Califan007

Nickname suggestions: TD McLaurin Terry McBurnin' TD McBurnin' Burnin' McTD Terry "TD" McLaurin the burner Olive Garden Scary Burn McTerraulinnnin

I think there's one question and answer missing lol...

"Obviously, I like Haskins coming in earlier and leaving later, but does that lend credence to the 'rumors' that wasn't the case until now? That's not something Bill had to make mention of but did." "I think you’re reaching here." "Is it looking like Haskins didn't care much for his chances under Gruden? " "Definitely smells that way...to the point that makes you wonder if Bill was the one leaking that info in the first place." "I’ll tell ya what... Callahan is seemingly pretty ****ing smart. Major step or not, by telling all of us that he basically silences a lot of the talk of “Dwayne must be terrible if he’s not playing” for at least a few weeks." "Sounds like he’s patting himself between the pack pockets. Cringe-worthy." "Savvy vet coach move for sure. That’s the first thing I thought." "So is Colt hurt or is Callahan pretty much turning the page on him as a QB? Case is hurt I take it?" "just wondering how Haskins went from a rookie that isn't ready to the official #2 QB in such a quick time" The reactions above...whether or not that counts as "much", are they from watching the presser or from reading the tweets?

Did you guys listen to Callahan's presser or watch the video, or are you grabbing your perceptions only from abbreviated tweets?

Can someone transcribe what was said?...The interview sounds like it was given over the speaker box at a Burger King drive-thru lol...

I dunno...I think it kinda does. "John Dorsey doesn’t seem inclined to move their 2020 1st rounder from what I’ve heard."..."Browns have inquired for a while now but have considered price steep." Saying the Browns consider the price to be too steep implies that Bruce has indeed given them a price. Saying the Browns are not inclined to trade their 1st round pick implies that they feel a 1st is too steep. From those tweets it wouldn't be out of the question to assume a 1st was part of the price Bruce conveyed to the Browns.

A very real part of me wishes this thread had been titled the same as the article: "Chris Russell: Snyder, Allen angry about Caps' success". The overuse of "Report" on twitter is a massive pet peeve of mine lol...(no offense to the thread starter, not aimed at him/her).

That can end up biting you in the ass when you don't have a coach who has established himself strong enough to guarantee he'll be around for a while, though.. Because you can end up using 2-3 straight drafts getting players to fit a specific scheme and then fire the coach. you'd either have to hire a new coach with a similar scheme or start tossing players that don't fit the new coach's scheme and start restocking all over again. Full disclosure: I'm still pissed off that we got rid of Stephen Davis for Trung Candidate because Trung fit Spurrier's scheme better lol ...

You realize the current topic was whether or not it was a good decision not to pay Kirk a fully guaranteed $28M/3 yr contract, and not whether or not Bruce and Dan are competent, right? If it helps you, let's say the same thing about the Vikings...I think it was a mistake for them to give Kirk a fully guaranteed $28M/3 yr contract (Vikings fans seem to overwhelmingly agree, by the way lol)--hell, I think it would have been a mistake for any team to do so. He hasn't been worth it so far in his careet and he hasn't been worth it during his time with the Vikings. See? I'm able to reach that conclusion without first analyzing all the moves the Vikings' FO have made concerning the QB position...which haven't been very good, for the record. Actually it's $55m for one year vs $84M for one year--in case you forgot, I was comparing Smith's contract to Cousins' contract. And I said it gave the Redskins "a little more leeway (but not much)"...emphasis on "little" and "but not much".

Nice!! ...Congrats to Collins, glad you're on our side now.

Reports: Browns Linked to bad idea, Trading for Trent Williams There are reports that the Cleveland Browns are in talks to potentially trade for Trent Williams of the Washington Redskins. Williams has outright refused to play for the Redskins due to how he was treated for an issue by their medical staff, sitting idle this entire season. There have been reports of at least the New England Patriots approaching this notion earlier in the year, which said the Patriots allegedly offered a first round pick for the stud offensive tackle. The Patriots denied the report and there has been no movement since. The biggest question with this situation is whether or not Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is willing to move on from Williams or if he'd rather force him to sit out as a message to anyone else that plays for him that they can't force their way out from this organization. In essence, that means that any potential trade partner is effectively bidding against themselves to meet a price high enough where Snyder is willing to go ahead and move Williams or hoping to catch Snyder at a point where he admits defeat and takes much less in return for him, opting to get something rather than nothing. Hopeful fans are hoping for the latter, but Snyder has been stubborn since he bought the franchise and stuck by his guns to the bitter end on some terrible decisions in the past. The problem from the Browns standpoint in addition to what they'd possibly have to give up to get Williams is what this means. It represents chasing a player in a desperate move due to poor planning headed into the season. It also likely means paying a premium to make a move that could've been made months ago. Last, but certainly not least is the fact no one knows what type of shape Williams is in at this point. He hasn't been doing anything football related other than possibly staying fit in case of a trade. [...]It just doesn't make sense. And there are a number of reports that suggest there's no truth to this rumor. And assuming the Redskins were contacted, this could've been just to see if Williams was even a possibility and if so, at what price. That would be harmless. In the event they do become serious, it adds a tinge of desperation to a season that doesn't require it, because this team has always been a year away this year. For a team with a short window trying to win right now, pushing for Trent Williams makes sense. The Patriots, for example, would make sense. The Browns simply don't. https://www.si.com/nfl/browns/news/reports-cleveland-browns-linked-to-really-bad-idea-trading-for-trent-williams/

So is Bruce in a pissing match with Williams or is he in talks to trade Williams? Or neither, and Williams will show up tomorrow to play the rest of the season for the Skins? lol...

Twitter rumors are also speculating Higgins and their 1st for Trent.

They gave Smith $55M guaranteed at signing. The remaining $16M was a vested guarantee for injury, which allows for a little more leeway (but not much). It's almost the exact same contract they offered Kirk as a starting point, that Kirk didn't counter and that everyone was saying was an "insult" at the time. It's a far more favorable contract than what Kirk got in that it made it easier to either 1) keep the QB longer than 3 years or 2) cut bait with the QB in less than 3 years. Smith's horrific injury doesn't change that. But even if you think it's a bad contract, that doesn't have any effect on the decision to not sign Cousins to $84M/3 yrs/ all guaranteed. And I'm not someone who rests his arguments on imagining worst-case scenarios as if they actually happened--i.e. we would have just lost damn near every game remaining even if Smith remained 100% healthy.

I love it when you get unnecessarily defensive of Kirk and your arrogance takes over lol...it tends to blow up in your face after a while, and then you go off and visit Westy for a month or so in Afghanistan.

You know what's kind of wild?...Before the season started, it was generally agreed that the Skins' defense and running game would be the keys to having any chance whatsoever at winning this season. Now we're generally laughing off the idea of committing to the running game having a positive effect lol...

I think it was brought down by his performance against the Pats...he graded at 28.3 in that game.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the 2nd part...kind of lol... Bruce did not make a good decision with Kirk in terms of being unwilling to trade him. He did make a good decision in not being willing to shell over $84M guaranteed for 3 years (or anything close to it). It's arguable whether or not signing him to a fully guaranteed 3-yr contract would have been smart at a cheaper price...on the one hand, it would have been affordable at, say, $20M/yr after the 2015 season ended and wouldn't have hindered the team from continuing to build, but on the other hand it means you could be looking at starting over at QB when the team is starting to grow into its own because there's no guarantee you have him beyond 3 years. It appears Bruce and Dan believed Kirk and his agent would be willing to negotiate down from a hard stance of 3 yr/fully guaranteed through normal negotiations--nobody had ever had that kind of contract before so it could have been seen as a starting point.

I thought someone posted it?...like 59.6 or something. Could be wrong... EDIT: yeah, it's several posts above yours....overall grade 56.6.

He said "Can't wait to hear how the "commitment to the run game" allowed the Redskins to win." Not "allows" the Redskins to win or "Gives them the best chance moving forward" to win. Committing to the run "allowed" a winless 0-5 team that had scored a grand total of 10 points over the last two weeks to beat a team that was giving up over 175 rushing yards per game. You both left out that underlined part, by the way lol...