Buddha Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Would you take a chance on the guy? He will likely be reinstated by the league in the next few weeks and should immediately be released by the Raiders, along with his whopping $10 million base salary. And since he had a subpar 2001 season just before his suspension (and because of the suspension and legal troubles themselves), most teams probably wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. This could translate into bargain basement prices for a guy that was once one of the league's best young DTs. And who will be a mere 27 years old when the 2003 season starts. So assuming Snyder's crack team of henchmen determine that he's kept his nose clean this past season, and he comes to the negotiating table in decent shape but humbled and penitent, would you snag him for a year on a Gardener-type deal? Do you even believe his past will keep his price down, or that he's capable of cleaning himself up and returning to past form??? Discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReaper21 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I would take a shot on him only if its an incetive based deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I dunno, the taping and raping case isnt completely over. I just saw where the woman is going to seek $ through a civil court case. Pass on him, he is one bender away from a lifetime suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I don't think we want that element on our team. How can we b|tch about Jeff George, and then say that we'll accept Darrell Russell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Invisible Poster Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I don't think we want that element on our team. How can we b|tch about Jeff George, and then say that we'll accept Darrell Russell That's the pot calling the cettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I don't think we want that element on our team. How can we b|tch about Jeff George, and then say that we'll accept Darrell Russell? It seems to me that these players have seperate issues. George was a bad teamate and a locker room cancer. Russell is a criminal (potentially). However I have never heard about his teamates not liking him. Maybe someone else has. I'm not advocating brining criminals into the fold. But I wouldn't put George and Darrell in the same class. The decision to bring or not bring in Darell Russell is different than the decision to bring or not bring in George (unless of course someone else has evidence of Russell being a poor teamate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Are you serious, Whiskey. To say we don't want George because he doesn't get along with other players, but Russell is merely a criminal... he deserves a second chance? Or maybe you're just saying they should be judged using different merits. Either way, I don't get this. If he is a violent criminal and I don't know if he was convicted and/or guilty, I think he's less deserving of a second chance than a guy who's merely guilty of being a bad teammate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSF Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Burgold, I think he is thinking whos better for the team. Michael Irvin had plenty of legal issues but yet he was good for his team. I'm not advocating the use of criminals nor the use of locker room cancers, but in regards to whose better for the TEAM. I'd say give him a chance as long as he came out publicly and really tried to sway the media and society that hes different. Some parts of the US have a 3 strike rule so I'm for it. Not to mention we could use the help on the defensive line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Burgold- First lets not forget that he's not a criminal.....yet. To my knowledge he has yet to be convicted of anything....but I don't know much about the case. Second, I didn't say I wanted to bring criminals in. If fact I explicitly stated that I was not advocating that we bring criminals in. How did you miss that? I'm not sure I'm even interested in bringing in Darrell Russell yet....he is a great player but carrys a lot of baggage whether guilty or not. However you have to agree that the issues between the two are different. If you don't want to bring in Russell it would likely be for different reasons than you would have for not wanting to bring in George. That was my point pure and simple. Obvoiusly you are strongly against brining the guy in. I can't say I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 come on, now. Michael Irvin was arrested for using drugs and doing other self-destructive things, he was never charged with raping our harming another human being I think the Redskins DO have to draw a line somewhere. Joe Gibbs would NEVER take this kind of player onto the Redskins, and I don't think we should now. I don't care if he is a HOF DT................. If the Redskins get the Gardener deal done and are able to grab a DL in the draft in one of the first 3 rounds, we won't need to take this kind of bad risk. Usually this is the type of player that GOES to the Raiders.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I agree that is an apples and oranges comparison, but a strange one to make. Then again, you didn't make it, only responded to it. To be honest, I'd have to read much more on the subject to know if I wanted him, but I wouldn't care how good he was if he was a rapist. Heck, that puts him several levels worse than Michael Irvin who's sins were with prostitutes and drugs which are mostly self abuse. Sorry for the presumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I agree with Bulldog-I wouldn't want that image on the team-not to mention he's a repeat offender -he'd been in trouble with drugs a couple times, misses court dates and the rape accusation. I wouldn't want Micheal Irvin either-represents the wrong image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by Whiskeypeet First lets not forget that he's not a criminal.....yet. To my knowledge he has yet to be convicted of anything....but I don't know much about the case. I haven't followed this sordid tale much either, however I don't believe that his defense is based upon not being involved. Rather, it's based upon the woman's consent if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 I haven't followed the criminal case in detail, but one thing I did read is that prosecutors did not choose to pursue the case because there wasn't enough evidence to gain a conviction. Therefore, the charges were dropped. I'm not trying to defend the man's actions by any means, but there are always two sides to a story. Especially in a situation where the physical evidence is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George#56 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 He would certainly improve our line, which is a problem area for us. But I wonder if he lacks the maturity to play at NFL level. That said I think if he signed a 1yr deal at the minimum, low risk high reward. He could be worth taking shot on I also found this article on him that makes me think he might no be a lost cause(hopefully the link works). http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/04/MN107862.DTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 First off Darrell Russell has only had one decent year where he played well. The other seasons he underachieved. Second, besides this rape case he is involved in, there have been other seasons when he was rumored to be using drugs. Just because he gets along with teammates, is that a reason to sign a pot head? Third, even if he didn't rape the woman involved himself, what kind of man would be standing around watching and/or filming what was going on? Why didn't he prevent it or at least call the police himself? The guy is a sleaze bag believe me. Joe Gibbs would have had nothing to do with this creep, even if he could play defensive tackle. The guy obviously hasn't got his head screwed on right. He reminds me of another former Raider DT.... the Toose.... Matusack. :puke: By comparison Jeff George may have had a personality trait that did not endear him as a team leader, but at least George is a decent human being. :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 If he had a clean nose and never gotten into trouble..heck yea sign him but he did so i don't want that image on this team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Pass on Russell. There are a lot of good kids out there that have worked hard for a shot at the NFL. He's dropped his candy in sand. Let another team worry with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTerps2002 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Any redskins fan who cherred for Dexter Manley should be open to giving this guy a chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 this isn't the local Baptist or Episcopal Church where second and third chances are in the creed, this is the Washington Redskins, a professional football team there is a difference. A couple of years ago Jerry Jones decided to turn the Cowboys into a living laboratory for second and third chancers like Dimitrius Underwood and Alonzo Spellman. it didn't take and both players are out of the NFL. in fact Spellman is now going to jail for threatening passengers on an airliner and had to be subdued by air marshals and a Marine that happened to be on board. Dexter Manley was our own draft choice. He had a substance abuse problem that spiralled out of control in the mid-1980's. The team sent him to rehab but it didn't take. In 1988 after he failed a second or third test, the team cut him. Trying to manage a player that is already part of your organization who has a problem is a whole different story than taking on a problem child, who unlike Dexter, has done nothing for your team or community over the years and deserves no special consideration and treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTerps2002 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Good points.... Darell Russell needs to get out of California and start over .....As far as this not being a church and being a professional sports franchise.... We 'll that is a bad argument because we all know you can get as many chances as you want if you are big strong and fast... Lawerance Phillips comes to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I'll pass on a cocaine addict. That drug will eventually take him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I think I have some problems with his participation in what was a pretty odious little episode. I'm not saying I'm a saint or that people aren't capable of rehabilitation. But what evidence is there that he's even admitted to having a problem? My recollection is that this was a steady girlfriend he was 'sharing' with another guy. I guess what folks do in the bedroom is their own business, but the drug inferences in combination with the criminal investigation make me pretty leary of bringing him in. We haven't really had that much success in bringing in someone else's 'wild child' and taming them. (Yes, I remember John Riggins, but I also remember Duane Thomas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Who knows what his deal is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 yeah, and we saw how much productivity Jimmy Johnson and the Dolphins got out of Lawrence Phillips a lot of these guys bounce around but never really live up to the hope. we have already had enough disappointments over the last several years, haven't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.