• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About thesubmittedone

  • Rank
    The Coach
  • Birthday 12/23/1983

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since I can remember
  • Favorite Redskin
    Joe Gibbs
  • Location
    Usually home, I'm boring
  1. Here's where I'm at right now. Last season Kirk occupied 13.64% of our cap space. He was being paid like an elite QB due to how the tag works. With that chunk of space he was taking up, we were able to sign Hood, Gallette, Reyes, Bruton and Vernon Davis as well as hand out a gigantic contract to Josh Norman in FA. We also signed Jordan Reed to a sizable contract extension. We had very expensive talent all over the offense in DJax, Garçon and Trent Williams occupying significant cap space, too. We had Kerrigan on defense who was pretty expensive. We also had some fairly expensive talent in Lauvao, Lichtensteiger and DHall. We also weren't panicking at the QB position and investing high draft picks searching for one, either. Oh, and we had a whopping 16.7 million dollars in dead cap money according to this site. With all of that, we STILL had 15 million in cap space left over. 15 friggin million. If you can't build a contender with those numbers along with the kind of performance you got out of your QB and offense, something is wrong with your FO. Not the QB. Not the percentage of cap space given to him. Not anything else. This whole notion of "you're going to hurt the team if you pay him elite money" is crazy talk to me. Last season is proof enough. It's an excuse. No, you're not. You can re-sign who you want and go after who you want in FA. You can build an elite team around him even if you think he's just average, which is stupid in and of itself. At the worst, he's a fixed variable, a known quantity you can move chess pieces around and don't have to worry about developing or what you have or don't have, etc... At best he continues to improve and moves from very good to elite. There's nothing out there other than bull**** conjecture that Kirk and his agent are asking for more than anyone else ever in the history of the game or that they're holding the team hostage because he doesn't want to be here. The percentage of the cap they're asking for is almost certainly based on the tag, which is about 13%. That's what anyone with any knowledge of how these things play out has said. That means he's looking for about 22 at the lowest, 25 million per year at the most - dependent on how they view the cap space. If they can't pay him that because they're afraid, or aren't convinced he's the guy, but are willing to tag him two years in a row to keep him for even more than that percentage, they are idiots. Never mind the fact that we can use the tag on other players and they're tying the use of it all up on him twice in a row and maybe even three times. If the plan is to transition tag him and match an offer next season, they are idiots. They'd end up paying waaaaaay more than what market value was last year OR this year. If the plan is to let him walk for nothing, they are idiots. They'd have to invest significant resources in another QB (likely a high draft pick), or even two or three or four as the likelihood of finding even a decent one is at an incredibly small percentage, which completely flies in the face of the whole "use picks and that extra cap space to build elite defense" bull**** that's peddled. And as others have said, including @Bang most recently, that means you're likely going to have a new Head Coach with a new coaching staff implementing a new system. Heading towards that road, with an organization that has only recently shown a willingness to have a solid hiring process with experts at their proper positions, is idiocy. At the highest levels. This is why I just can't believe they're that stupid. I just can't. I'm not going to buy the speculation, conjecture, and click bait. The second they show me they're that stupid, I'll believe it. Until then? No way. I will not be swayed by a desperate media or panicky fanbase. There is one extremely unlikely possibility that anything other than a LTD ends up well. That is if some team is dumb enough to blow us away with a trade - and I mean blow us away (like this year's first, plus next year's, and another pick as well) - and then give Gruden an extension because you're committing to another long term plan that's going to take time. Then maaaaaybe I'll get the rationale, but even then I'll be skeptical because of how important the QB position is and what we just saw from our trade with the Rams.
  2. Aaaaaand another failed analogy on your part, because that bad part of town has been doing well for some time now, has had a major decrease in crime, and looks to continue on that path. Oh, except there are some within their local media willing to speculate, conjecture, and put out there stuff on the town's leadership that they have nothing on other than they canceled a town meeting they usually have. So, hey, let's just believe it because, you know, it's okay for that to be considered sound journalism and the town has had a bad past. Oh my God, this is getting ridiculous. The analogy wasn't about being "concerned", I've REPEATEDLY STATED THAT IT'S OKAY TO BE CONCERNED OR REMAINED CONCERNED. IT'S ABOUT ACCEPTING SPECULATION AND ASSUMING THE WORST. I'm scared to say it again, and was in that post (now I see I should've because you circled right back to it) because then you're going to come at me with "yeah, right back at you, I don't know why you're telling me that because I never said you were saying you can't be concerned" or some bull****. That's exactly what you're doing here. In this case, the judge wouldn't matter. The points come off because that's the friggin law and there's good reason for it. And not all states have it at three years. Very cute. This is getting extremely frustrating. I'm just going to put it as simply as I can and then you can have the friggin last word, congrats: 1) It is perfectly okay to be concerned. There's no doubt the organization has earned that from us. The past dysfunction is something that should definitely be in our minds and the team isn't completely out of that water, yet. An argument against that hasn't been made A SINGLE TIME. No analogy I've made has been to refute that. 2) The above DOES NOT JUSTIFY rampant speculation and negative conjecture on the media's end, especially when it goes against sound journalism principles, nor is it okay for one to spread sensitive information that can tarnish one's image without legitimate evidence. EVEN WITHIN AN ERA OF DYSFUNCTION, LET ALONE OUTSIDE OF IT. That's what my analogies have been about. SHOULD THE POINTS COME OFF OR NOT OR SHOULD THEY ASSUME SOMEONE IS STIL A BAD DRIVER JUST BECAUSE MAYBE? How this is confusing and how this got here, I don't know. You say things like "it was wrong" but then turn around and justify it in every single way. I have no idea what you see about it that's wrong at this point, even though you say it. You think it was perfectly fine for Cooley to say what he said (heck, I even said it's a bit overblown, so I can understabd that) and other reporters to do what they did (I don't accept bad journalism, period), so stop trying to sound balanced by throwing out "it was wrong". No, it wasn't to you. You've shown that over and over. So frustrating because I responded to a post from Momma saying "we got no answers" and this is what I meant, that they did give one whether it was just to the press or the real one. I even said I don't know what it is. Unbelievable. You have the audacity to tell me "big difference" and then continue to explain why like I'm some idiot who doesn't know that, who didn't specifically say that we don't know what the real answer is but they did give one. Again, I'm done here. What an incredibly stupid ordeal, all of this. You can have the last word.
  3. And I get this line of thinking to some degree... but then I'm like, if they're willing to tag him this year (which means he's made 44 million dollars in guaranteed money over two years) and then transition tag him next year (which is about 28 million dollars guaranteed), there is some team out there that's going to pay him 20+ per year AT THE LEAST, so matching that would mean we've likely given him about 70 million over three years guaranteed ALREADY, just via the tag/matching offers, not to mention whatever remaining in guaranteed money over the next how many years. So he'd be pulling in around $145 million in guaranteed money over five years. What the heck? If we're hesitant to give him a LTD that gives him about half of that over three years in guaranteed money, what sense would that make? I mean, if we're willing to do that and then match, what sense does it make not to just give him the friggin LTD now? Unless we're planning on just letting him walk next year for nothing and don't intend to match, which would be absolute franchise-defining stupidity at a level we haven't seen. If they think he's just some average QB benefiting due to Gruden's system and because he's had some great weapons around him... then re-sign DJax and Garçon and give Gruden a 30 year extension because we have Bill friggin Walsh coaching our team and his system is just THAT good. To go off on a tangent... that latter bit is always cute to me. Some people post here about Kirk just being a system guy and I know their posting histories... they're not that high on Jay. In fact, some of them are downright antagonistic towards him. Yet, his system is somehow magically made for this "system" QB to destroy franchise records two years in a row and end up top ten or top five in virtually every QB metric and stat that exists? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... What other coach has done that if that's the case? And why aren't you wearing Jay Gruden shirts, changing your avatars to Jay Gruden pics, and constantly talking about how in love you are with him? Maybe I'd smell what you're farting out here as much as it stinks, then. Don't tell me because of the weapons we've got, who are injured half the time outside of Garçon. Not to mention how well we spread the ball around in general. No, they should be Jay's greatest fans. His system must be THAT good. Anyway, back to Kirk. None of the other options make sense to me, honestly. Outside of a LTD I don't see the rationale really. It's friggin simple. They tagged him to ensure it wasn't a fluke. He showed it wasn't. Now pay him. And if it's true to where Kirk wants out because of how inept we are, then yeah, trade him - but what a massive shame. It's very hard for me to believe that. Something had to go horribly wrong behind the scenes these last couple years that we don't know about if that were the case. On the surface, there are too many positives for him and everyone else involved for that to be case, and I don't buy the anti-Kirk bull**** (mostly emenating from a certain crowd who's always had it in for him) that he's just some whiney asshole who hasn't gotten over the past perceived slights.
  4. If anyone is wondering why a post of theirs is no longer showing here, read the OP and be happy no penalty was issued and instead it simply got deleted. This is the second time in a few days I've had to do that. Please read the OP here for an understanding of the rules of this thread, thanks.
  5. 1) Totally agree 2) Agree, but I think it's completely within the realm of sound logic not to. I think it's weird this is even an issue, it'd actually be abnormal to do it in comparison to how it usually goes in the NFL. 3) Disagree, that might even lend credence to the issue and it'll further motivate those elements within the media to believe they can "create news" whenever they want. Essentially, you prove to them that they can force you to do something no matter what. 4) I think that's what they're doing right now but it's so quiet we're all losing our minds.
  6. That "mantra" doesn't exist. It's not just about assuming the worst, it's the willingness to accept rampant speculation, conjecture, and bad journalism just because past dysfunction existed. Even WITHIN dysfunction that's not okay. You shouldn't simply buy things that are said simply because it might fit the profile. Is it okay if the media, for instance, fabricated a story even during the Snyderrato era? Is it acceptable simply because it would've fit? I don't see how this is even a question. I don't see how you can say there is no right or wrong here... isn't this common sense? That's bizarre to you? What world are you living in, then? In virtually every aspect of life this is true. I mean, don't points on your drivers license come off after a period of time? When a wrong is righted, do you cling onto the wrong unforgivingly? How is that okay? Recent history always means more unless you're admittedly unforgiving. No one is debating about concerns or whether they should exist. That's fine. And that's why it was brought up. But openly speculating and assuming the worst? No, that's unacceptable. If you don't get the moral outrage about that I don't know what to tell you. I just hope no one ever does that to you undeservingly. Now you're adding things that you initially didn't include to the analogy, that I had to add to make it fit better. So, no, it didn't work initially. Furthermore, "missing money" is inherently a bad thing whereas even you, as well as Cooley, admit the media being kept from Scot may not be. One is inherently bad that could end up a false alarm, the other is inherently nothing that could end up either good or bad. This is why analogies often fail. The point was this could be a good or bad thing. We don't know. But what we do know is there's a lack of evidence regarding the situation and that there are those within the media willing to speculate the worst, with some in the fan base buying it simply because of the past. That is wrong on numerous levels, among them the journalism itself which you've admitted. It is. I never said that. So forgive me if I still stick with the "you're misunderstanding me" thing. Show me where I said nothing has happened or is happening? I've consistently maintained that I have no idea, that I'm concerned as well and thus I understand those concerns fully from others. Where I draw the line is accepting speculation and conjecture as indicative of anything without any solid evidence. And, no, past dysfunction is not justification for it and, yes, recent history always means more. So I won't delve into it myself and, I'm sorry, maybe I sound self-righteous... but I think there is certainly a right and a wrong here. I just can't believe that's even debatable, but I guess it is. So even you take issue with Dissident's analogy, lol. His analogy about his friend's nephew was something that was "in house", not something that's "common knowledge in the neighborhood". How would they know money was missing unless someone within the family was being an asshole and spreading that **** even before they verified he was the culprit? There's a massive difference, and that's part of the problem here. And I don't think we were given zero answers. Mike Jones was the first to report this and he said the reason was that the team wants Scot to focus completely on his task with personnel. Maybe that's all it is, maybe it's more. But absent of anything concrete I think it's wrong to speculate. Were the media to do a good job and gather some inside info, cite sources, and relay that information to us I'd have no problem criticizing the team and referencing the past dysfunction as returning. I wouldn't stick my head in the sand or deny it. But I'm not going to accept this as legitimate right now and I don't think anyone who is will be "right" for doing so even if things turn out like they predicted. One thing I certainly agree with. Well, for the most part. Some times I wonder, especially reading the QB threads here.
  7. I think we're arguing about two different things here and I feel like you may be misunderstanding me. You see, I fully understand why there are concerns. I have them as well. Check my posting history. You surely must remember I even involved you after the 2014 season in that "fan card" deal that we tried to start up again out of frustration. My first post after the Scot hire, though mostly positive, referenced the concern about his history with alcoholism and how it's scary to think about how it'll mesh with (at the time) one of the most consistently unstable organizations in the league. Furthermore, I've never downplayed Snyder's role in the massive failure that was the organizational structure of the franchise for years. His hiring process still concerns me to this day and I've posted extensively on this matter. So I don't know why you're telling me about your concerns and why they're justified... that's not the issue here. The issue isn't about having concerns, the issue is about allowing those concerns to surface based on flimsy evidence and rampant speculation. That shouldn't happen... it should remain in the back of our heads until there's proof. The concerns being there isn't an excuse for panic and paranoia. Worse, it shouldn't justify bad journalism, even if the concerns end up true. 1) Me neither, I agree. But I'm not sure how valid they are, either, and what exactly was "leaked". 2) This one is weird for me and I'm a big Jay guy. Since when is this a thing two years out? Usually, coaches get extended before going into their last season so as to avoid being a lame duck, but two years out? I don't understand why this became a big deal this offseason. I'd love for Jay to get extended, but I don't see the issue here. He's still under contract for two more years, talk of him being a lame duck is way overblown. I mean, what's the end point here? "Coach only has three years left on his deal, they should extend him so people are comfortable to sign here for three years because the last year is a lame duck one and they don't want to be here just two years"! When does it end? Besides, we could see an extension happen at any time this year. Is it really a problem if it happens midseason and not pre-Free Agency or that it didn't happen pre-defensive coaching search? Just a weird thing to be bothered about two years out. The possibility of him being fired at the end of the upcoming season shouldn't be something to panic about at this point. 3) Hasn't happened yet. This is what I'm taking about. Panicking before anything has happened. It's ridiculous. When it does I'll be right there with you in terms if anger. Before then? It's silly. 4) We don't know if the situation that was "created" came about because of a sound decision. Even Cooley, who you're referring to here, also speculated that it could be something positive. You're not including that. Heck, even if it is bad in one way, it doesn't mean it's a poor decision. Like, what if Scot has actually fallen off the wagon and the team is protecting him by doing this? What if they're trying to help him behind the scenes? We have no idea, but the decision could be a positive one in many ways. But it doesn't matter. The "ensuing ****storm" isn't justified, and even you're admitting to that. Yet, somehow you want to still lay the majority of the blame at the feet of the organization's decision because of their past. I wanted to circle back to this, since you used it as an example. See, where it fails here as a response to what I was saying is that it's one thing to think it, to have concerns, to wonder if he's "using again"... but it's another to openly confront him on it or assume the worst. Let alone spread it around the entire neighborhood, right? They'd probably like to keep it in the family, too, which is what the organization has done. Furthermore, this example doesn't fit because in this case there's actually something legitimately wrong in terms of missing money. In the case of Scot being kept from the media it could mean many things, and they don't have to be bad. It could even include his own desire of wanting to avoid them. This example fails on numerous levels, brother.
  8. If this is going to descend into another same old regurgitation of the same old points made by the sane old posters then it's going to get merged here by the same old mods. Let's keep this about the OP's main theme, otherwise take it to the other thread.
  9. See twitter thread. They've erased the segment from the archives of ESPN980. Crazy stuff. I hate how ugly this has gotten on all fronts. What bothers me the most is that the team and local media really had a good relationship the last two years it seemed, better than anything it's been since Snyder bought the team, and now it's all getting trashed. Frustrating. Hopefully nothing comes out of this because: 1) Obviously I'd rather the FO be stable and have their **** together than not and; 2) I don't want those among the local media to feel justified with how they went about things recently in any way. And they will feel vindicated, unfortunately, if something ends up coming out as true.
  10. Just ten years? Where've YOU been?
  11. Except, in this case, they're not citing sources and are even directly admitting to speculating. They haven't gotten anything from Redskins Park. That's actually their problem. The only thing they've gotten is being denied access to Scot for the time being. Everything else has been speculation, and admittedly so. This isn't like in the past where they'd cite "sources within the organization" or "sources close to those involved" or whatever. They're not even doing that. No matter what happens, it doesn't change the bad journalism we're seeing now. It shouldn't be accepted as anything other than that. Maybe the FO is about to implode like we've seen a million times and everything that's been built the last two years is about to collapse... but it won't make any of this right. You should be mad these guys are sitting on this info like you think and not just directly telling us. Why are they playing games? Why not cite sources, even anonymous ones? Are they protecting the team, too? I'm pretty sure if they really had something they'd just come out with it and crush them directly, citing sources from within. Until I see that I'm not going to buy any of it.