salary cap hell!

Cap hell isn't a myth because what people mean by cap hell isn't defined. Getting under the cap isn't the question. We always do that. We may even be able to sign a player or two to back loaded contracts. So if by cap hell you mean we can't get under the cap, then we're not in cap hell.

To me cap hell means that our roster is limited by how we manage the cap. How many of those players you listed do you really want to restructure or re-sign? For me, it would only be McCoy and Granderson and maybe Ruiz. The rest I don't want to push more money out to get bitten by their drop-offs or retirements and not be able to move off of them because of the cap. The jury is out on Carr and you certainly don't want to guarantee him more money. Ramczyk has a major knee condition and I wouldn't want to guarantee him more either. Demario and Cam are really old for their positions and are near retirement. AK is approaching RB dropoff age and Taysom is already beyond it. We will be sitting on dead money for those players beyond their playing years because we are running out of younger players to restructure.

So what you consider cap hell and what I consider cap hell are quite different.
this exactly x 1000. i know for many it feels good to think that this approach to cap mgmt is some kind of big brain move and we're the only team smart enough to do it. to that i would argue, if this were a smart strategy everyone in the league would be doing it. also, we would be a in the playoffs every year. this does not benefit the team in any way. and honestly, it wasn't even that smart when we had brees though it made a little more sense at the time. the hurdle of managing drew's contract should have pushed loomis to put more emphasis on drafting and free agency instead of this reckless approach to cap mgmt.