goskins10

Members
  • Content Count

    7,016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

1 Follower

About goskins10

  • Rank
    The Heavy Hitter
  • Birthday 10/21/1960

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    10/21/60
  • Interests
    Golf, Football, Hockey, Cards
  • Redskins Fan Since
    1967
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA
  • Zip Code
    30326

Recent Profile Visitors

10,606 profile views
  1. Yes and most of those studies have concluded that significantly raises teachers salaries would not impact the talent attracted enough to for anyone to really make that case. Hence teacher salaries stay low. The bigger point being there are more people that will go after money than are staying away due to lower wages. This is nice fantasy that fans have. Whiel some players may not have the same level of elite athleticism as some other players and out work them, they are all world class athletes - including the scrap heap of guys rejected. I know its a nice story to hear about a guy who works his way up. But make no mistake, they are incredible athletes compared to the average person. When you have the top 2000 people in the world in a single profession, the level of athlete that even gets a look is extraordinary. What fans see is the contrast from say the top 40 or 50 to the bottom 100 or so and see some great disparity. But they were all born with world class athleticism and natural apbility. Not to mention, again you can "moxie" your way to a 4.4 40 or being 6' 7" 300 lbs and still run a 4.8 40. Of course they would - and I said exactly that. The difference is the sheer number of opportunities. When there are only 2016 positions, you can easily weed out the pretenders. With the millions of teachers it is much harder to be selective. As far as it pertains to football and is directly related to this issue, I kept it here. Could be in the tailgate but this nothing political - at least I do not see it that way and do not intend on going there. This is more a discussion of societal norms/expectations and how they apply to football. But I can be done here. I just found it a really good off-season topic, especially given the issue with Trent. It seemed to be directly related.
  2. goskins10

    ESPN: Eagles Sign Wentz to $128 Million Extension

    Just because something has not happened before does not mean it will not happen. At some point salaries will get too high. When will it happen? Who knows. But each bad contract should get teams closer. Maybe not. But if they don't the quality of the game will suffer and than so will viewership and revenues. How much will it correct? Maybe not much. Maybe a lot. But eventually there will be a tipping point We just have not reached it yet.
  3. Hmmm. Fair? Who said anything about being fair? Negotiations are rarely fair. You use whatever leverage you have. Not to mention the medical could be quite valid. And it could have been an ex player who threw that out there. May have not been either side. I do not think the media made it up, but they could have blown it out of proportion. Or they could have blown the money out of proportion and the medical is the real issue. We may never know. In the end, they come to agreement or they do not. Either way we all move on. It's just business.
  4. This is a really interesting conversation - The socio-economics of professions. Not directed at you but here are some thoughts - and I promise to bring this back to football. We do in some ways choose our professions but not always. I totally agree with whoever said not all people can be teachers. And the top teachers in their fields do get compensated. But in general I also agree that teachers are undervalued and over-worked. But isn't some of that by design? And while I can choose football as a profession - I can't learn my way or be taught to be 6' 5" 280lbs and run a 4.7 40. Or throw a ball 70 yds on a dime. Or be able to block 300lb linemen without ending up in traction. Or have a 30 inch vertical leap. Those are just a few examples. So yea, you have some leeway but not everyone can do anything. So for teachers, let's say we start paying teachers at the entry level $400,000/yr. Do we think that will improve education, make no impact, or make education worse? Where I am going with this is that there is an argument to be made that the best teachers don't do it for the money. They do it for the challenge and the love of teaching (yes I knows it's probably a bit altruistic, but having been a teacher myself and coming from a family of teachers at different levels, I am at least coming from a place of some experience). If it becomes such a high paying jobs the profession will begin to attract those that are not really in love with teaching but they just want a check and are good enough to pass but not truly good teachers. Now fair enough, you already have some of that, but I can see it getting worse. And I am not at all saying teachers should not get more. My example was extreme. But where is the line? Is 25% more? 50% more? 200% more before they start to attract those that just want a check? I have no idea but it is reasonable question. How does this apply to football - there are definitely guys that love the game and some that just want a check. And that big check drives them to maybe be better. Why would that not happen in teaching? The difference? There are a very limited number of spots where you get paid to play football. The sheer numbers of teaching positions means that there will be a much greater number of people who just want a check and could care less about your child's education but are Ok enough to get the check. Also, in fairness to players, you have a very limited of time to make the money you can make. And again, not everyone can pick that profession and be even mildly successful. There is an extremely small number of opportunities. Football (or any sport) takes certain physical attributes that cannot be learned or taught. If I am reasonably intelligent and work hard I can teach myself certain topics well enough to teach others. But you still need to be a good teacher to truly do a good job, which brings me back to the people just getting a check. Much easier to do that in teaching as there are exponentially more opportunities. Now, the real issue I see with fans and player salaries - they are more than willing to turn on a player instantly who asks for more money but are willing to turn a blind eye to the owners, and even defend them, who undervalue players and take advantage of fans who want to see the game - to the tune of $100Ms. Also, what is wrong with asking for a raise? Have you never asked for a raise? Or left a job because you felt they did not value you? And to hell with the contracts. Some of you are so stuck on that you can't see anything else. Contracts are renegotiated in all facets of business all the time. Things change. You can bet the team would have no issue with coming to Trent to renegotiate if they felt he was not worth it - or release him and take the dead cap hit. The issue is people see those big numbers and think - man **** them. Look at all that money and they want more! But it's all relative. Those numbers in relative terms and when you consider they have a very limited amount of time to earn that money are still high but not to the extent some take it. Further if they are the reason that franchise is making more money shouldn't they be compensated? The market will decide if they are right. If Trent asked for more money, if he is worth it - or he just had good timing (no problem with that at all) then he will get paid. If not, the team will move on. And I have no problem with either of the decisions. If the team decides he is not worth what he wants and moves on, (unless it's something ridiculous like he wanted the next two years guaranteed and that's it), then I have no problem at all with either the team or Trent. If they pay him I have no problem with him or the team. In the end, he asked for a raise. Either he is worth it and gets the raise, or he is not and he doesn't. When the decision is made everyone moves on.
  5. So exactly what was answered? So OK, they worked hard. The result is the same the line was ****. It really does not matter if the lack of performance is due to injuries or not. The fact is the line was not good in run blocking. How exactly is that Perrine's fault? You said they squandered their good work. But they did not do good work. The cause is moot. The result is they did not do a good job run blocking. Even AP had trouble finding yards as the season went on. Is he a bad back? Not really seeing where you are going with comments from a QB on another team. I do not mean this to be a smart ass, just factual. Unless you have the Redskins playbook you have no idea if it's any different. So his comments really have no bearing here whatsoever. Just to be clear, I do not think Perrine is a good back. But I do not see an issue with Jay talking him up at this time of year.
  6. Bruce should have gotten out in front of it before Jay had to do his press conference. He could have done so with a press release. He didn;t need to hold a press conference. A simple - The team and Trent are in contact wrong towards resolution. So Ok, he didn't "send" Jay out but he let him take shots he should not have. Yes, Jay would have gotten questions but had Bruce done his job, Jay's answer could have been - That's between Bruce and Trent and I believe Bruce covered it. Please ask him.
  7. Kind of two points. His statement above is exactly that - we have talked and are working on it. He of course said it in a kind of smuggish asshole way and it was maybe a day or so late, but in fairness it is what he was saying. And he did say it fairly quickly. That statement came out June 7th. I think that's the point some were making about you posting it a few days late. Again I have no problem with someone re-posting something, but in fairness he made the statement several days before you posted it. The second part I agree 100% and said so the day this whole thing came down and they initially sent Jay out to take the abuse. He did come out a few days later, but i agree it could have come sooner. So again I definitely agree with you on this point. Bruce is a ****ing coward. At least in terms of how he deals with the business end of things. Anything negative and he sends Jay or Doug out. He did that with the initial Rueben Foster issue. Then when there is some positive press to be had, he takes the rounds. I would have gained some respect for him had he let Kyle Smith or even Doug take those rounds. Then it's at least consistent. He is just not getting into the spot light, good or bad. But no, when it's good he is all over it. When it's bad he sends a someone else out to take the abuse.
  8. I see your point and do nto totally disagree. But I am nto sure I would draw the conclusion that the medical staff issue is totally false. In fact you could also read it that the money is very minor and that medical staff isa bigger problem. What i do think we can glean from this is that there is not as big an issue between Trent and the team as it's being made out to be. For me, this is actually more important. It was posted a few times. However it's easy to miss. The pages are flying fast and furious. And it's not the end of the world to re-post. Some others may have missed it too. It's an important revelation. The biggest reason is that the references to the reports were taken out of context. This is not at all directed at you. Just going off the topic. Many quoted only the "I know what is true." part as some nefarious attempt by Bruce. They left the part out that he talked to Trent and he was leaving their private conversation private. Man I hate defending Bruce as I loathe him. It makes me throw up a little. But facts are facts. You have to quote the entire quote not just the part that looks bad. The bottom line is the two sides are talking to each other and not making it public. I get someone did, but it does not mean it was either Trent, Bruce or Trent's agent. Could even be a disgruntled ex player. We have a few of those out there - Looking at you DJ and Zach!
  9. Squander the o-lines work? With all due respect, I kind of laughed out loud on that one. Per Football Outsiders (not perfect but at least have some solid metrics), last year the Redskins were 26th in run blocking. In 2017 they were 21st. In 2016 they were 6th but that was an anomaly as 2015 they were 21st. Much of that was injuries but not all. This oline has not been good at run blocking for some time now. Pass blocking? Yes, they are decent. But run blocking? They are mostly ****. At one point late in the season they either led the league or were close to the top of RBs getting hit before the line of scrimmage. Jay and the coaches know something the fans either don't know or ignore, to be really successful you need to develop players. That means living through some bumps and bruises to get them to a better place. By all accounts Perine has worked his ass off to get stronger and faster. He had a nice mini-camp. If, and this is a big if, he continues then why shouldn't he get more touches? AP cannot handle a full load anymore. Love will be on PUP if not end up on IR (he was an investment in the future). Thompson will be injured at some point and Guice is an unknown - although if healthy I do see him getting the bulk of the touches. If you can develop a guy already in house why not? If he still shows fumble issues you cut him. That will show itself in TC and preseason. But in the meantime why not talk him up a little, at least publicly. I like the idea of him being a fullback type guy - show some 2 back sets with him and Thompson on passing downs and open the possibilities. The main point here is that Jay and the coaches are working to develop guys. If they can get production out of Perine why not. And in the meantime talking him up a bit may help you if someone has a RB need but it doesn't hurt you in any case.
  10. No because that's not exactly what Jay said. Jay said that Perine was one of the top performers on offense. That's it. And to put that in context, Love is not playing. Guice is not playing, they are babying Thompson as he rehabs and also limiting Peterson. Perine got a lot of work since the RBs in front of him are either injured and not practicing (Love and Guice) or were injured and rehabbing (Thompson) , or have a lot a carries in their career and do not need a lot of work in June (AP). So no, I am not concerned at all. it's June not late August or September and Jay just said Perine had an nice camp. Nothing about him being the best RB.
  11. goskins10

    The current status of the Redskins o-line.

    I am very close to your list: LT - Trent - No doubt here. The current strife is a bump in the road. They make this happen. If they do not, it's likely to be a FA, or someone not currently on the team. LG - I do have a preference. I expect one of the 2 draft picks to win this job but I want and expect it to be Wes Martin. Flowers is a possibility but I really hope he gets beat out. C - Chase - Not much discussion here. RG - Brandon S. He is a beast. RT - Likely Moses. He led the league in penalties last year with 14. See chart below. But in fairness he only had 5 all of 2017. He had 7 in 2016. But I would love to see the guy get beat out. But that's not likely. We will have to wait a few mix.
  12. goskins10

    The current status of the Redskins o-line.

    Yea, Davis had 3 drops in 36 targets - almost 10%. In fairness he had about the same drop % at Thompson (5 in 55 targets) and Crowder (4 in 49 targets). I know people like to claim Doctson has a drop problem, but he had 3 drops in 78 targets - 3.8%. He was only behind Reed who had 3 drops in 84 targets or 3.6%. Apparently a single drop in the KC game 2 yrs ago counts for 10+ drops a season to some fans, facts be damned. Interestingly Davis led all receivers in yds per reception at 14.7 (347 yds on 25 receptions).
  13. goskins10

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    I get what you are saying. We have all felt the futility over really the last 20+ years. But in fairness what does the record in 2000 have to do with right now? With this coming season? None of those players or coaches are here. And the question on the video was not who has been the best franchise or who will have more wins for the entire NFL. It was specifically who will win more this season the Giants or the Redskins. While it's certainly no slam dunk, the Redskins are better a least one paper than the Giants and have been the last 4 or season which is much more relevant to how they will do this coming season. They got rid of the best player on each side of the ball in OBJ and Olivier Vernon and anyone one of the top D players in Collins and unless all their top draft picks turn into instant studs, they having not much to replace them. And Eli will be starting. They are living in the past with him. He has not been good for several years. They do have Barkley and still a decent but not nearly as good front 7. Neither team is likely to go anywhere. But if I were to put money on it, I would take the over for Washington (provided a tie is a push). Even with an 11-5 2016 season the Giants are 25-38 over the last 4 yrs vs Wash at 31-32-1. Not saying that is a great record but it is better than the **** the Giants have put up. That's a 2nd a 3rd and 2 4ths vs the redskins with 1 st and 3 rds. Again, this is not to say either are going to be "good". But us better than the Giants? I like those odds better than the reverse.
  14. goskins10

    Will the "Spirit of the Cap" exist in 2020?

    Possibly, but not the point at all. My point was they did do it before so why even tempt fate? Why give them the chance? That would just be dumb as hell. More to your comment - it was not considered wrong by the NFL owners and they completely got away with it. What would stop them from at least trying? They have all the mechanisms in their favor to get away with it again. Why would they not do it again if given the opportunity? Again, just take the opportunity out of their hands. To test those waters would be really stupid. Now, if the players are smart, they will build something into the CBA to address situations like ours where we are saddled with a huge CAP hit for guy who is injured. I said this elsewhere, teams should be able to say have the top two CAP hit players on IR not counted. You could even do it on a week to week basis or at the end of the year prorated by how much they played. They really need to address this.
  15. goskins10

    Will the "Spirit of the Cap" exist in 2020?

    It was New Orleans and the Raiders. They did not get the extra CAP taken from us and dallast. While I agree with your sentiment, what you stated is not quite accurate. The Redskins did not follow the previous CBA. They loaded a bunch of CAP from Albert Hainsworth and D'angelo Halls contracts into the uncapped season to reduce their CAP the following seasons when the new CBA was put in place. But I agree they did nothing wrong but go against a back door directive that should have had no teeth to it. The problem with that is that first the league approved the contracts. Also, several other teams actually did the same thing but they choose to not go after them. Look at Julius Peppers contract with the Bears. They dumped all $12.5M of his signing bonus in the uncapped season. That put them over the CAP from the previous year yet they let that go. They did it on a lesser scale with a few other players that also led to them being over the previous CAP. The Packers did the same, although again not on as big a scale. Now the Redskins did make a mistake in being so egregious. They attempted to dump a huge part of Albert's contract while also doing so with Hall. But still, if there is no CAP there is no CAP. Bottom line is the players got fleeced in the previous agreement. The worst part of the entire agreement was the clause that the teams could not be taken to court for anything they did before the 2011 season. They thought that meant people like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees had to drop their lawsuits - which they did. But then the league went after a few specific teams about the uncapped season and the players had no recourse. Having said all that, if the redskins try that again, they deserve to be fried. I understood why they did it last time and IMO they got railroaded. But don't even come close to doing it again. That would be really really stupid at this point.