The Hangman- C_Hanburger

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Hangman- C_Hanburger

  1. 2 hours ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

    I mean if he was still here and everything still happened as is did it would just be 2017 all over again for the past season and a half. With him barely righting the ship to a .500 mark at best.. We still aren't a playoff team with him here and we would have been just prolonging that inevitable. I mean that's what I want to think, but attitudes could have been different and maybe we'd have certain players here still if he was still here.. But just from the injury standpoint, I don't see Cousins making that kind of difference that overcomes that..

    Gruden would still be here and we'd continue to see the pansy play and pampering that got us NADA. Gruden's input MADE the Cousins debacle. Should have traded him after the 1st tag.


    So getting rid of Cousins and Gruden is a 2fer

  2. Just now, carex said:


    it says won't toll, which means won't count.  I think the either way comment might be referring to whether or not the Skins pay him

    Ya..thats the way I read it too. 2 years on his contract for next year Trade. I can't see how such a simple fraud could be executed on the NFL...too easy

  3. 8 minutes ago, Unbias said:


    That's a tricky one. Couldn't Trent lawyer up and say the growth was actually the Redskins problem to begin with? 


    IMO this is Trent's way of saying F-U. No doubt his agent and lawyer had his reason thought through before he showed up. 

    The growth..cancer or a NON Football Injury. No way is that caused by playing ball or football contact. Like appendicitis...s*it happens

    THAT and he could have had that checked way before now....

    • Like 1

  4. 40 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

    So, you're line of reasoning is the guy carefully decides to report just before his deadline where he might be in danger of not accruing a season, just so that he can then not accrue a season.  As if he hasnt had a sports lawyer carefully advising him on all of this.


    The ONLY precedent on this type of issue was Galloway. The arbiter ruled as 8 games player = accrual IN THAT CASE. There is no legal verbiage in the CBA that says 8 games. Trent is relying on a single finding as case law....Another arbitration hearing could go against HIM with these facts..who knows but that 8 game BS is a crap shoot from what I'm reading. Could go either way and Dan has better lawyers and a league that doesn't like this trend in player actions


  5. 22 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


    Correct me if I'm wrong but Clev didn't trade for any LT at the deadline so the NEED is still there in the off season. Nothing has changed really...Trent will STILL be Trade bait in March. ES was asking for a 1st and a Player...that's condemn the FO for doing your bidding...


    I want to see how this plays out on accrual. Lets see some hard ball so in the OS Trent will still have 2 full contract years as trade value.

    • Like 1

  6. 1 minute ago, SoCalSkins said:

    The commissioner has the ultimate arbitration power under the CBA. The Zeke and Brady cases solidified that. If the he refuses to play or fakes injury the Redskins need to treat this a a disciplinary case and not a medical grievance. They need to suspend him for conduct detrimental then have the commissioner intercede and suspend him for conduct detrimental to the NFL.  

    The owners need to take power back and the nonsense Jalen Ramsey and now if the reports are accurate Trent want to pull is unacceptable. 

    Which if done he would NOT get the 1 yr accrual. That is what I suggested a # of pages back..suspension for conduct detrimental and not put him on the roster. That's my tack on how to deal with it (if legal)

  7. 25 minutes ago, Ghedrick said:

    This team would be alive in this division if they had an offense that was even below average.The defense over the last 5 games  is giving up 20 points per game. This with an offense that turns the ball over and cannot move the ball.This offense is one of the worst offense in recent NFL history. While I feel the defense has under achieved they are good enough to win with.

    I thought for a long time that Jay's offense was VERY predictable and the DC's were feasting on it. Glad he's gone but the damage was done. That and the talent really sucks. Doctson (if not on IR) is better than Richardson..especially in Red Zone attempts.

  8. 17 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

    I was hoping Trent would stay home so that we could retain those 2 years left on his contract.


    I think only having 1 year left on his current deal may hurt his value, I hope I'm wrong.

    I'm wondering if Trent has to PASS a Physical and meet some weight/fitness metrics. What happens if he's fat as a toad and not in football shape. Is simple reporting enough? Or does he have to be "evaluated"?? Seems like in a CBA, simply showing up is not something the owners would accept...just thinking

  9. 1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    I posted this elsewhere but its relevant to this topic:


    Mike Jones on the radio today said Dan still totally trusts Bruce as the decision maker.    He said maybe he can see it going south if the team continues to struggle through the rest of the season and fans continue to be no shows.


    Jones didn't say this part but tying that point with what some others have said, I am gathering Bruce has sold Dan that the season can still be saved and the fans are coming back.  Jones also said there are some in that building that still are hoping that Trent comes back and they talk him into staying.  Jones agrees that Trent's  trade value would diminish in the off season and suggested they've gotten good offers for him thus far but their leverage with other teams will change for the worse in the off season because of the draft-FA.  


    Hoffman just said that from what he can tell Bruce and Dan don't get how irrelevant the team is becoming in town.   But some others in that building do.  He suggested them being in deep delusion is a major issue. 

    For God's sake trade the guy...don't repeat Cousins. Trent's words mean nothing here, look at the actions and think REPEAT.... Don't be Cousin'd AGAIN...

  10. 1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    A reporter on NFL Network 3 minutes ago, don't know his name, said as far as he's heard the Redskins continue to rebuff trade offers even ones involving first round picks. 

    Now THAT would be stupid.......IF TRUE


    Dan and Bruce just may be saying FU to the media, Skins Fans who trash him at every opportunity and they really don't care about the "Franchise" anymore. Hell, Dan is making money putting trash on the field. I hate to think an owner "hates" his team's fan base that much...but if he's as petty as you all claim. Who knows. IF they are rejecting a 1st for Trent...that's my only response to that. *I* HOPE that is not true.  I'd be through with this team if that is shown to be true. You won't get better than a 1st (1-32) after the season. Trade his ass already..(assuming Trent will accept a trade and not continue to hold out)

  11. 9 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

    Yes, so just sit on your asset, your most valuable asset, rather than get value for it, because off it, just make a point, which is pointless because nobody wants to come here in the first place. Who is he making the point to? Trent? He ain't coming back. Young players on the roster? They aren't resigning if they can avoid it? FA's? They aint coming here unless its for their final career big paycheck. The message he's trying to send has literally zero value whatsoever. Nobody that matters is listening, they're just laughing at how pathetic we are to spit in the face of the one asset that could actually help the team, draft picks, something we've been spitting on the value of ever since doofus Snyder bought the team.


    Maybe you don't see the value in waiting..but I see value in waiting to get a #1 this season. A 2 or 3 would be my asking price in the off season. Collins came here in the prime of his career...and *I* don't think a player who refuses to play, abrogates a contract, is hurt all the time and blind sides a franchise is as valuable as you seem to think. It might be that other GM's see that and say hell no to a #1. So we'll wait for the off season

  12. 9 hours ago, The Consigliere said:


    Honor contracts? Is there an icon for laugh my clucking -- off? Give me a freaking break. That is beyond hysterical. The NFL is the one professional sports league where you are essentially guaranteed to have a drastically shortened life expectancy, on average, and suffer brain damage, on average in this country, and in addition to that, the contracts aren't guaranteed. The teams themselves NEVER honor the contracts, other than rookie deals. That's the whole point of "guaranteed money,"


    DING DING DING. He got his guaranteed money for the contract he signed. So he was paid. The contract he got was lucrative at the time.

    The rest of your statement is (to use your term) ridiculous. All those factors are in the negotiation and settlement at the time. Short career span is a norm in the NFL. Don't try and tell me TW was not compensated for the last 2 years of injury plagued performance. Give me a break..

  13. 4 hours ago, goskins10 said:


    In this case - it is clear this is not just about money. He no longer trusts the training or medical staff or the entire team. So he has quit, Have you never quit your job before because you were unhappy? He is not an indentured servant. He can quit his job at any time. The consequence is he doesn't get paid and he can accumulate fines.



    Exactly, Trent can withhold his services, the FO can withhold pay. Leverage is subjective. The FO's asking price has not been met so Trent hasn't been traded, simple. This team is such a trash fire that arguing over Trent's trade value is like fleas arguing over a dead dog. This team/organization is not worth fretting about anymore.

  14. 1 hour ago, megared said:


    Not at the expense of making this team better.  Once payback crosses over into hurting the team to prove a point, you're no longer worthy to be entrusted as a steward of the franchise.


    How is Trent to blame?  The FO knew exactly how this would play out by taking this route, and did it anyways.  Every point along the way, they had an opportunity to end it, and they haven't.  And Trent still hasn't said anything, not a peep to media.  He hasn't come out and overtly thrashed the FO.  How could he have better handled this, if he does feel like he can no longer trust the team?


    What message does it send to the rest of the team, that a guy can give you 9 years of damn near HOF work, and you can't work with him to respect his wishes?  It's just petty.

    Honor his contract. A VERY Lucrative contract when he signed it. He's been paid VERY WELL for his services. The TEAM planned on having him and thus drafted accordingly. By most of the comments on here..he's been injured/not playing up to his pay check the last 2 years...ES words not mine

    1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

    It's Trent's job to look after Trent. It's Bruce Allen's job to look after the Redskins. 


    I literally couldn't care less whether Williams is making the right decision for himself or not. I do care that the guy in charge of our team would clearly rather "prove a point" than do what's right for said football franchise.


    If you ignore that and spend your time "blaming" Trent for the situation, then you're just enabling Bruce to do the worst possible job, and frankly, you're a sucker.

    break agreements he signed and was paid UP FRONT? Where do you draw the line? which players are OK to break contracts. How can a team plan? If you think it's OK for all 53 players to abdicate on their contracts at their discretion, then you are the sucker not me.


    It's not Oct 29 4PM yet either

    • Confused 1

  15. 26 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:


    Why do you keep hanging your hat on this. ONE reporter tweeted about this, and it wasn't even from a source, it was his "understanding" of the situation. Every other reporter says differently, but that guys fits your agenda so you keep quoting it. 



    This is everything wrong with Bruce and you think it's "understandable". I think that says enough about whether you're defending him or not, regardless of what you say. 



    No, there isn't. You're being had for a sucker here, buying into this mindset imo. 

    I'm waiting to see what happens at or before 10/29 4pm.  And you don't "understand" his reaction? Someone pisses in your corn flakes and you are OK with that? Examples/Precedents have value and influence people who may think about taking a similar path. If positive reinforcement fails, negative reinforcement is the other option.

    Problem guys blame Bruce more...*I* blame Trent more in THIS holdout. I blame Bruce/Scouts/Jay for the offensive trash they've put on the field. Too many High picks gone south.

  16. 22 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:


    There's a poster here with family in the league who has posted about a real offer from the Texans. Or an intended offer.


    It sounds like Bruce is answering the phone and saying "we don't want any". Every single reporter local and national is reporting that. I don't know why you feel the need to argue about the value of the trades we're being offered when the real problem is that Bruce isn't open for business.

    Again, the Browns said the cost was too Bruce gave them a price. I would think all inquires that were a #3 or worse would be rebuffed. I wish somebody from the Texans would come out and say it..if they hate Bruce that much in the league I would think that would leak out...


    I'm not defending Bruce, Just saying if I can't get better than a 3rd before Oct 29, then wait till March. I'm no fan of Bruce but Trent put the team in a bad situation with his gambit. We are not going anywhere for a while (years) by the looks of this *whole* offense. Payback at least gives Bruce a little satisfaction. I can understand that response...especially if he thinks he's gone next year (Just like Vinny, Bruce has allot of pressure being put on him)


    Even Dan has to see we are NOT CLOSE to a winning team after today. Defense...yea..Offense no way. The Oline is a mess, Richardson is a joke, AD is OLD and even if Smith comes back 100% the QB situation sucks. Trent's "value" won't solve all those holes but his "example" may dissuade future contract breakers....there is a value to that.

  17. 43 minutes ago, megared said:


    FO has said time & time again they aren't dealing Trent in season. 


    We know that the Texans, and Browns have inquired into his availability.  According to the reports, the Patriots offered their first rounder in August. 

    Patriots 1st = 2nd Round Equiv. Too early in August to accept that. We DON'T know what Texans and Browns offered (except the Browns thought the ASKING pick# was too High, so we are negotiating. A 3 is too low because we *should* at least get a 3 in the off season.)


    You guys are slamming the FO on conjecture. If we can't get better than a 3..wait till spring. Makes sense to me at least

  18. The more Trent stays at home watching TV the more the weed looks awful tempting...I said earlier that Trent wouldn't accept a trade without a new deal that replaces the lost money. If a 3 is all that the Browns have offered...wait for March. If he reports, look for any reason to suspend for conduct detrimental to the team...Don't play him and keep him away from the locker room

  19. 10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:


    Why only 45 minutes? Seems a bit kindhearted of you...  🙂  I would prefer all 60 mins....  

    I don't think he'd survive longer..he'd be whimpering to Zimmer to take him out. WHAT do we have to lose..right! I sure pay to watch that and cheer EVERY DOWN

    9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

    Good luck getting Manusky to send the house on every down.

    Danny *could* incentivize that I'm sure

    • Haha 1