Our roster isn't as aged as you seem to believe, Rugs. I posted this elsewhere ...

I find it interesting that the age of the Saints roster is brought up as an argument by some detractors. The average age of the Saints roster is 27.17 years. The league average is 26.54 years of age. 31 of the 32 teams have an average age of greater than 26 years, with only one team, the Rams, averaging under 26 years of age (25.91). Let's also not forget that those Rams finished with the 5th worst record in the league this past season.

I was referring to players like Cam. We keep pushing money into the future on our core players and eventually the bill comes due and we end up eating tens of millions of dollars. I'm not saying it's not a good system. It's just one of the drawbacks to a good system.

I wish we had more players like Cam. He's worth every penny we pay him and more for what he does both on the field and off. Same with Demario.

The alternative is to never push money forward and releasing these players before they get the second huge contracts. Keeping a roster of young players with limited leadership who then get to the point where it is their turned to be released and replaced by new cheap players.

Nope. No thank you. I'll take that accounting for money already earned by experienced talent in later years when those numbers are a smaller percentage of the ever skyrocketing cap.

No there is a 3rd alternative you are missing. That alternative to live within your means on the salary cap and then time your moment. In general because we have been living outside our means utilizing more 'next year' money' to fund 'current year' roster than any other team in the league, it would take a 1-2 year reset to get back to living within our means. But once that reset is done we could field a very similar roster just paying with 'current year' dollars more and 'next year' dollars less. The Falcons and Panthers had the same record as us last year, but funded their rosters more in the current year and less on future dollars. But the great thing about living within your means is that when you do get very close, when you win a playoff game but can't get all the way, and your already playoff caliber team is funded with current year dollars that you didn't already blow in previous years, then you can spend the future year dollars on back-loaded deals for new stars to get you over the top. Thats what the Rams did to win a ring. Thats what the Bucs did (though they started from 7-9, but added the GOAT and had amongst the most cap room in the league to bring in other talent with him). Essentially the goal is to get to a point where your record is better than expected for what you are spending, and then to go on a spending spree that pushed you over the top, unless you have a young QB who is so elite you will be at the top every year for 5-10 years. The Rams did it. The Bucs did it. Now they are both rebuilding. The Chiefs are the other model, playing the long steady game because your QB is too amazing to need a boost that requires leveraging the cap to win and too young to saddle with the rebuilding that leveraging now will force later. There is no model for a .500-ish team to stay highly leveraged forever with a middle aged league average QB and win a ring.

I'm not an accountant but Guido makes some good points too. Why can't we take and blend both together?

No there is a 3rd alternative you are missing. That alternative to live within your means on the salary cap and then time your moment. In general because we have been living outside our means utilizing more 'next year' money' to fund 'current year' roster than any other team in the league, it would take a 1-2 year reset to get back to living within our means. But once that reset is done we could field a very similar roster just paying with 'current year' dollars more and 'next year' dollars less. The Falcons and Panthers had the same record as us last year, but funded their rosters more in the current year and less on future dollars. But the great thing about living within your means is that when you do get very close, when you win a playoff game but can't get all the way, and your already playoff caliber team is funded with current year dollars that you didn't already blow in previous years, then you can spend the future year dollars on back-loaded deals for new stars to get you over the top. Thats what the Rams did to win a ring. Thats what the Bucs did (though they started from 7-9, but added the GOAT and had amongst the most cap room in the league to bring in other talent with him). Essentially the goal is to get to a point where your record is better than expected for what you are spending, and then to go on a spending spree that pushed you over the top, unless you have a young QB who is so elite you will be at the top every year for 5-10 years. The Rams did it. The Bucs did it. Now they are both rebuilding. The Chiefs are the other model, playing the long steady game because your QB is too amazing to need a boost that requires leveraging the cap to win and too young to saddle with the rebuilding that leveraging now will force later. There is no model for a .500-ish team to stay highly leveraged forever with a middle aged league average QB and win a ring.