Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Settle an argument about Pierce


Thirtyfive2seven

Recommended Posts

Can someone tell me how much the Skins offered Pierce and how much the Giants actually paid him?

I know we let him go because you can't pay a linebacker who didn't make the pro bowl even though he should have andno matter how good he was more than M. Washington and L. Arrington.

Thanks!

Who cares. Lemar Marshall is better than Pierce any way. Marshall had 130 tackles and 4 INTs this year. Better stats that Pierce a year ago. The hell with Pierce!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to 03/04/05 WP:

"Pierce signed a six-year, $26 million contract yesterday, but kept his promise of providing the Redskins an opportunity to match New York's offer. The Redskins felt that the deal -- which included a $6.5 million signing bonus -- was too expensive and would damage their offseason plans even more."

Google........learn it, live it, love it.......

Cheers,

CLBinMD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares. Lemar Marshall is better than Pierce any way. Marshall had 130 tackles and 4 INTs this year. Better stats that Pierce a year ago. The hell with Pierce!

Pierce kept the defense disciplined on the field, you can't put that in statistics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins didn't have the throw-weight of the Arrington contract on the books the smart move would have been to re-sign Pierce and start the same trio we had end up last season - Marshall at WLB, Pierce at MLB and Washington at SLB :)

The inability to sign everybody and especially another linebacker to a big contract is one of the opportunity costs of having to suffer LaVar Arrington and his mercurial personality on the team.

Believe me, #56 ain't no joy when you look at what his contract has cost us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to 03/04/05 WP:

"Pierce signed a six-year, $26 million contract yesterday, but kept his promise of providing the Redskins an opportunity to match New York's offer. The Redskins felt that the deal -- which included a $6.5 million signing bonus -- was too expensive and would damage their offseason plans even more."

Google........learn it, live it, love it.......

Cheers,

CLBinMD

Thanks but that doesn't really help. Google didn't turn up anything the first time, however, a little more digging gave me this:

Actually, there are conflicting reports as to how close the Redskins were willing to come to the Giants' offer. From that same Post article by Nunyo Demasio:

According to a source with knowledge of negotiations, the Redskins declined to go any further than offering Pierce a $3.5 million bonus. Pierce did not return messages seeking comment yesterday.

This differs significatnly from the account offered by David Elfin in the Washington Times:

Although coach Joe Gibbs said the Redskins couldn't meet Pierce's contract demands, a club source said Washington matched almost all of the Giants' six-year, $26 million deal, including a $6.5 million signing bonus, but offered less during the first two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently we didn't offer him much because he said when negotiations started during the season he was only looking for a signing bonus in the $3m to $4m range, and we lowballed him. I'm guessing we only offered him a couple mil in SB money. We should've offered him $3.5m then, BEFORE he hit free agency. He would've stayed, Marshall would've been playing OLB instead of Holdman, and we wouldn't have given up so many big plays. Of course, we would've had to renegotiate a few other players contracts to fit Moss under the cap, but Snyder would've found a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins didn't have the throw-weight of the Arrington contract on the books the smart move would have been to re-sign Pierce and start the same trio we had end up last season - Marshall at WLB, Pierce at MLB and Washington at SLB :)

The inability to sign everybody and especially another linebacker to a big contract is one of the opportunity costs of having to suffer LaVar Arrington and his mercurial personality on the team.

Believe me, #56 ain't no joy when you look at what his contract has cost us.

That contract is going to bite us again if we do try and get rid of him this offseason :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently we didn't offer him much because he said when negotiations started during the season he was only looking for a signing bonus in the $3m to $4m range, and we lowballed him. I'm guessing we only offered him a couple mil in SB money. We should've offered him $3.5m then, BEFORE he hit free agency. He would've stayed, Marshall would've been playing OLB instead of Holdman, and we wouldn't have given up so many big plays. Of course, we would've had to renegotiate a few other players contracts to fit Moss under the cap, but Snyder would've found a way.

AP did say on the JT show a couple of months ago if the skins offered him 3 million he would have stayed, but at they waited too long and NY came out of no where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pierce kept the defense disciplined on the field, you can't put that in statistics

He also faced a weak schedule and played when teams knew they only had to score 17 points to win against us last year.

Marshall has done a good job.

Pierce left for about 1M in total I heard.

**** the guy he is too small and will be overwealmed in the future when guys like Strahan retire and leave him exposed. 1/2 his game last year was owed to guys like Griffin/Salavea/Wynn giving him good blocking so he could make plays. He isn't exceptional but he is a good player and knows the game better than Marshall does at this point.

The Bottom line here is that he wasn't worth more than Washington to the defense. In my opinion they made the correct assessment, in retrospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am worried about that, and I don't want to start another Arrington thread because it's been discussed to death. But, do you think that Redskin Management is screwing Lavar because of all the off season (and recent) comments and problems he's created? They benched him, and now he thinks that they will cut him. Is this season going to be a salary cap disaster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am worried about that, and I don't want to start another Arrington thread because it's been discussed to death. But, do you think that Redskin Management is screwing Lavar because of all the off season (and recent) comments and problems he's created? They benched him, and now he thinks that they will cut him. Is this season going to be a salary cap disaster?

Lavar makes about 3x what he should and the team probably doesnt want to pay him that much.

He could help the team but probably only as a situational player.

Salary cap disasters are good things when they impede much worse future cap disasters, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it for the last couple of weeks and that is Marshall=Peirce. I wouldn't have said this earlier in the year, but people forget that he has never played MLB before. He understands this defense now and is the field general that Peirce was.

Proof that he understands the game more is this week when he had that amazing pick. He wasn't supposed to be there, but he said he read Mcmahon's eyes the whole time and went with his instincts. That play right there might have saved our season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have liked to keep Pierce and keep Marshall on the outside. Pierce is such a smart football player. He does many things that don't show up in the stats. I have said before that if we could do things over again I would have not resigned Lavar and kept Pierce. That would have also left us with more money to sign other players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it for the last couple of weeks and that is Marshall=Peirce. I wouldn't have said this earlier in the year, but people forget that he has never played MLB before. He understands this defense now and is the field general that Peirce was.

Proof that he understands the game more is this week when he had that amazing pick. He wasn't supposed to be there, but he said he read Mcmahon's eyes the whole time and went with his instincts. That play right there might have saved our season.

He wasnt supposed to be there but played by instinct. sounds like someone else that gets criticized for doing the same things.

I betchu blanche gave him a earfull after that play. Not... there are somethings we just dont know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it for the last couple of weeks and that is Marshall=Peirce. I wouldn't have said this earlier in the year, but people forget that he has never played MLB before. He understands this defense now and is the field general that Peirce was.

Proof that he understands the game more is this week when he had that amazing pick. He wasn't supposed to be there, but he said he read Mcmahon's eyes the whole time and went with his instincts. That play right there might have saved our season.

Marshall to my understanding is a MLB.. He covered OLB last year for Lavar because we didn't have anyone else. I'm pretty certain MLB is his natural position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Antonio haters are going to have a lot less ammo in the Marshall vs Pierce debates when Lemar gets moved back to weakside linebacker in the offseason. Notice that despite that game-turning INT on Sunday, he didn't get a game ball from the coaching staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marshall to my understanding is a MLB.. He covered OLB last year for Lavar because we didn't have anyone else. I'm pretty certain MLB is his natural position.

He was a Safety in college and has bulked up to become a LB due to the potential we saw. He has come so far for never playing the LB position in college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...