The Wicked Wop Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 SonnyJ...i cant imagine that being right...if that was the case how in the hell would Tampa afford S. Rice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Sonny, The value of the first three years of Coles' base contract has to equal or surpass the prorated amount of his signing bonus. In this case you divide $13 million by seven for the length of the contract. That comes out to be about $1.71 million a year. That means he has to have at least $5.14 million in base compensation through three years. If that's the actual deal we're working we are obviously going higher than I anticipated and I don't like the looks of it. I could probably have lived with $10 million. The $2 million roster bonus in 2006 is mostly meaningless and is just a way to pressure the Jets who have lots of deals coming due that year. I'd have to see the structure of this deal, but, it seems awfully high in bonus, coupled with the draft pick, for Coles. However, one 90-catch year and that's all forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Theres a lot of pressure on a very young QB right now... I don't understand why we always have to go for broke in free agency, history is not in our favor, and I'm not just talking about the Skins recent FA history, but the NFL in general. What happened to building long-term? I'm pretty bummed right now, I wish we could just draft our own Laverneous Coles in the 3rd round or Peerless Price in the 2nd... whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Wow! I think Coles is a very good WR... this should be interesting. How will this contract compare to Boston? Even with the legal problems it may have been smarter to go with Boston and keep the 1st round pick. Was Boston cheaper than Coles? I dont know about the price in $ and picks that the Skins have given for some of these players but they sure make things interesting for their fans! I cant wait to see the Jets-Wash game to open the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 I dont know what the Boston contract was, but I'd honestly rather have Coles. Boston is a bit of a headcase, has legal troubles, is coming off of an injury, and isn't exactly the type of receiver that SOS was looking for, while Coles fits the role perfectly. I cannot state often enough that I think Coles and Gardner are PERFECT complements to each other. And yes, if we lose the season opener, the press will be ALL over us. That would be nasty shark feeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by TheChosenOne I'd honestly rather have Coles. Coles is a nice WR, but if you'd rather have him over Boston you should try talking about soccer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDaSchmoe Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I can see why he'd say that. I don't agree, but I can still see why. Anyway, his contract is backloaded, he'll cost 2.31 million against the cap this year and little more for the next three years. Then, it's restructure or cut. Four years with Coles? I can't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Coles is a nice WR, but if you'd rather have him over Boston you should try talking about soccer It's all about the risk factor, and similar thinking kept us from reaching to resign an injury prone Gardener. We'll see how this plays out. I'm willing to bet Coles is the absolute perfect fit for this offense. But since you brought it up, Boston snagged a 7-year, 47 million dollar deal, a good 12 million more over the same period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 The first time I saw the deal details, and the fact that we have to give up our #13, I was very dissapointed. Like Yomar, I didn't think this was the right way to go about building a team... why always a quick fix? The ESPN article allayed partially my fears. For one, Spurrier made the decision to take Coles. Moving down would have cost the Skins perhaps more money, and we know Coles is a good receiver. I am still not sure whether I would like this, but I think the Jets will retain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I looked at a summary Boston's contract. It looks confusing but I think it is more expensive than Coles'. Considering Boston's recent difficulties and the contracts I think I would take Coles over him. I think Coles is worth the 13th pick and maybe the signing bonus, but I dont know if he is worth both. The Skins have to win big and do it soon. This should be an interesting few years for you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by TheChosenOne It's all about the risk factor, and similar thinking kept us from reaching to resign an injury prone Gardener. We'll see how this plays out. I'm willing to bet Coles is the absolute perfect fit for this offense. But since you brought it up, Boston snagged a 7-year, 47 million dollar deal, a good 12 million more over the same period of time. Boston getting 12 million more over the contract is irrelevant. All that trully matters is the signing bonus, the length of the contract, and how big the bump of basic salary is the fourth year (which will automatically mean the contract will be renegiotiated, or, if the player is a bust or injured, his release). The basic salary for years 4 thru 7 is all pixie dust and smoke. 13 million signing bonus for a WR with only 1 good year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I'd rather have had Boston. But, TCO is right. Coles is a perfect fit for this offense and as the receiver opposite Gardner. They have skill sets and body types to mesh very well together. I suspect we're out of the Dyson running. If we do get Dyson, it's certainly likely the Redskins will start the season with an offensive line with more talent than any as well as a receiving group on par with any. Without Dyson it'll just be the best group in the division . I agree with you, Nerm, that Coles is probably worth one or the other but not both. I'm a guy who judges moves like this today, and not in three years when he has 275 catches for the team over that time and it looks like a great deal or when he has 46 catches total and we're screaming about how much he sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Waldo, Coles has had two good years. Of those two he's had one very good year. He's had three total years. He's doing ok . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Saw this over on the Igglephans board. Quote from Kelly Green: "As for the assertion that Coles had one good year, his numbers have improved each year he's been in the league: 22 receptions for 370 yards, 59 for 868, and this past season, 89 receptions for 1,264 yards. Those are some damn good numbers. How good? Marvin Harrison -- first 3 years -- 196 catches, 2478 yards. Coles -- first 3 years -- 170 catches, 2302 yards. Would I sign him? Hell YES!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RySkins Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 One thing I do wish is that the Redskins would announce these signings in the morning so I am not left staying awake until 4 a.m. beaming with excitement over late-night developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 The Jets have got to be hating us now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taryl69 Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I think with the clout we bring, we rose the wide receiver market, but I really think this is definitly worth it, I would rather have hime then Rogers, and I love Rogers.:notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Art, Thanks for the correction. I wasn't sure how that worked. It makes things a little different. But not enough. I see this as a signing in the Deion category. Not for the "splash" factor, or that it's paying an old guy. Coles will be around a while. Like Deion, the SIZE of the signing bonus is just absurd, if the reports are true. $10M would have been too much. $13M is ridiculous. The addition of Coles, should it occur, means that this offense has to just take off. The thing is, it's all up to Ramsey. If he doesn't pan out, then these moves are all for naught. It's great that they've given him the tools to be successful. But, there is such a thing as hedging your bets. A move like this would make tremendous sense next year if Ramsey proves to be all that, yet the offense still needs an explosive receiver. You just don't know right now, though. Like Art, I think you have to judge these things now, not later. If the only alternative the team was considering was to move up and take Rogers/Johnson, it isn't so bad. I was against that because of the costs involved. I would have rather the team stand pat and take the best DL available at #13. DL is more valuable than WR, and #13 is more economical than top 5. I don't like spending money like this on WR. The position is just too dependent on everyone else doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by SmootSkins21 I don't know if this means anything but in Madden Coles is rated 89 with 97 speed. And price is rated 88 with 91 speed. Hell yeah... If Coles is better on Madden, than that settles it... If he has a 97 in speed on Madden....:notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Brasi Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Yomar Coles is a nice WR, but if you'd rather have him over Boston you should try talking about soccer Yomar, this is an idiotic statement. How was Boston's season last year? Exactly. He was injured for most of it. If you'd rather have a big receiver coming off an injury than a fast receiver made for this offense, who's also coming off an 89 catch season, then maybe you should try talking about field hockey. I was all for us making a run at Boston, but that was when I thought he and Price were the only two receivers worth getting in FA. Coles is faster, has no injury history, and is a "perfect" fit for what we're trying to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I dont think anyone will disagree that Coles is a great reciever for this offense, my only qualms are that we are trying to buy a team in free agency with quick fix solutions. We're signing young and expensive talent instead of trying to use our draft picks on young and somewhat cheaper talent. Are we going to pay down the road? If Coles deserves a 13 million dollar bonus, how much of a bonus does Champ Bailey deserve next year? In fact after all these signings are we even going to be able to pay someone like CHamp next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Skins56 Yomar, this is an idiotic statement. How was Boston's season last year? Exactly. He was injured for most of it. If you'd rather have a big receiver coming off an injury than a fast receiver made for this offense, who's also coming off an 89 catch season, then maybe you should try talking about field hockey. I was all for us making a run at Boston, but that was when I thought he and Price were the only two receivers worth getting in FA. Coles is faster, has no injury history, and is a "perfect" fit for what we're trying to do here. The whole injury thing with Boston has been blown way out of proportion, he has never had a history of injuries and there is no reason to think he won't fully recover. Also, David Boston isn't just a big guy, he is fast, very fast. Maybe Coles is faster, but you would be splitting hairs on that one. But screw David Boston, he is a Charger for the forseeable future and there is no point in defending his prowess, his numbers will do that for him. Coles is very nice, he is a top 15 WR and has a chance of developing into a superstar, but Boston is the better football player right now, and has the higher ceiling. The substance abuse is a concern with Boston and a legit concern, but as far as football goes, Boston is the better player hands down, and Coles is very good (much better than Peerless Price) so thats not a knock on him. But I'm a little tired of hyperbole, so excuse me if I was curt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Storm, I'm not sure if I can agree if I can call signing these players a quick fix. If anything they look more like a long-term fix to me. Most of the players we signed have in common that they're relatively young and the only players that you could overspent are Thomas and Coles (if the Jets don't match). Signing those two players certainly isn't going to break our cap. The beauty of signing young players like that to backloaded long term contracts is that you can restructure their deals with relative ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Storm, I'm not sure if I can agree if I can call signing these players a quick fix. If anything they look more like a long-term fix to me. Most of the players we signed have in common that they're relatively young and the only players that you could overspent are Thomas and Coles (if the Jets don't match). in three years theyll be too expensive to keep unless we restructure or release them. In contrast a mid first round pick and further down the draft are relatively cheap for four years at which time you decide to give them the expensive contract. I dont mind having the expensive free agents on board as long as we can afford it. The most logical formula is to balance out cheaper players from the draft with more expensive FAs as needed. WHat I mind is the fact that we've handed most of our draft away to the point where we have a few token picks. Down the road we'll have noone to develop and put into the slots these free agent vacate when they become too expensive to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 The draft isn't a one-time thing, you know. It happens every year. There's no rule that the talent replenishment has to come from one draft class. In effect, this FA crop is the team's draft class. It's expensive, certainly, but it's also young. It also will reap a bunch of certain starters. Certainly the talent is far superior than the team could hope to get from draft picks. I think they've overdone it a bit. I don't like the Morton and Coles signings. I don't think Morton is too necessary. Coles would be an outstanding fit. The draft picks don't bother me so much as the bonus $$$. I just wouldn't sink that much coin into those positions. The team is in no way mortgaging its future by forgoing its draft picks. The money will force some decision-making later, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.