Cap Space

[RamWraith]

TEAMS WITH $10M OR MORE OF CAP ROOM
1. Cleveland $22 million

2. Buffalo $21 million

3. Minnesota $20 million

4. Jacksonville $16.5 million

5. Kansas City $16.2 million

6. Green Bay $16 million

7. Tennessee $15.3 million

8. Dallas $13.8 million

9. Oakland $12.5 million

10. Philadelphia $11.5 million

11. St. Louis $11.5 million

12. New Orleans $11.2 million

13. Seattle $10.5 million

14. N.Y. Jets $10 million

– Source: NFLPA

[laram0]

Sa-Weeeeet! Show me the money!!!

[Bar-bq]

Interesting to note that only 3 teams picking inside the top ten have 10M or more in cap space.

It makes me question whether these teams were conservative (delusional) in their signings in the offseason, convinced they had the talent on the current roster that wiith only a few tweaks they could make the big dance in '08,

OR

Are Minnesota, Oakland and Cleveland three teams that Nobody actually wants to be a free agent recruit/signing of?

It will be interesting to see how much teams have left over after all draftees sign.

Thoughts, anyone?

[maineram]

Ok, the Rams have -
6 million for the rookies
6 year deal with Bulger
extension for Jackson

everyone locked up.

Maineram -

[Keenum]

Good. I like to have some "insurance" with my cap space. We need to get Bulger a deal, and we'll need to sign our rookies soon.

[39thebeast]

We can take care of our franchise players and maybe do a little something on the side

[TekeRam]

For the three that you mention. Cleveland is fairly frugal(and Buffalo is extremely as a side note) and isn't exactly a place that high priced free agents want to go. Oakland surprises me that it has so much cap room, as they do have a pretty good backfield now. I think the savings come from the o-line that is still subpar. As for Minnesota, I think it's a byproduct of having to be frugal last year after taking the cap hit for Culpepper. It's also because they have a subpar receiving corps and have no one that too too highly paid.

[Bar-bq]

For the three that you mention. Cleveland is fairly frugal(and Buffalo is extremely as a side note) and isn't exactly a place that high priced free agents want to go. Oakland surprises me that it has so much cap room, as they do have a pretty good backfield now. I think the savings come from the o-line that is still subpar. As for Minnesota, I think it's a byproduct of having to be frugal last year after taking the cap hit for Culpepper. It's also because they have a subpar receiving corps and have no one that too too highly paid.

Right, so what this is leading me to, is that lackluster teams who have been 'frugal' as you say in recent years, are not progressing as franchises because of their unwillingness to drop the big bucks for a 'name-brand' free agent.

On the other hand, I suppose these franchises are trying to avoid spending money on Free Agents that perhaps won't perform as well as they have previously in their new unis. Or they've been burned in the past (LeCharles Bentley).

But you have to take the risk in pursuit of improvement, don't you think?

[Country]

This is great news it leaves room for

Bulger contract

Jackson extension, before he gets to big.

Rookies

Possible FA DT aquisition.