It appears this was looked at, 2010 year, based on common sense with expected actions both of which can pretty much be thrown out in the NFL and what the Redskins are be precieved to be doing.

Look at the Draft and positions, it’s all being covered with this in mind and if push comes to shove everyone knows the Redskins will over-pay if required.
The only concern is the offensive line, which is slowly being built with young back-ups, which is the only way to build a line, building unit.
The rest of the areas of concern are just talking points on current starters and not looking at current back-ups.

His thinking is short-term. His argument seems to be:
1. The CBA will encourage owners to keep their own rather than let players hit the free agency.
2. As a result of above, there will be a shortage of players on the free agency market from which to collect.
3. Therefore, the Redskins will need to replace many positions without having the availability of players to do so.

I have no problem with the premise or conclusion I just think it’s overstated. If this does pose a problem for the Redskins in the future, it’s only a temporary one. In the long run, teams with larger than life financial resources will be much better off without a salary cap because they will be able to pay players what other franchises can’t.

In the short term, the Redskins will not suffer for lack of money and will be able to bring in stop-gaps at positions like the offensive line (Pete Kendall types) while they build towards youth. Even though teams, anticipating the uncapped year, will be throwing money at their own, there’s no guarantee that every player will jump at the opportunity. Players, too, understand the effect of an uncapped season and realize that they will be able to bargain with rich teams with no spending limit. Why would a player - entering the twilight of his current contract with the prospect of hitting a truly free market with no spending limits - want to resign with Buffalo when he can test the new financial waters with Buffalo and Dallas and Washington and New England etc.

Currently, all the teams CAN afford to pay up to the salary cap. Many can afford to pay above it and I’ve no doubt that the Redskins would if the Redskins could. Simply speaking, and I know this isn’t a simple issue, that increases the dollars floating about for players and thus will drive up salaries. That’s the kind of market players want to enter (for an example, just see the past few offseasons that have marked record contracts at a number of positions merely as a result of a relatively modest annual increase in the salary cap).

First off, this is never going to happen. The rules of the uncapped season were structured to motivate both sides to come to the table and I think that they are sufficient in that regard. I have read (but don’t have a clue where) that it is estimated that there will be around 200 less free agents on the market if an uncapped year does happen. Also, the average free agent will be older and less talented. This is a natural outflow of the six year service requirement for free agency that year and the extra franchise tag.

With all of this in mind, I do think the skins would be screwed if an uncapped year happens. First off, the skins recent draft record isn’t real great (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=531). While The Danny has proven his willingness to overpay for talent, I really don’t think that the pool of free agents in the uncapped year is going to be worth his money. As a result, I think John Clayton is right in basic assumption that teams that have drafted well and done an effective job of signing their young talent to long term contracts, would be in the best situation if an uncapped year happens in 2010. The Skins day one draft choices of three receivers won’t help them where they would need it in 2010 – O-line and defense, and the lack of draft picks in general over the last few years would come back to haunt them.

For the gamblers out there, it is going to be fun to watch this game of hundred million dollar ante bluff.