Drafttek.com: Good News in DC…The Coach is Zorny for Discipline (M.E.T.)

[jthor99]

No, the renegotiation wasn't just about adding the workout clause or wanting to give him an extra $500K. That doesn't even make sense, since if he didn't want the extra money, he just didn't have to show up for OTAs.

Almost certainly it was about opening up cap space for this year by extending his contract and converting his salary into a signing bonus. Yes, he was going to get his money, but it was about making his contract more cap friendly for this year. The workout clause is probably just standard issue for all their contracts now.

Please show me the word "extension" anywhere in this article

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gT8pJ37Os8cmm4TRtpzzRM0as4egD96M6LE80

It's not "cap friendly" when he is already due 8.5M, and were were telling you we will give you 9M if you show up 2 days a week for 13 weeks

[DexterSackMachine]

I just think there is more to the story than the Redskins PR machine is letting out.

Or do you think JT was willing to give up $9m just because he didn't want to come work out a couple dozen times over a few month period?

Watch the end of the Dockery/Hall PC and Zorn answers the Jason Taylor question very honestly. Zorn is nothing if not honest, to a fault.

[SnyderMustGo]

Cmon, if they really wanted him gone, they would have done it before free agency started. That would have been the proper time.

No they could not have. They would not have gotten Haynesworth if they did that. AH talked about how he didn't go to Tampa Bay because they were dropping their vets. And the Redskins sold this stuff about how Haynesworth was going to free up Carter and Taylor on the edges.

The DL looks A TON less interesting to AH when his book ends are Carter and fricking spare-ass Buzbee.

So they needed to keep Taylor around until AH signed.

[Monte51Coleman]

Although I approve of the end result, I think Taylor's release was a money issue disguised as a commitment issue.

[ttr77]

But dude- thats not how the senario worked out. They didnt say to JT -either you come in or you will be teminated. They said, we are offering you an extra 500k because we want you to attend more off season work outs, its for the good of the team. JT showed that he was not committed enough to do that.

How do any of us know how it worked out? This would not be the first time this organization kicked someone on the way out the door. Lavar? Lavernious? Gregg Williams? The list goes on. This team has made a habit of it...and old habits die hard.

For all of the kudos given to the cap specialist here, Karl Swanson deserves more.

[TheLongshot]

Nevermind...

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I just think there is more to the story than the Redskins PR machine is letting out.

Or do you think JT was willing to give up $9m just because he didn't want to come work out a couple dozen times over a few month period?

Judging from what happened in Miami I'd say the answer to your question is "Yes".

[jthor99]

No they could not have. They would not have gotten Haynesworth if they did that. AH talked about how he didn't go to Tampa Bay because they were dropping their vets. And the Redskins sold this stuff about how Haynesworth was going to free up Carter and Taylor on the edges.

The DL looks A TON less interesting to AH when his book ends are Carter and fricking spare-ass Buzbee.

So they needed to keep Taylor around until AH signed.

Yes, Haynesworth signed here because it had nothing to do with the 41M in guaranteed money we offered huim, but the fact that he would be playing with Jason Taylor.

Makes perfect sense

We had a top 5 defense WITHOUT Jason Taylor, so why would the effect Haynesworth decision?

Money talks, and you know what walks. That why Haynesworth signed

[jthor99]

I went back and looked and you are right that they weren't going to extend him for cap space. I was wrong about that.

But, you are also wrong that they were looking to give him $500K extra.

Looks to me like they were looking to penalize him $500K if he didn't show up to offseason workouts, not reward him for showing up.

Read what you just posted:

"workout clause added to his contract ".

There isn't a word on penalizing him in that entire article. The penalty was him being cut because he didn't want to show up 2 days a week for 13 weeks.

Again, I respect his decision, but the Redskins want this guy coming into camp inshape, and can we really blame them for asking him to do that after were going to pay him 8M?

[ttr77]

Judging from what happened in Miami I'd say the answer to your question is "Yes".

After the years he had in Miami, perhaps he would have been able to earn a good portion of that back on the open market. He had leverage then.

Now? Not so much.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

After the years he had in Miami, perhaps he would have been able to earn a good portion of that back on the open market. He had leverage then.

Now? Not so much.

I don't think it was about the money.

I just don't think Taylor wanted to be here.

We know for a fact that he and Blache didn't mesh.

Different systems etc.

[ntotoro]

Yeah they wanted to add 500K as a poison pill :doh:

Are some of you guys serious?

They asked this guy to show up and play football with his teamates, and also pay him 500K more then what they are scheduled to pay him in 8M?

And you guys are acting as if the Redskins screwed up?

No one is acting as if the Redskins screwed up. It was just a matter of timing. Why not cut him immediately? Why the wait? Do you seriously think they didn't want to cut him all along and just had to come up with some good reason to do so? Zorn had so many opportunities to be a "disciplinarian" over the last year and passed on most of them, so you'll forgive me if I don't exactly believe we're getting the whole story from Ashburn.

[D'Pablo]

Again, I respect his decision, but the Redskins want this guy coming into camp inshape, and can we really blame them for asking him to do that after were going to pay him 8M?

One can view the contract situation in two ways:

1. The contract required Jason Taylor to workout in a de facto sense, because he would be cut without agreeing to it.

=> This is my view. I support my view based on the alleged oral agreement between Jason's agent and the Redskins organization. Jason did not want to be tied down in the offseason and knew this prior to the trade to the Redskins. On the other hand, Vinny Cerrato, at the very least, knew that Jason did not want to renegotiate. There are two possible reasons for Taylor's aversion to renegotiation: Money and Additional Contractual Obligations. Vinny had to have known of both. His actions lacked good faith in trying to add an obligation in the form of a 'bonus'.

2. The contract was just a security measure for the organization and Jason Taylor wouldn't even agree to that, so he was cut.

=> This is likely your view. I disagree with it.

While I didn't want Taylor's salary burdening the organization, I really don't want this organization to escape public scrutiny for their poor decision-making, and subsequent shady dealing.

[texasthunder]

One can view the contract situation in two ways:

1. The contract required Jason Taylor to workout in a de facto sense' date=' because he would be cut without agreeing to it.

=> This is my view. I support my view based on the alleged oral agreement between Jason's agent and the Redskins organization. Jason did not want to be tied down in the offseason and knew this prior to the trade to the Redskins. On the other hand, Vinny Cerrato, at the very least, knew that Jason did not want to renegotiate. There are two possible reasons for Taylor's aversion to renegotiation: Money and Additional Contractual Obligations. Vinny had to have known of both. His actions lacked good faith in trying to add an obligation in the form of a 'bonus'.

2. The contract was just a security measure for the organization and Jason Taylor wouldn't even agree to that, so he was cut.

=> This is likely your view. I disagree with it.

While I didn't want Taylor's salary burdening the organization, I really don't want this organization to escape public scrutiny for their poor decision-making, and subsequent shady dealing.[/quote']

So I am guessing that you would have been content if the FO had come out and said "we screwed up trading for JT. He put up terrible numbers last year because we tried to make him play in a position he was not used to. And so we have released him because he is injury plagued and a washed up has been??

And on a side note, if the FO did have a scheme to get rid of JT as some of you think, and they used this "additional workout" ruse to accomplish it, then how come we havnt heard any news reports from JT or his agent disputing his release?

Just wondering :whoknows:

[Zguy28]

The way I see it is he's cut. Period.

Buh bye.

[jthor99]

No one is acting as if the Redskins screwed up. It was just a matter of timing. Why not cut him immediately? Why the wait? Do you seriously think they didn't want to cut him all along and just had to come up with some good reason to do so? Zorn had so many opportunities to be a "disciplinarian" over the last year and passed on most of them, so you'll forgive me if I don't exactly believe we're getting the whole story from Ashburn.

It was also Coach Zorn's rookie year as a head coach. Mistakes are made throughout the year, and I'm sure Zorn looked backed and reflected upon that. It was obvious that the Front Office felt similar because Vinny and Dan were on board with going to Jason about this.

How about the Redskins thinking "Hey we just signed Haynesworth, re-uped with DeAngelo let's approach Jason to get him in here in March to make sure we can hit the ground running in July".

Personally, I don't see how this can be turned into the Redskins turning in this into a PR spin.

They asked the guy to show up and play football. It's what they pay him handsomley to do. He chose not to, and the Redskins respectfully said we will go in another direction then

[jthor99]

One can view the contract situation in two ways:

1. The contract required Jason Taylor to workout in a de facto sense' date=' because he would be cut without agreeing to it.

=> This is my view. I support my view based on the alleged oral agreement between Jason's agent and the Redskins organization. Jason did not want to be tied down in the offseason and knew this prior to the trade to the Redskins. On the other hand, Vinny Cerrato, at the very least, knew that Jason did not want to renegotiate. There are two possible reasons for Taylor's aversion to renegotiation: Money and Additional Contractual Obligations. Vinny had to have known of both. His actions lacked good faith in trying to add an obligation in the form of a 'bonus'.

2. The contract was just a security measure for the organization and Jason Taylor wouldn't even agree to that, so he was cut.

=> This is likely your view. I disagree with it.

While I didn't want Taylor's salary burdening the organization, I really don't want this organization to escape public scrutiny for their poor decision-making, and subsequent shady dealing.[/quote']

This organization will never escape public scruinty because it's been clearly outlined for 10 years about there mishaps in Free Agent signings, and trade aquisitions.

So, there never going to escape that just beacuse they allow Jason Taylor to walk because the guy doesn't want to show up twice a week, and make additional money in his already astonishing cap figure

[ttr77]

This organization will never escape public scruinty because it's been clearly outlined for 10 years about there mishaps in Free Agent signings, and trade aquisitions.

So, there never going to escape that just beacuse they allow Jason Taylor to walk because the guy doesn't want to show up twice a week, and make additional money in his already astonishing cap figure

They also have a recent history of letting their own walk and then kicking them on their way out the door. And that's what my feelings are based on in this situation.

[D'Pablo]

So I am guessing that you would have been content if the FO had come out and said "we screwed up trading for JT. He put up terrible numbers last year because we tried to make him play in a position he was not used to. And so we have released him because he is injury plagued and a washed up has been?? [/Quote]

I wouldn't be content that this team is hurting. By acknowledging the issue, however, the onus would be put on Vinny. He would have to reform or face ouster.

And on a side note, if the FO did have a scheme to get rid of JT as some of you think, and they used this "additional workout" ruse to accomplish it, then how come we havnt heard any news reports from JT or his agent disputing his release?

Just wondering :whoknows:

First off, I don't think JT is an innocent actor. I thought he was a jerk, but he was up front about it (money and no additional contractual obligations were a driving force in bringing him here... certainly it wasn't because we were a projected superbowl contender). Vinny was willing to accept JT's disposition. As a Redskins fan, I find this unacceptable.

[darrelgreenie]

I wonder what will happen if CP decides to skip off-season workouts?

[Jumbo]

http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=282149&page=2

Cooley's thoughts are now a thread...

[Pedro]

Not coming in for workouts meant less time to evaluate whether he would be worth keeping on the roster. After last season and taking into account age and other interests (acting) JT needed to prove himself with us rather than his past record being enough.

A healthy football motivated Jason Taylor would have made our roster. A healthy non football motivated Jason Taylor wouldn't. He knows that which is why he didn't sign it and was cut.

[TLusby]

We need to worry about DE's next year as we can not fix everything. Sign Daniels as a rotational starter (run downs) for league minimum and let Wilson (good rusher/poor against the run) and Jackson play 3rd down situations. We need a RT, Kicker, PR, punter, SAM, and a Center.