Smurf85 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 The problem is our front office only thinks year to year.So in other words they do what ever they can to win a SB this year.Which is fine,but if the player is under contract for that year.They don't really care until the year is over.Then there like **** we have to sign that guy to keep him.By that time the players just want to test the market.Lets face it everyone wants money.Even the Cooley and he will get it.If he hits the market he will get paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Art: Your philosophy is correct; however, the timing for Cooley is past. After this FA, Cooley's agent will demand $16M-$20M in guaranteed money. In fact, the Redskins most likely already approached Cooley's agent. Why pay that kind of guarantee when you can franchise tag him for about $4M? It will not make good business sense at this period in time, but the tag could lead to other lockerroom issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Art: Your philosophy is correct; however, the timing for Cooley is past. After this FA, Cooley's agent will demand $16M-$20M in guaranteed money. In fact, the Redskins most likely already approached Cooley's agent. Why pay that kind of guarantee when you can franchise tag him for about $4M. It will not make good business sense at this period in time. Yeah i am sure Cooley will be happy about that.Of course then again we like to piss our players off.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Its not harsh when you know what kind of owner you have.I would have more confidence if we knew how to keep our players.I am sick and tried of losing key core players.Pierce,Smoot,Clark and now Dock.Yet the same thing happens every year.When we let a players go everyone talks crap about him like he sucked.Everyone thinks we are going to have no problem replacing Dock.The funny thing is everyone thought that same thing with Pierce.It only took 2 years to fix our MLB.Well i mean lets hope Fletcher can fix that position. Pierce had one (1) good year with us. And he's had two medicore years with the Giants. It's not like he's a pro bowler, or ever will be. Doc will be missed, but he does not deserve the money he got, now do not I blaim him for taking that much money, because there was no way the Redskins (with their terrible owner) were going to give that much money. But Doc never really fit the type of player we were/are looking for. He's a straight blocker, that doesn't pull very well which is the type of offense we run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeGibbsThickandthin Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Cooley can be replaced. I am not sure why everyone talks about him so much. He is not a Tony Gonzo. He does not have the speed. And he is not a physical freak. I know he is that fun loving white guy who is a little corky. So fans will love him. But those are not the type of guys u bust the bank for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Pierce had one (1) good year with us. And he's had two medicore years with the Giants. It's not like he's a pro bowler, or ever will be. Doc will be missed, but he does not deserve the money he got, now do not I blaim him for taking that much money, because there was no way the Redskins (with their terrible owner) were going to give that much money. But Doc never really fit the type of player we were/are looking for. He's a straight blocker, that doesn't pull very well which is the type of offense we run. So i guess you didn't see Pierce was in the pro bowl this year.:doh: Dock might not have deserved that money,but if he was signed at the start of last year.We wouldn't have had to give him that money.See like i said people always stick up for our front office.So what are you going to say next year if we let Cooley go.He didn't make a pro bowl,he didn't deserve the money.I am sorry half the free agents we sign don't deserve the money we give them.Yet we still give it to them.So why in the **** can't we give our own players that type of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carter23 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Pierce had one (1) good year with us. And he's had two medicore years with the Giants. It's not like he's a pro bowler, or ever will be. He was in the pro bowl this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never21Forgotten36 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Cooley can be replaced. I am not sure why everyone talks about him so much. He is not a Tony Gonzo. He does not have the speed. And he is not a physical freak. I know he is that fun loving white guy who is a little corky. So fans will love him. But those are not the type of guys u bust the bank for. Um, I can't remember which game it was this year, but I distinctly remember Cooley catching a simple out pattern pass, juking the defender out of his shoes, then taking it about 50-60 yards to the house. Hes got plenty of athletic ability and speed for his position. If you don't see him as a keeper, thats fine, your opinion, but you won't get 4% of all Redskins fans to say the Chris Cooley should not be in a Skins uniform his entire career. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Um, I can't remember which game it was this year, but I distinctly remember Cooley catching a simple out pattern pass, juking the defender out of his shoes, then taking it about 50-60 yards to the house. Hes got plenty of athletic ability and speed for his position. If you don't see him as a keeper, thats fine, your opinion, but you won't get 4% of all Redskins fans to say the Chris Cooley should not be in a Skins uniform his entire career. :2cents: EDIT>>> Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graniteFallsNCskins Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Cooley can be replaced. I am not sure why everyone talks about him so much. He is not a Tony Gonzo. He does not have the speed. And he is not a physical freak.I know he is that fun loving white guy who is a little corky. So fans will love him. But those are not the type of guys u bust the bank for. What's race got to do with it?:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 At the time we signed Betts, he received MUCH more than he'd proven to be worth on the football field. We "overpaid" for him at the moment of signing and then, a few weeks later, it appeared we got a GREAT deal. This is somewhat rare that a player signs one week and a few weeks later can legitimately be said to be worth far more than he just got, but, that's what happened with Betts. I suppose I'll buy that, but I thought it was a pretty fair deal at the time too. He had just come off a 1000 yard season and he didn't even start until midway through the year. Although it certainly looked like and even BETTER deal after these recent contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 At this point, if we offered Cooley the Redsins standard 6 years, $30 million with $10 million in bonuses, would he accept it, knowing that he could likely get a good amount more in free agency next year? I would like to think so, but who knows? Furthermore, with that standard contract we gave Lloyd/Randle El/etc., isn't it essentially a 3 year deal and heavily backloaded? If we were to give Cooley a long-term contract, pay the man a good amount up front so we won't have to scramble in a few years reworking contracts or risk a Springs-esq situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never21Forgotten36 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 EDIT>>>Carolina. Thanks PG, I had a brain fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Cooley can be replaced. I am not sure why everyone talks about him so much. He is not a Tony Gonzo. He does not have the speed. And he is not a physical freak. I know he is that fun loving white guy who is a little corky. So fans will love him. But those are not the type of guys u bust the bank for. So the guy has to a physical freak to be a great player? Cooley is reliable, smart, has great hands, and is tough to bring down. He's a top 10 tight end in this league. And he's our only possession receiver. Just because he's also a bit of a clown does not change the fact that he is one of the most important players on this team. I sure hope our coaches and front office don't think like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Pro Bowl appearances are NOT a valid argument. Not at all. If Cooley wants upwards of 20M in guaranteed cash, I would set him free. He is one of the better players at his position but he certainly is replaceable. Remember all of the great Patriots TEs that Brady has been throwing to over his career ? One was here last season, and one of their WRs as well. You can be productive at that position especially through committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Pro Bowl appearances are NOT a valid argument. Not at all. If Cooley wants upwards of 20M in guaranteed cash, I would set him free. He is one of the better players at his position but he certainly is replaceable. Remember all of the great Patriots TEs that Brady has been throwing to over his career ? One was here last season, and one of their WRs as well. You can be productive at that position especially through committee. We are not the Patriots and matter of fact.We should not even be in the same sentence as the Patriots.I only wish we could do for one year what they have done for about 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never21Forgotten36 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 We are not the Patriots and matter of fact.We should not even be in the same sentence as the Patriots.I only wish we could do for one year what they have done for about 7 years. You in a bad mood today Smurf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 You in a bad mood today Smurf? He is in Redskin football-withdrawl. It happens to us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 While it sounds like a great plan, it can also backfire. Having big, guaranteed money, players can lose motivation. Take the Cowboys for example. They gave big money extensions to Bradie James and Roy Williams halfway through the year. After that, there level of play dropped off. So while it seems like a smart thing to do, it can also cause players to get lazy and then you're screwed with a player who is underperforming because with the guaranteed money, he just doesn't give a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 We are not the Patriots and matter of fact.We should not even be in the same sentence as the Patriots.I only wish we could do for one year what they have done for about 7 years. Obviously over your head. Sorry. Pats have had average to decent TEs perform well because they utilized them to their strengths in certain situations. Yet none of them are Tony Gonzalez, etc. And if you are so unhappy with the way this franchise is and so certain they will be like your Tigers...Then maybe you need another bandwagon to hop on. I hear the Colts are a good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Resigning Cooley is not just about his talent, this is what the Redskins FO and a lot of fans dont understand about building a team. Not only is Cooley an important cog on the field, the presence of people like him, who the team drafted and developed, is instrumental in the identity of our team. Although his talent level may be replacable on the open market, shouldnt we all realize by now that in the grand scheme of things that means nothing? If the Redskins ever want to build the type of team we all want to see take the field, they have to realize that the grass is not always greener on the other side. Remember Ryan Clark? He was "replaceable" in terms of his talent so the Redskins brought in a more talented player for a significantly higher price tag who struggled to fit in with his teamates and ever get comfortable in his surroundings. This negatively affected the entire defense. Although this is just one example, it is indicative of the attitude of the whole Redskins organization and most of its fanbase. Cooley is not replaceable. In fact, he is one of our least replaceable players on the roster because we drafted and developed him. Cooley has a vested intrest in our program here. Any free agent we bring in to replace him doesnt have that same vested intrest in the Redskins, they have a vested intrest in getting paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 While it sounds like a great plan, it can also backfire. Having big, guaranteed money, players can lose motivation. Take the Cowboys for example. They gave big money extensions to Bradie James and Roy Williams halfway through the year. After that, there level of play dropped off. So while it seems like a smart thing to do, it can also cause players to get lazy and then you're screwed with a player who is underperforming because with the guaranteed money, he just doesn't give a ****. That is not what happened to the Cowboys at all. They lost players to injury and had to compensate with young depth (sound familiar), So did the Redskins D play like crap all season because they lost LaVar ? I dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 My guess is the team has explored what it will likely take to get Cooley extended. Or at the very least they have a number in mind, as Cooley's agent no doubt does as well. As with all re-negotiations it'll be a matter of whether or not the two sides are roughly in the same place. We saw what happened with Betts when they were, and we've seen what happened with Dock when they weren't. Two to tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Although this is just one example, it is indicative of the attitude of the whole Redskins organization and most of its fanbase. Cooley is not replaceable. In fact, he is one of our least replaceable players on the roster because we drafted and developed him. Look at the Patriots turnover since their first SB. Its the curse of free agency more than the choice of the Redskins FO. Redskins need to solidify both sides of the line. Until they do none of the playmakers they have will make the impact they are expected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 I suppose I'll buy that, but I thought it was a pretty fair deal at the time too. He had just come off a 1000 yard season and he didn't even start until midway through the year. Although it certainly looked like and even BETTER deal after these recent contracts. Terp. I think you are forgetting the timing of the extension. Betts signed DURING the season, before he'd ever come off 1,000 yards. He signed after his, I think, third 100 yard game ever. He then ran off five more :0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.