USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

Cleveland is #1.....Panthers are dead last

Which teams are likely to be most active in free agency? We rank them 1-32 based on their needs, historical behavior and resources (each club's available cap space as of Friday, according to USA TODAY Sports research, is listed in millions):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...kings/1977631/

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

That's interesting. Just based on the rankings you mentioned, first and last, it's difficult to draw any conclusions. One could say "would you rather be like the Cleveland Browns and spend a lot more?"

Because, you know...not many teams want to be like the Cleveland Browns.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

Yeah good point. But I was more interested in the Panthers since I'm a fan. I hope the new GM starts to be a player in FA or else we'll continue to be mediocre and lose Cam in a few years.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

The Redskins would spend some money if it wasn't for the BS legal ruling that took 18 million away from this year and last. Not spending money in FA is ok, so long as its because you don't want to over pay for old players.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

Doesn't matter- as long as teams like the Cowboys and Redskins have meddling owners, it won't really matter how much they spend in FA.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

Pro Football talk is reporting that the Browns are liekly to make a play to get Captain.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

I heard Daniel Snyder had chilled the last couple years and let others call some of the shots.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

That whole Redskins issue was because all the owners hate Synder. By the way, they broke no rules during the one year there wasn't a cap....then after the fact, they get hit with the 36 million 2 year salary cap penalty. As I recall, they asked jolly Roger before it happened and he didn't say a word. Right now there are about 6 guys they need to restructure their contracts to get rid of most of the 18 million problem this year starting with Trent Williams. I'm happy they cut Hall. He isn't worth one-tenth what his salary would have been this year. He gave up over 1,000 last year, second worst in the NFL.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

That's true. Shanahan agreed to come only if Synder stayed away from the decision making.

Re: USA Today: Ranking Which NFL Teams Will Spend in Free Agency
 

Very true, but as 90 pointed out, he has been kept hidden the last couple year. That is basically the only reason they have had any success this last year. Shanny cleaned out a bunch of the overpriced guys and got his dudes in, combined with a great rookie QB, you got a solid foundation.

Don't worry the Browns will spend it all on some other 30 year old rookie QB. They are schmucks with their player personnel decision making.

I wouldn't care if the penalty was for something illegal, but what they are getting hit for is complete BS, like you said. They are getting in trouble for structuring salaries to hit mostly during an uncapped year, which was completely legal. The only thing that made it illegal was that the other 30 teams tried to get Dallas and Washington to join them in collusion in pretending there was still a salary cap. I don't understand how legally this is being allowed to stand in courts. This goes right there with the player union disbanding so they couldn't be locked out, but yet still negotiating as a union. How can you be both? But I digress.

I am not a huge skins fan, just like to see the local team do well. I really just enjoy football and hate to see such shady things as this go on. With 18 million more, the skins could get some big pieces this off season and really push to be a legit playoff team for the next 3-5 years.