Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Panthers sign LB Keith Adams

Slateman

By Slateman
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
Doesn't make sense. Skins wanted him, negotiated with his agent, but didn't get him. Last week, you all told me how the Skins FO is different than the Eagles in that you guys aren't cheap and when you want someone, you get him.

Interesting.

Clearly they didn't want him all that bad. If they did then he obviously would have been in B&G. Do you really expect people to be in uproar over missing out on a backup LB? I'm sure they're not all that heartbroken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
Posted
Clearly they didn't want him all that bad. If they did then he obviously would have been in B&G. Do you really expect people to be in uproar over missing out on a backup LB? I'm sure they're not all that heartbroken.

Why do you negotiate with a player you don't want that bad? You guys told us Eagles fans how great the Skins FO is and how they don't let little things like money stand in the way of getting what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
Why do you negotiate with a player you don't want that bad? You guys told us Eagles fans how great the Skins FO is and how they don't let little things like money stand in the way of getting what they want.

Yeah for players who will actually make a significant difference on the field and fill major weaknesses. The Skins already have an LB in Chris Clemons that is probably just as capable as Adams would have been, plus he has two years in the system. They can also draft a more talented player with their first pick in round two.

Why should they be stressing out to sign a guy who might not even see the field for them? He's hardly a major loss but if it makes you feel better then congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
Posted

He's not a major loss but the Skins wanted him....why else would they negotiate with him? I heard about how once a player comes to Redskins park, it's over. Yet Adams left and signed with a different team. Last week, there was a HUGE thread where Skins fans talked down to Eagles fans about how committed their FO is and how they get what they want.

I'm just confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
He's not a major loss but the Skins wanted him....why else would they negotiate with him? I heard about how once a player comes to Redskins park, it's over. Yet Adams left and signed with a different team. Last week, there was a HUGE thread where Skins fans talked down to Eagles fans about how committed their FO is and how they get what they want.

I'm just confused.

Ok, what are you confused about? The Redskins were desperate to upgrade at WR and the defensive line, and they did it. They also made a strong upgrade at safety. Clearly the FO is as committed as any in the league to upgrading the roster by any means possible. You're saying Keith Adams taking a better offer in Carolina disputes all of that? The collective response you're going to get here is "Who Cares?"

Adams was not an elite player and was not a lock to be anything more than a backup and special teams player. We already have a LB with more experience in the system and probably just as much skill in Clemons. We also are in the position to draft a more talented player in the 2nd round.

If you're looking for proof that the Skins don't let guys get away from Redskins park without a contract then you have it. Keith Adams got away. Big freaking deal.

The Redskins made an effort greater than nearly every other team to improve their roster this offseason. If you think Keith Adams discredits their committment to improving the team then you're reaching farther than your arms can stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
Posted

whitskins, I don't care about Adams not leaving. I'm using this as an example to point and laugh at some of your fellow posters who make audacious statements that get proven wrong. Now they'll follow you with their brand of "well, it's not the same situation" reasoning.

I understand the dynamics of NFL contract negotiations which stipulate that your team sets a price and doesn't go over that price. However, many of your fellow posters don't understand that. When the Eagles use this method, they are roundly lambasted. Then, we get a lesson on how Snyder does things. Then, when an example smacks us all in the face where the Skins wanted a player but wasn't willing to meet his contract demands, you bet your ass I'm going to make those who said this sorta thing doesn't happen at Redskins park explain what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skins4481

Skins4481

Posted
Posted

Westbrook,

well lets see...we have about 3.8 mil left in cap space. That means we have to spend the rest VERY carefully. The Eagles have like 20 mil in cap space. In the beginning of the Free Agency period, both the Eagles and Redskins targeted FA's that they coveted the most. The Redskins signed EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PLAYERS ON THEIR LIST!! The Eagles? They THOUGHT they had one LeCharles Bentley all but signed BUT at the last second he realized what stingy squirts the Eagles FO is and therefore decided to sign with Cleveland.

I know you understand this. You just dont want to accept it because of your strong homerism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skins4481

Skins4481

Posted
Posted

Lets not forget even ur star QB McNaab vented out in frustration about this. I really dont understand how you people can call Redskins fans such 'blind' homers yet you, for one, have such stong 'homerism' that you wont even accept something that even ur team's starting QB admits! Come on dude! That's just ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skins4481

Skins4481

Posted
Posted

You just keep twisting words. Really guy, you call the other dude childish? This is pretty immature if you ask me. We already signed the people that we wanted. Adams was just extra help. While you guys couldnt even sign the people you NEEDED. Do you understand now, little retard boy?

Let me break it down for you:

FA Acquisitions:

Redskins:Brandon Lloyd, ARE, Carter, Archuleta, Fauria.

Eagles: Sack of marbles.

And the 'predicament' you are TRYING to refer to would ONLY make sense if we couldnt sign NO ONE and had to make HUGE cuts, el stupido. Man, I thought Cowboys fans were dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
whitskins, I don't care about Adams not leaving. I'm using this as an example to point and laugh at some of your fellow posters who make audacious statements that get proven wrong. Now they'll follow you with their brand of "well, it's not the same situation" reasoning.

I understand the dynamics of NFL contract negotiations which stipulate that your team sets a price and doesn't go over that price. However, many of your fellow posters don't understand that. When the Eagles use this method, they are roundly lambasted. Then, we get a lesson on how Snyder does things. Then, when an example smacks us all in the face where the Skins wanted a player but wasn't willing to meet his contract demands, you bet your ass I'm going to make those who said this sorta thing doesn't happen at Redskins park explain what happened.

So, what exactly did you want to hear? The Eagles are criticized for not opening up their wallets enough for players who fill serious needs when the Redskins do. The Redskins lost out on a backup LB and special teams player. Of course people will follow by saying "it's not the same situation." That's because it isn't.

Let me reverse this question back to you. You're saying that the Skins losing out on Adams proves that the Redskins aren't always willing to write as big a check as necessary to get their guy. But you're frequently criticizing the Skins front office for overpaying for their new free agents, so does this instance with Adams somehow prove that point wrong as well? The answer in both cases is no because they are very different scenarios.

Perhaps the posters who have offended you should amend their statements to "whenever the Skins target a major upgrade to a serious team weakness, they always get their man." That would be quite accurate and would leave open the possibility that they might get outbid for a backup/special teams player who may choose to sign elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
I don't understand. So the Skins can't sign a player they want because of the salary cap?

Hmmm, what is it that everyone calls a predicament like this?

So now the Redskins are in cap hell because they chose not to sign special teams guru, Keith Adams?

Listen closely, you might be able to hear me laughing my ass off all the way in Hawaii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
Posted

whit, I'm laughing as I post. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Unfortunately, some of your fellow fans paint themselves in a corner by making such definitive statements. In their zeal to make the Eagles look bad, they trump their own FO and, time and time again, they are proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whitskins

whitskins

Posted
Posted
whit, I'm laughing as I post. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Unfortunately, some of your fellow fans paint themselves in a corner by making such definitive statements. In their zeal to make the Eagles look bad, they trump their own FO and, time and time again, they are proven wrong.

Well, I agree that no such comments should be made with such finality, even a big name player is capable of leaving the Skins without a contract, remember that Andre Carter left DC without signing after his intial visit.

Although, this is still an extremely small vindication. When the Redskins desperately need/want a player, the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor. The Eagles success in this regard is more spotty. If you want to discount this by pointing at guys like Keith Adams, then I imagine "who cares" will be the resounding response.

If I were an Eagles fan I'd shrug off the complaints about the team's success with big name free agents and counter with the Eagles' ability to fill major holes through the draft. The Skins and Eagles have different techniques, but both have brought them success in recent years.

My problem with the Eagles is if they spent a little bit more of that money they have, it would put them over the top, because they've been the strongest NFC East team in the draft for the past several years while the Redskins have been forced to surrender draft picks in order to fill massive holes left on their roster by the inept clowns who once coached here. I expect that after this year the Skins will finally be able to flex their full drafting ability under Gibbs, because the roster doesn't appear to have any glaring holes right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goaldeje

Goaldeje

Posted
Posted
If Keith Adams was never an Eagle and recently visited the Eagles then signed with the Panthers, there would be a 9 page thread about how cheap the Eagles are.

Fact.

Lord, have mercy. GO read the post directly above yours. Whitskins has done a fantastic job of explaining this to you. Your reading comprehension and stuborness are astounding.

Also, I would like to see where you admitted you are wrong. Show me five examples. The only times I have ever seen that is when you immediately follow it with a qualifier. That's not admitting you were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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