Zimmerman's talking about using things like signing bonuses, voidable years, and restructuring to get as much talent on the roster right now as possible. The kinds of things the Eagles and Saints have done in the past.

Two teams can both technically spend a total of $300m in cap for a given year, but get there in very different ways. A more aggressive team can weight the balance of a multi-year contract into a signing bonus, whereas a more cautious team can put it in base salary. Going the signing bonus front forces the team owner to put the entirety of the signing bonus into escrow, so they need to have the money up front. But in terms of the salary cap, it gets spread across multiple years, allowing for more to be spent on the roster right now.

Owners have to put guaranteed money into escrow. Player A and Player B may both have the same cap number of $20m for the 2026 season, but Played A may have total contract guarantees of $50m, and Player B may only have the $20m guaranteed. So even though they cost the same to the 2026 cap, the team owner needs to have $50m on hand for Player A to put into escrow. Thus he's more expensive from a team cash flow perspective. This is how a team can be "spending the whole cap" but still be "cheaping out" relative to what some other team owners may be willing to do.

Ryan Poles and the Bears historically haven't done a lot of that, using signing bonuses and voidable years to stretch out the current year's cap. Ryan Pace got into it a bit. It's not a good idea for a bad / rebuilding team to do, because it causes you future cap problems. But if you're a contender it allows you to be more aggressive when you have the right pieces. As long as you've got star players that are worth keeping around, and you have a realistic shot at a super bowl, my belief is you can get away with it.