9/9 ESPN INSIDER - Why the Cowboys chose Quincy

[OutletPass]

Dooby requested this...though it doesn't say much...


Hutchinson still shaking off rust
By Randy Mueller
NFL Insider
Send an Email to Randy Mueller Monday, September 8
Updated: September 8
4:07 PM ET


Each week, former NFL general manager Randy Mueller will answer questions from Insiders. To send in a question, click the link beneath his byline.


Randy,
You wrote in the past that Chad Hutchinson is the more talented of the Cowboys' two QBs. With Quincy Carter being named the starter, do you think the Chad Hutchinson era in Dallas is over? It looks like Parcells never believed in Chad's ability by giving the majority of the first string reps to Quincy through out training camp. Is this due to the fact that Parcells thinks Quincy is more talented than Chad, or that he feels Chad is not ready to step onto an NFL field just yet?
-- Robert Goworek

Robert: I think Bill thinks Quincy will make fewer mistakes and is a bit more accountable when he does make a mistake. You're right in that Chad is not yet ready. He is still trying to re-acquire some of the instincts for playing the position. I also think Bill knows he may not have the answer at QB on his team at this time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy,
Quick question on the salary cap: I understand that Philly has $12 mil in cap space. Why not sign Hugh Douglas to a four-year deal with a lot of up-front money in salary instead of a bonus. Such as, give him $10 mil for year one in salary, then the following year give him $3 mil, year three around $3.5 mil and the final year abour $4 mil. Essentially, (they'd be) giving him the same amount in the first four years as he's getting in Jacksonville (I think it's safe to say his final year in Jacksonville will be voided).


This also would give the Eagles some cap space. Hugh would only count on average $3 mil against the cap for the following 3 years ... not a bad deal for a premium defensive end. And if he really wants, throw that final year on for $6 mil, knowing full well the Eagles will cut him before it ever matters. That way they won't have to be penalized for the bonus after he's been cut.

Does this make sense? And if so, how come no team has ever done this?
-- Ryan Vandertol
Erin, Ontario

Ryan: Your theory is correct in that teams do everything they can to use up cap space at some point during the year. It can't be carried over or saved like vacations in some companies. Some teams will use unusually high base salaries to eat up cap space and cut down on signing bonus money, but not to the extreme you suggest.

Cincinnati and Arizona have done a lot of this. Makes it look like you're using all your cap space, but most teams would rather borrow a bit against it to acquire a few more players. The Eagles started the season with around $7 million available in cap space. They must have it earmarked for something, from a planning stage. I think in the Hugh Douglas case the Eagles saw a player who was descending a bit in production and shelf life and were not willing to make a long-term investment in such.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy:
Can you explain how voidable years work in relationship to the salary cap? I am a die hard Eagles fan, and I know over the past few years players have become free agents early because of this. Could you enlighten me on this process?
-- Dwayne Ellis
Mt. Holly, N.J.


Dwayne: Good question. Hopefully I can help. Voidable years are just that -- years that go away, void, disappear, however you want to say it. Most of the time, there is a triggering device in the contract (i.e. a certain number of sacks, or a number of 100-yard rushing games, etc.), something that when triggered, voids certain remaining years of a deal and allows a player to become a free agent sooner than one would think.

Let's say a player signs a five-year deal that includes a $5 million signing bonus. The bonus counts $1 million per year against the cap, along with his base salary, likely-to-be-earned incentives, etc. Once the player triggers the voidable clause, let's say in year three, the remaining un-amortized portion of the signing bonus (for years 4 & 5 in this case) will be accelerated and count an additional $2 million in year three.

The rules state that a team must have this amount available to start the year, or the contract would never be approved. From a planning standpoint, these type of voids can be tough to anticipate, especially if the level of performance that acts as the trigger is a hard one to predict. Whew ! I hope that helps.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy,
It appears Jim Haslett is behind most of the Saints' major personnel moves, i.e. top draft picks, Tebucky Jones acquisition, Kyle Turley trade. Do you think it is better for the general manager to make these decisions and the head coach focus on the on-field play?
-- Thomas Bayham
New Orleans, La.


Thomas: I think your assessment of the Saints' decision-making is correct. Although Jim gets lots of input from others in the personnel department, the buck stops with him. I'd rather that the head coach focus his efforts on the players and team he is currently dealing with and not necessarily on acquiring talent, but in any case the head coach and the GM must act as a partnership in everything they do and thus communicate continuously.
I also think it's a good idea that the players know there is another decision maker on the football side besides the head coach. Never hurts for the coach to have somebody to shuffle certain decisions off on and thus keep his much needed relationship with his players as a coach and let the GM be the bad guy at certain times.

The other issue at stake is, as a head coach under the gun to win every game, his criteria for certain personnel decisions might not have the long-term implications that are best for the team or organization. Sometimes a GM can focus on the longer term a bit better.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy,
I must admit I was not happy to see La 'Roi Glover or Joe Johnson leave the Saints. And after reading your article of Aug. 17 titled "Window stays open longer these days," I can see some reasons for these things. In Johnson's case I already understood he was just too old and had an injury history, so there is no way you pay too much on a long-term deal for him. But with Glover, I still don't get it. The reasons given, like he is too small to stop the run, just sound like b.s. to me. He sure did get upfield and create a mess of offensive plays a bunch. Could you comment on his situation? It just doesn't fit this "window" scenario to me. And by the way, thanks for building a great team for us down here!
-- Karl A. Crooks
Lafayette, La.


Karl: Those reasons were very legitimate in La 'Roi's case. We all agreed that we needed to get bigger and stronger to stop the run. La 'Roi is an excellent pass rusher, but in Jim's style of defense we needed D-linemen who could occupy blockers and free up linebackers to make plays. That's why Baskin & Robbins has 33 flavors. Hah!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy,
In regards to your comment of, "when was the last time a third string QB actually went in, well I have one for you -- Spergeon Wynn in the 2001 season against the Jacksonville Jaguars, Green Bay Packers and Baltimore Ravens. The Vikings lost to all three opponents, and I would bet the Vikings brain wizards took more interest in the No. 3 QB after that.
-- Mike Zanatta
Eagan, Minn.


Mike: Good point, and that's why teams that have only two QBs all probably have a third on the practice squad in case of an emergency. In most cases, though, if you get down to your third QB in this league the results are not going to be pretty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy,
I enjoyed Len Pasquarelli's article on teams that chose not to keep a third QB on their 53-man roster. I thought a condition for extending rosters to 53 players was one player had to be the inactive third QB. Randy, will you please educate me on this issue? Thank you for your time.
-- Chip Stanizzo
Frankfort, Ohio


Chip: What you're referring to is the 45-man active roster, and not the 53. Teams can dress 45 players plus a third QB on Sundays. That third QB can only play QB and has other stipulations as to when he can enter, etc. Some teams have just decided they'd rather have another guy to practice with during the week and keep a third QB on the practice squad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Mueller:
As a lifelong Seahawks fan, it's nice to hear your insights on ESPN.


1. Who could the 'Hawks pick up to bolster their wide receiver unit?

2. Why didn't they cut at least one of the young, unknown running backs they kept, and put them on the practice squad.

Thanks.
-- Paul Martin
Tacoma, Wash.

Paul: One guy worth considering is Ron Dugans, who was cut by Cincinnati in preseason. He's a veteran who has size and is physical for the position. He'd be excellent on the slants and crossing routes that usually entail a hit or collision after the catch. He'd save on wear-and-tear on Koren Robinson or Darrell Jackson, too. He's much like Bobby Engram, but a bit younger.

To answer your RB question, the Seahawks probably were afraid to expose the Carter kid (Kerry Carter, rookie, Stanford) after he had a fine preseason. He could have been claimed, as there were several teams looking for RBs on the last cut down day.