• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Bang

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 08/15/1963

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    August 15 1963
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
  • Location
    Solomons, MD
  • Zip Code
  • Interests
    Filling out forms
  • Occupation
    Web Developer/ Graphic designer / Animator

Recent Profile Visitors

9,452 profile views
  1. As to hardball.. it all depends on the situation. I am not blanket anything, players should (never) do this, teams should (never) do that. it's all individual situations, not every player is the same. and IF this is a situation of a stick up because of a lack of quality depth, i'll be plenty pissed. Bad form. And IF he is trying to angle more money for other reasoning, i'd have to see how much because I believe his best years are in his rear-view. A player like LeVeon bell playing hardball.. hey, he's one of the best, so he took his chance and the Steelers didn't accept. I had no problem with either move by either side in something like that. I wanted the team to sign Cousins,, didn't like their stance. But, i also tend to believe that no matter what opinion i may have of any of these situations, i don't / can't know every fact involved, and as time has gone by, i've come to believe Kirk is about Kirk, and what he did get paid is too high. I think we've come out of it OK. I also am with you on Bruce's statement. Folks are quick to kill him, but both camps have said mum. So, i'll hold up til i see what is actually going on, and how it all works out.. because now this afternoon i am reading things that suggest that they had known he wouldn't report and that a negotiation was lready ongoing. so, i m officially now moving into the camp of "Who knows" ~Bang
  2. "Level headed" we talking about the same me here? And no, i don't buy the medical staff angle, i think it's a combination of some half truth, maybe a factor, and Jason laCanfora has suggested it is bigger.. Wit33 was right on this when he said to me earlier on in our conversation that a lot of what we're basing off of is conjecture. But, I tend to fall back on the word od deion, and several others.. when they say it ain't the money, it's the money. How much he wants, IF he wants more money.. either way, the timing stinks, and IMO is timed to specifically cause a panic, while leaving time before training camp to get the deal completed. As to some other points.. if a player in the NFL has an issue with the training staff doing patch up so he can play... maybe they should recognize that is what they do, and have always done. If he has an issue with playing hurt, he's done it enough that he could have been fed up much sooner. i don't think he was forced to play when he didn't want to. It's one of the things that have endeared him o us. We (could) count on him for as much as he could give. BUT, as i read a few pages back in the thread. this medical staff issue (if it is) apparently stems from them mis-diagnosing his malignant growth as "NFL players all get bumps on their heads".. i am at a loss for words. 1. they are a sports team training staff, not oncologists or any other sort of specialist that should or would be able to treat or even test for malignant tumors. (Maybe someone knows different on this? Are they qualified in this area?) 2. because their jobs are to handle sprains, bones, ligaments, and to prep players to play, they shouldn't even be expected to be the player's personal physicians beyond their football related health. 3.. this was February.. and we find out of his discontent at minicamp 4 months later... when it can be demonstrated thru the inadequate backups just how bad it could be without Trent. 4. I don't know why people expect me to be OK with a guy playing hardball at this juncture of an offseason in which we could be making strides towards being better all around. It's like being OK with a guy who robs a bank because the door is open. it's bad form, it harms the team, and in a sense it is a betrayal. As to benefits of the doubt... a contract stick up is a contract stick up is a contract stick up. Until i see otherwise, that is what i think it is. According to rumors, since it isn't about the money, he won't take any extension with more money to stay here. According to what i've read, it's about principal. So if he does accept more.. then **** him twice, as far as I'm concerned. Because then deion's ords are true again. "when they say it isn't about the money, it's about the money". And using threats to our rookie, to the future of the franchise to corner them into giving him more.. I'm supposed to respect that, be happy with it? Not likely. I don't like liars, for one, and especially since that would indicate that he is using the team's faith and trust that they placed IN HIM against them. Yeah, no respect for that. How to lose fans after a Hall of Fame career in one easy step. ~Bang
  3. So it seems o me that we began our conversation with you telling me my assessment lacked perspective because you felt i was not taking the individual player into account when making a statement about big guys over 30... and now we are to the point where you are comparing Trent to other over-30s ... while taking absolutely no stock in the individuals other than their age. Of all of those guys, the only one with as consistent a track record of missing games as Williams is Brown. The rest of those names have track records of playing entire seasons over th last six years. Peters had a single season in which most was lost to a knee, in 2017. Other than that, 2 games. Solder missed a season to a knee, and has no other seasons in which he has missed more than one game (2 of them.) this does not compare.. except for age. and sorry, but investing millions and unbalancing your cap because you can make a comparison to one player, Brown, is ridiculous. It lacks perspective. ~Bang
  4. What does weight have to do with a guy with continual leg problems? Tackles battle with some of the biggest guys on the defense all game long, often while backpedaling. Knees take a MUCh larger pounding and are under a MUCH larger constant stress due to the weight. he is in piles all day, he is in big clusters of huge men shoving.. all day. this in no way compares at all to a receiver who is 100 lbs less, with rules in place to make it so no one can even touch him unless he has the ball, which happens about 6 to 8 times per game on avg. Even when he's blocking, the difference between what he does and what the tackle does in terms of physical violence is VAST. Like as in "why am I having to explain this" vast. "what am i using to support he's on the decline"? Trent has not played a complete season in a long time. 6 years ago was the last time he played 16 games. 2013. This supports the notion that he is on the decline. This is a trend. if it was you who were negotiating a contract with him, it would be the first thing you bring up. Football players, especially big linemen who's legs start to do that to them so regularly... the writing is on the wall. Six years since his last full season. You think he can play five or six more years, well, let's just say I wouldn't bet a dollar on that. 2 or 3 tops is where i'd put my money. "throw the dude a bone" Yes, why not just re-work a plan to throw a bone, add to the cap hit, and subtract from our overall cap space to throw a bone. It's not a bone. it's salary and bonus and a tight cap, and it is an incredibly sensitive balancing act to manage. "throwing bones" .. there is no value in this, there is no future in this, and once again, what a player is PAID is an investment on his future contribution. and again, no one will ever believe Trent can play out another contract extension. Almost guaranteed that the Redskins have only a minor contingency plan in place to renegotiate with him after his current deal runs out when he's nearly 34. You say it's not Trent's responsibility to worry about anyone else. Fine. i don't have to like it. He is ****ing with the potential of the team getting better, he is throwing a wrench into the works on purpose. You can like it, defend it, accept it, but i won't. i am a fan, and i don't watch them for the business aspect of it. i watch so i can see them play football, and hopefully win. Things that start to mess with that, as a fan i don't like it. if he was UP for contract, OK. If he was 28 and looking to extend, OK, but he isn't. He's 31 with injury problems, and the ONLY reason he's doing this now is because he perceives an opportunity to extort the team, and what it does to the rest of the team be damned. "Team leader".. this is one of those things folks like to say about him. That isn't leadership. Not in any language. In my opinion, what he's doing is hurting the team, threatening the team, and doing so for selfish reasons. Tell me what of that i should just happily accept because good ol' Trent is just a swell guy? ~Bang
  5. to him i am sure trying to leverage make's plenty of sense. It's a dog eat dog world, after all.. But i follow the team, and his stick-up with the leverage of a threat to our rookie QB is something i don't like. Period. i don't buy the story about the doctors. i think it's a holdup. i think he is biting the hand. As to the rest... The perspective you missed is simple. You pay for what he can DO going forward, not what he has done in the past. Over 30 has to be taken into consideration when figuring your salary structure and it's implications going forward, especially with the injury history. Or in other words, taking Trent's specific situation as i did in the post you quoted and apparently ignored while telling me that individuals should be considered. i made no blanket statement, i just didn't say the name. figured it wasn't necessary, but since it seems to be... . Trent is currently 31. Trent has an extensive and consistent injury history. I trust you are following along with the perspective here. You do not pay again for that at this juncture of his career. There is no investment there. His Hall of Fame career is why he has collected what he's been paid to date, which is substantial. You don't pay into the future for current and ongoing decline. Period. So he can try, but if it were me, i'd give him option 3. no trade, no release. go home and look for work when you're almost 34 and a free agent. as to the .. uh,, comparison.. Julian Edelman is a 198 lb wide receiver, not a 300 pound lineman. ...perspective? P-shaw. ~Bang
  6. So i am to think that all of the reasoning that are on headlines are just made up imaginings over what the problem is? This article "Soon after news leaked out that Williams wanted a new contract. While he does have two years remaining on his deal, news of his desire for a new contract did not come as a shock to anyone." So, while it doesn't say "trent said...".. somebody leaked something... does it seem like a leak the team would make? Logically speaking, it doesn't, especially given the rest of the line about no one being surprised. The next day Jason LaCanfora, who as goofy as he may be IS working for CBS, a large media outlet,, said the troubles run deeper than money and alluded to sources suggesting the medical issues. He might be making it up, he hasn't got the best record among Redskins fans. But if he's not, again, is this something the team would leak? I would think that if Trent had made this known months ago, they would have addressed the potential for a problem somehow in the draft or in free agency, but they didn't. I don't belie vei n bluffs at this level. And neither do they.. if threats are made, the answer is not to o absolutely nothing to prepare. regardless of how we'd all love to believe they's just so dang't stoopit, they're really not, and they would probably have made at least some attempt to shore up beyond signing the world's worst tackle Ereck Flowers on a one year deal. But, anyone can believe what they want, i guess. People tend to follow patterns. And this looks to me like a guy who thinks he has leverage... which happens quite often in the NFL. for those who think we should pay... in the NFL losers stay losers by paying guys for what they did rather than what they can do. Paying a player is an investment on what he can do in the future. not a reward for what's done in the past.. not on players over 30 with extensive injury history. ~Bang
  7. Bang

    An assault on American democracy is underway

    Un-American activities. Subverting the Constitution. Traitors. And if you support them, so are you. ~Bang
  8. Maybe instead of a sports training staff he should have gotten a second opinion from physicians more geared towards such things. Sort of common practice when something potentially serious is discovered. ~Bang
  9. i say give him the third option, the one in which Snyder gives him a TV and tells him to go home and watch. His contract is up in 2 years. Good luck at near 34. This is a shakedown attempt, using Haskins health and development and zero depth as leverage. So let him know what demands end up getting him. 6 weeks ago he presumably felt the same way if it's the medical staff he's upset with,and 6 weeks ago the Redskins would have had more option to be able to try and make a move. But he waited til now, painting the team as deep into a corner as he could. First he said he wanted a new deal or to be traded, then after a day of backlash, oh, uh, it's the uh, doctors, yeah. that's it.. it's the healthcare.. "Whenever they say it isn't about money, it's about money" - Deion Sanders. Trade for someone if we have to, but do not trade him. Send him home. ~Bang
  10. This is why presidential tweets are a bad idea. The thought sometimes just doesn't get across. I very much doubt that as idiotic as he is, he is saying the moon and Mars are an actual part of one another.. part of the space program seems much more logical, and I'd assume what he meant. You can't kick at everything.. it sounds like tan suit / mom jeans bull****... just ringing in the left ear. ~Bang
  11. Bang

    The Own3d Thread.(Keep it clean)

    Looked like him ~Dang
  12. Agreed. this conversation goes like this. "It happened again. we should do something." "**** you, and shut the **** up about it. Go buy another gun if you want to control something." "But we have this huge problem, and we should do something about it" "We did, back in 1776. Now get back to the shutting the **** up about it part." "But i have this idea, and here it is..." "Which part of "**** you" don't you get?" rinse, repeat. ~Bang
  13. i hear you, and hope always exists. But i am a realist, and realistically speaking the ****ing lunatics run the asylum. Zero hyperbole intended. the NRA has strangled common sense with fear. their toads in congress have spread the fear happily while cashing the fat checks that keep them complicit. Every shooting rings the cash register. So much money and power and now corruption from other nations who have been trying to destroy us since they could find us on a ****ing map means we will not get anywhere. Thy don't even have to make SENSE anymore and te polarized lunkheads will repeat it. Very serious national mental health problem. answer: more guns. restrictions against mental health problems.. LIFTED. THIS is what they consider SENSIBLE. There is no language on earth in which this is not utter insanity. and yet here they are, saying it every ****ing day. It's over. I mean unless we take up arms to take down the corruption and destroy those destroying us... which is sort of counter productive to the whole idea of gun control. But again,, realist. i am figuring armed conflict in the US has a better than even chance of happening anyway. ~Bang
  14. i don't discuss gun control because it's a debate that is over. There are none, won't be any and a war will be fought before any meaningful measures could ever be enacted. There's no point discussing it. it's a battle lost. there are now too many guns in circulation to make a difference. As usual we do not look to the root of problems, we allow fearmongering to dictate terms that serve the fear and nothing else. This by and large is how we are now governed entirely. ~Bang