chow184 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/02/27/haynesworth/index.html?eref=T1 he tries to reference the past to the future,and that basically we're repeating the same mistakes. but fails realize that not all FA's are the same he's trying to say we sign FA's who have their best years behind them,by citing Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier certainly didn't. They were well past prime time. Adam Archuleta? Dana Stubblefield? Jeremiah Trotter? Jesse Armstead? I could go on, but I think you're seeing the trend. save archuletta and all are pretty old signings when the FO was pretty terrible. You could argue Cornelius Griffin worked out well, as did Shawn Springs (who may now be cut with Hall re-signed), Marcus Washington (just cut this week), and Andre Carter. But did any of them really create the kind of long-term impact the Redskins paid for? I'd say we've gotten our money's worth out of all those guys except carter who's still early in his deal,notice he failed to mention London Fletcher or philip daniels,or renaldo wynn. these guys arguably established the way the redskins locker room is today on the defense. I'm sort of glad the media is massacring these signings,when we added Saunders,lloyd,ARE,Arch,and Carter they all loved those moves and all except carter have stunk. can't wait til september...this defense will be rocking...now we just need to get some OL via FA/draft and some depth at LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 oh well, Banks has no friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Banks,, Never heard of him, crickets,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Don Banks looks like Rod Stewart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 thats the problem chow. we cant get any oline because we have no money. unless we cut taylor or others, and restructure even more 30 year old vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabronijames Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How much would it save us if we waived Jason Campbell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 He's right. Way too many holes we now can't fill because of these signings. Our o-line is a trainwreck. It's going to take a lot more than one journeyman free agent signing to fix it. And counting on a rookie to play great right away is foolish. Our linebacking corps is a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 thats the problem chow. we cant get any oline because we have no money. unless we cut taylor or others, and restructure even more 30 year old vets. There are players that need to be cut. Are you serious? This is the typical rant. "Boy, we sure could use Albert Haynesworth." If the Skins didn't sign him, and lets say the Giants did. "Man, we should have signed him. He is KICKING OUR ***. Our FO sucks." I will never understand it. Its almost like some fans want the Skins to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Instead of signing AH, we should have addressed 2 or 3 other positions of need. Now we have a player that hasn't played 16 games taking up the salary of three players. Not a good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 He's right. Way too many holes we now can't fill because of these signings. Our o-line is a trainwreck. It's going to take a lot more than one journeyman free agent signing to fix it. And counting on a rookie to play great right away is foolish. Our linebacking corps is a disaster. Last I checked, they aren't starting the season tomorrow. There is a lot that probably will happen between now and the beginning of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsMaster88 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How much would it save us if we waived Jason Campbell? Is this a serious question? JC is still on his rookie contract. We'd only save less than $800k if we let Campbell go. Even if you're a Colt lover (not directed to you specifically but in general to some on ES), you need at least 2 good QBs in the NFL. Collins is 37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimetimeSkins26 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Cornelius Griffin meant alot more than people thought to our defense. Watch the games he was hurt back in '05 and '06. We got pwned in the running game while on defense. People act like we always fail, but we do succeed sometime. Worked out: Marcus Washington Shawn Springs London Fletcher Cornelius Griffin Randy Thomas Clinton Portis Santana Moss However, I much rather draft and develop guys mainly. Then add a London Fletcher, Marcus Washington, Randy Thomas type player in Free agency. That's how I believe a team should be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Our linebacking corps is a disaster. It is? What about our secondary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You cant say he is totally off base. We have been burned over and over again by free agency. Lets cross our fingers and hope that these guys prove the doubters wrong. Hard to argue with him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 He's right. Way too many holes we now can't fill because of these signings. Our o-line is a trainwreck. It's going to take a lot more than one journeyman free agent signing to fix it. And counting on a rookie to play great right away is foolish. Our linebacking corps is a disaster. Yeah and your a Redskins fan From L.A. O.K. AL Davis I know its you. You have your own disaster to contended with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parlett316 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I don't remember Haynesworth and Hall being in their 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/02/27/haynesworth/index.html?eref=T1he tries to reference the past to the future,and that basically we're repeating the same mistakes. but fails realize that not all FA's are the same he's trying to say we sign FA's who have their best years behind them,by citing save archuletta and all are pretty old signings when the FO was pretty terrible. I'd say we've gotten our money's worth out of all those guys except carter who's still early in his deal,notice he failed to mention London Fletcher or philip daniels,or renaldo wynn. these guys arguably established the way the redskins locker room is today on the defense. I'm sort of glad the media is massacring these signings,when we added Saunders,lloyd,ARE,Arch,and Carter they all loved those moves and all except carter have stunk. can't wait til september...this defense will be rocking...now we just need to get some OL via FA/draft and some depth at LB. Well if you look at the pattern, Springs, Griff, and Washington all played great for us for a season or 2, and then wore down and struggled with injuries while earning big checks. It's not hard to envision the same thing happening with Haynesworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 he tries to reference the past to the future,and that basically we're repeating the same mistakes.but fails realize that not all FA's are the same No, I'm sure he realizes that all FA's are a the same: a risk. His point is that we've been burned so many times, how is it possible we are still willing to take these risks? That's a valid argument. Want to know what is NOT a valid argument? Criticizing his point by saying Haynesworth is somehow automatically different than all of our other acquisition busts. There is no basis for making that argument. Every time we get players, we say that these guys are good, not like the other busts. It's because we are optimistic. But optimism is not a fact. Haynesworth is just as risky as every other big acquisition, from Stubblefield to Sean Gilbert. You don't know how he will perform in our system, with our supporting case, and with the money in his pocket. You don't know. It's a risk. Just like every other big acquisition. To say "This time it is different" is nothing more than optimism and it is not a rebuttal to the points Banks makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 thats the problem chow. we cant get any oline because we have no money. unless we cut taylor or others, and restructure even more 30 year old vets. unless I missed it we just released springs so we have 6 million+ in cap room and could push that number more if we wanted. we could definately sign dockery or a value guy really seems like your going to the media side because it's popular without examining the facts Big Al is not Dana Stubblefield,Stubblefield was actually a steroids user so who knows what caused him to suck in DC. D.Hall is a decent coverguy and a ball hawk. his deal is actually the same thing asante samuel got. we also finally ridded our selves of springs,and have 6+ mil in cap room left. thats more than enough to sign 4 draft picks and add 1 OL from FA and some value guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Well if you look at the pattern, Springs, Griff, and Washington all played great for us for a season or 2, and then wore down and struggled with injuries while earning big checks. It's not hard to envision the same thing happening with Haynesworth. No comment about London Fletcher from Banks I guess he considers him a FREE AGENT BUST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Big Al is not Dana Stubblefield,Stubblefield was actually a steroids user so who knows what caused him to suck in DC. You realize that you have absolutely no factual basis for this. You say it as if it was self-evident fact. But you have no basis for that claim. Stubblefield was well regarded when he came here. And he tanked. Sean Gilbert was the best DT in the game when we got him. And he tanked. To try to say that somehow Haynesworth is automatically different from them is to talk of your own ass. You don't know that. You can hope it. But don't state it as fact as if suggesting otherwise is inapproriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 unless I missed it we just released springs so we have 6 million+ in cap room and could push that number more if we wanted.we could definately sign dockery or a value guy really seems like your going to the media side because it's popular without examining the facts Big Al is not Dana Stubblefield,Stubblefield was actually a steroids user so who knows what caused him to suck in DC. D.Hall is a decent coverguy and a ball hawk. his deal is actually the same thing asante samuel got. we also finally ridded our selves of springs,and have 6+ mil in cap room left. thats more than enough to sign 4 draft picks and add 1 OL from FA and some value guys. im not in the haynesworth will bust category. as much as history scares me, hes a monster. his contract however is retarded. somebody correct me if im wrong, but didnt we have to cut springs just to sign haynesworth? is it possible that after signing hall and big al we were somehow under or right at the cap? i find that hard to believe. we cut springs, so we saved 6.5 or 6, so were 6 under. if we cut jason taylor we'd be 14 under. thats something i can live with if we go out and sign 2 olineman and a LB, then snag a DE in the draft to start opposite carter. before i argue any further, somebody shed some light on the cap/hall/haynesworth. are we still under the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 You realize that you have absolutely no factual basis for this. You say it as if it was self-evident fact. But you have no basis for that claim.Stubblefield was well regarded when he came here. And he tanked. Sean Gilbert was the best DT in the game when we got him. And he tanked. To try to say that somehow Haynesworth is automatically different from them is to talk of your own ass. You don't know that. You can hope it. But don't state it as fact as if suggesting otherwise is inapproriate. stubblefield was a steroid user that is a fact,he admitted to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Stubblefield wiki doesn't make something true but it's the broadest source of information,and through further research his wiki article is LEGIT. to say Haynesworth os going to be a bust just because he got paid is to talk out your ass you're just ****ing because you're to ignorant to give someone a chance to prove themself on the field. Don Banks doesn't know you don't know I don't know what history has in store for Alber Haynesworth,only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 stubblefield was a steroid user that is a fact,he admitted to it. I wasn't saying anything about steroid's being a fact. I was saying your suggestion that Haynesworth is different than Stubblefield-- and therefore by implication, not a risk--has not factual basis. It's just an opinion. He is not objectively different or objectively less of a risk than Stubblefield. Nor is he objectively less of a risk than Sean Gilbert was. And he busted too. You want to argue that Haynesworth is different and not a risk, but you have NO basis for that other than your mere hope that is the case. In reality, he is as risky as any other acquisition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 I wasn't saying anything about steroid's being a fact.I was saying your suggestion that Haynesworth is different than Stubblefield-- and therefore by implication, not a risk--has not factual basis. It's just an opinion. He is not objectively different or objectively less of a risk than Stubblefield. Nor is he objectively less of a risk than Sean Gilbert was. And he busted too. You want to argue that Haynesworth is different and not a risk, but you have NO basis for that other than your mere hope that is the case. In reality, he is as risky as any other acquisition. your calling him a bust before he's stepped on the field in your other post,I.E. saying him and stubblefield are no different. they are different one was a bust and had a sketchy backround with roids,the other is currently writing his own history. I never said he wasn't a risk he is different he's not a bust not right now anyways and hopefully it stays that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.