FalcFans Forums

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... re-rosters

Flat salary cap will force NFL teams to restructure rosters

By Michael Lombardi NFL Network
Front Office View
Published: June 25, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
Updated: June 25, 2012 at 01:48 p.m.

A few months ago, I was listening to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban discuss his team's championship season of 2010-11, as well as his thought process for the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement. Cuban's main objective for this year was to be deliberate and patient with each move so he could completely understand the fine print of the new CBA. He wanted to really understand the long-range implications of any move his team might make, and his need to repeat as champion was not as great as his need to be sound in overall planning for the future.

The NFL's new CBA is just one year old and there are many new quirks executives must work through. But the main issue that all teams must deal with in the coming years is that the salary cap is not going to significantly increase. The cap pretty much stayed the same this year -- going from $120.375 million in 2011 to $120.6 million -- and there are indications it will remain flat next year. Therefore, if organizations have executed contracts with hefty increases for many players, there is no way they can keep the team together.

For example, the Philadelphia Eagles have a $3 million increase in Michael Vick's contract from 2012 to 2013. That one increase will likely be greater than the entire cap increase, leaving Philly with decisions to make regarding which players to keep, release or restructure. Even though the Eagles have done a marvelous job managing salaries, they will not be immune to the consequences of a flat cap.

So what can teams do right now to prepare? The first order of business requires that a team correctly breaks down its roster into three categories of players:

1. The Irreplaceables: The obvious stars who are uniquely talented with incredibly bright futures.

2. The Replaceables: Players who have good talent, but could be replaced by younger, cheaper options who can play at a similar level.

3. The Projects: Young, backup players who are worthy of development and have economically friendly contracts.

Now that minicamps are over, teams should have a relatively clear indication of the role they would like each player to have for the upcoming season. With the Houston Texans, we all know that Arian Foster is the main running back and will play a huge role this year and for many years to come. However, the Texans have another quality runner in Ben Tate. Since Foster is the bona fide star (with a fat new contract to prove it), Tate does not have a long-term future in Houston. Most executives in the league know Tate is a quality player and has a modest second-round contract, making him extremely valuable for another team in need of a full-time running back.

Houston could wait for Tate to become a free agent -- eventually collecting a compensatory pick (assuming they do not sign any players in that free-agent period) -- while knowing that in the mean time they have a great backup runner if something unfortunate were to happen to Foster. Or they could make him available right now and parlay Tate into a future asset, which might be the best way to stay ahead of the flat cap.

In Cleveland, the Colt McCoy era is about to end. It's clear the Browns don't see the third-year pro as their present-day or future quarterback. Don't buy the rhetoric about McCoy competing for the starting job; the Browns invested a first-round pick on 28-year-old Brandon Weeden -- he's their man. McCoy is replaceable, but unlike Tate, he does not carry high trade value. Thus, the Browns will take anything -- even a conditional pick.

In both situations, though, it's the right move to part ways with a player who does not have a short- or long-term future with the franchise.
Wyche: Cap carnage coming?
Contract headaches with several star players have impacted this offseason. And Steve Wyche says it could get worse. More ...

In Pittsburgh, the Mike Wallace case is easy to solve. He will not be traded, no matter how flat the cap stays. The Steelers must have Wallace on the roster -- he is an irreplaceable player. Pittsburgh would have a hard time finding another player who could bring his level of talent to the field. Therefore, the Steelers will build their team around the Wallace contract, whenever it gets done.

For fans, it's hard to see players come and go. But for executives, this is a part of the job. With the cap remaining flat, it's critical for personnel departments to constantly replenish the talent pool and for coaches to fully emphasize player development. Change is a part of the new NFL, and constant change is the result of a cap that does not increase.

Reading this article made me think of our team, and our lack of restructuring contracts and/or signing big name external free agents this year. By paying our players more now, we won't have to make drastic cuts in the future like teams who have backloaded contracts like Philly for example. Also, in focusing on resigning our players as opposed to other teams I believe in most cases we get a small in house discount (minus our lousy left guard ). Also by focusing on resigning our guys, and taking care of them, I believe we are trying to build a reputation as a team that takes care of it's players. In doing so, making Atlanta a place free agents want to come and play for. If you were a FA, would you want to sign with a team that consistently is cutting guys prior to the end of their contracts, or with a team that values it's guys, and treats them like family, even to the point of keeping guys at a year longer (Turner) than they need to price wise.

Employee morale is big in any business and I think Atlanta takes steps to keep it high, more than almost any other organization in football.

It's a nice spin on things Dave, but I don't think it really applies. You look at many of the long-term deals we signed early and many of those guys didn't make it to the end of their contract: Erik Coleman, Ben Hartsokc, Von Hutchins, Michael Jenkins, Chauncey Davis, etc. Turner and Robinson probably won't make it.

It's nice in theory, but it's very difficult to execute unless you hand out a ton of short-term deals (1 or 2 years), which makes you less attractive to free agents because short-term deals usually mean you are unwilling to give out big signing bonuses and guarantees, which is what attracts free agents.

I think using this article as a whole, I think there are too many "Replaceables" on this roster that weren't replaced. Good examples are Stephen Nicholas, Justin Blalock, Thomas DeCoud, Kroy Biermann. And there aren't enough young projects on the team to replace them because this team has not drafted very well in the middle/late rounds as well as has given away too many draft picks. Those guys I mentioned are bad re-signings, it's just that you really had no choice because many of your 3rd and 5th round picks didn't quite work out as well as hoped.

Matt Ryan, Julio Jones, Roddy White, Tyson Clabo, and Tony Gonzalez would/should have formed the Irreplaceables on offense. Although with being a short timer, you could consider him a replaceable. But the team decided to throw Blalock into that group as well.

John Abraham, Jonathan Babineaux, Sean Weatherspoon, William Moore, and Brent Grimes would form that same group on the opposite side of the ball. Abe and Babs similarly are at the end of the road, so there's opportunity for new blood to come in. Those players aren't Dunta Robinson or Ray Edwards. Mario Williams obviously would have been worthwhile to be added to that group.

I'm glad they saw Lofton as a replaceable, which was the right call and something I've been calling for for years.