order to do better than .500, so it might be time to move on.

Bob Sacamano · Jan 7, 2013

Why the fuck did we draft Kyle Wilber??

junk · Jan 7, 2013

Bob Sacamano said:
Why the fuck did we draft Kyle Wilber??

I always forget about him, but I don't think he is a good 3-4 fit anyway. He reminds me of James Marten. As soon as Dallas drafted him, I chalked it up as a wasted pick. Maybe I'll be wrong.

dbair1967 · Jan 7, 2013

Bob Sacamano said:
Why the fuck did we draft Kyle Wilber??

so he can be wasted trying to learn fat slob Ryan's stupid scheme

junk · Jan 7, 2013

UVAwahoos said:
True. This cap situation is really going to limit our FA spending. They'll have to strike bigtime in the draft. This is part of the reason I really hoped for a coaching change. We can't provide Garrett with the 22 all-pro starters that he requires in order to do better than .500, so it might be time to move on.

For as "good" as Dallas has been doing in the draft, they haven't had a deep draft in quite some time.

Bob Sacamano · Jan 7, 2013

junk said:
I always forget about him, but I don't think he is a good 3-4 fit anyway. He reminds me of James Marten. As soon as Dallas drafted him, I chalked it up as a wasted pick. Maybe I'll be wrong.

Yeah, he didn't look all that explosive to me around draft time. He should probably make the Alex Albright move to ILB if we choose to stay in the 3-4.

dbair1967 · Jan 7, 2013

UVAwahoos said:
Tru We can't provide Garrett with the 22 all-pro starters that he requires .

I wonder if we somehow did provide him 22 all pro's if we could still could go 8-8

Jon88 · Jan 7, 2013

dbair1967 said:
I wonder if we somehow did provide him 22 all pro's if we could still could go 8-8

Of course we could. We're that poorly coached.

cmd34(work) · Jan 7, 2013

for all of the "good drafts" we've had recently, it definitely stopped in 2012. Not impressed with last year's class at all. Paid a mint to jump up and get Claiborne. Reached in every round except the 6th.

junk · Jan 7, 2013

UVAwahoos said:
We can't provide Garrett with the 22 all-pro starters that he requires in order to do better than .500, so it might be time to move on.

Garrett's scheme is infallible, it is all execution.

Wait, doesn't execution fall on coaching?

Well, you can't expect it to work without an All Pro line and 3 #1 WR type options......

dbair1967 · Jan 7, 2013

cmd34(work) said:
for all of the "good drafts" we've had recently, it definitely stopped in 2012. Not impressed with last year's class at all. Paid a mint to jump up and get Claiborne. Reached in every round except the 6th.

Claiborne wasnt a reach. We got him at 6 and some people had him rated as high as 2nd or 3rd overall. I still think he'll be a probowler.

I like Crawford, I think he'll be a solid starter. Hanna looks very intriguing. Matt Johnson, who knows.

cmd34(work) · Jan 7, 2013

dbair1967 said:
Claiborne wasnt a reach. We got him at 6 and some people had him rated as high as 2nd or 3rd overall. I still think he'll be a probowler.

I like Crawford, I think he'll be a solid starter. Hanna looks very intriguing. Matt Johnson, who knows.

No Claiborne was not a reach at 6, we just paid a lot to get him. We don't have those kind of resources to burn.

Jon88 · Jan 7, 2013

cmd34(work) said:
No Claiborne was not a reach at 6, we just paid a lot to get him. We don't have those kind of resources to burn.

It's all about getting that "wow" player.

"Wow" is hillbilly for game changing and exciting. Did we have other holes to fill? Yeah, but who gives a shit.

dbair1967 · Jan 7, 2013

cmd34(work) said:
No Claiborne was not a reach at 6, we just paid a lot to get him. We don't have those kind of resources to burn.

Process.

Draft Pick

Pro Bowler

All-Pro

Pro Bowler

Administrator

UDFA

2

All-Pro

UDFA

Administrator

UDFA

All-Pro

Administrator

Pro Bowler

Draft Pick

UDFA

Administrator

Draft Pick

Pro Bowler

Administrator