StillUnknown Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I'm not crying a river over this guy. He's just not that good. agreed. he looked good simply by comparison because the rest of our line wasn't that good. being the best of the bad doesn't mean much to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I'm not crying a river over this guy. He's just not that good. That's not the point. I'm not saying he is, I'm not saying he's a starter. It's about how stupid it is to not even attempt to keep a guy who you know fits, at a position with only one player who has any real NFL experience. He's good depth at a good price at a position with need on a team with multiple holes to fill and only 4 draft picks. It's not about Evans, it's about how stupid that is in principle and about how it's a repeat of mistakes we've made in the past regarding unheralded guys who've carved a niche in the league for themselves with us only to be considered unworthy of a roster spot, even for minimal money, by our FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 agreed. he looked good simply by comparison because the rest of our line wasn't that good.being the best of the bad doesn't mean much to me Did that chick in your sig die? OUCH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the12thSkin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 i guess vinny was upset that his jerseys weren't bringing in the big $$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 This wasn't about a bidding war or him costing too much money, we just straight up didn't value him or his efforts at all. Believe me, I'm no negative nancy type of fan, I haven't been upset with anything that's happened this offseason but this just bugs me. Not because I have any particular feeling for Evans over any other Redskin's player but because this is a pattern and habit for us with our high character, low cost role players. QFT, yeah we've brought back some of the same types like Rock, and probably Daniels here shortly and probably several others I'm not thinking of right off the top of my head, but you make a good point that I agree with. Quite frankly, as it stands right now, we really could use him as a starter - he's big enough to play tackle on passing downs aka he's big enough and is stout against the run and can still get pressure on the QB. I still am hoping we draft Maualuga and use any rotation of Rob Jackson, Daniels and Wilson opposite Carter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Pierce and Clark both have a ring with their new teams, if Evans gets one too, Im gonna start watch Hockey. If Evans gets one with the Niners, Hell froze over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I agree with you guys who say he wasn't that good. But when fielding a team, you have to look at: Who better do we have to replace him- His cost, and the cost to replace him- His age, health and future potential- And if it might be better to keep him as depth UNTIL we are able to replace him with an upgrade at that position. I'm not exactly saying we should have hung onto him, but I don't know the plan. History shows that with this FO, there might not even be a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Yeah, but what had he shown to deserve at least that? He was basically just a situational guy who if he played 30% of the snaps in a season, its a good year for him. We can find those guys left and right. What we need is a guy who can play 95% of the snaps. I disagree. Daniels was such an asset because of his run stopping ability. Something our defense covets and something Evans also specialized in. While Evans didn't get too many sacks, he was exceptional at batting the ball. Also, Evans has shown enough. He's certainly shown more than Taylor and look what we gave him. At least Evans proved that he can be productive with us. Taylor proved he was productive in a 3-4 5 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herb mul-key Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Did that chick in your sig die?OUCH!!! she had to of blown out her knee...jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herb mul-key Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 ya why couldn't we have signed him and cut him in camp if he didn't work out...we must feel good about our youth and plan on drafting a DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 she had to of blown out her knee...jesusDon't think so. Her leg bent at an awkward angle because she was out on her feet*, but looked like it sprawled out OK.(*unconscious) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I disagree. Daniels was such an asset because of his run stopping ability. Something our defense covets and something Evans also specialized in. While Evans didn't get too many sacks, he was exceptional at batting the ball.Also, Evans has shown enough. He's certainly shown more than Taylor and look what we gave him. At least Evans proved that he can be productive with us. Taylor proved he was productive in a 3-4 5 years ago... Taylor is a former Defensive MVP. Taylor has had better games than Evans has had of a career. We gave Taylor more because Taylor's resume is longer and filled with more achievements. You can't honestly say that before last year Evans had shown more than Taylor. The fact that Evans had a better year last year than Taylor isn't the point. Neither one had a really good year. So we opted not to bring either one back. Evans is better at stopping the run, but I guess we didn't see any more potential in him than we could get out of Jackson or another free agent. This is called business. He's a nice backup but he's getting old and we opted to let him go. His situation is not even similar to Ryan Clark's or Pierce's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Taylor is a former Defensive MVP. Taylor has had better games than Evans has had of a career. We gave Taylor more because Taylor's resume is longer and filled with more achievements. You can't honestly say that before last year Evans had shown more than Taylor. The fact that Evans had a better year last year than Taylor isn't the point. Neither one had a really good year. So we opted not to bring either one back. Evans is better at stopping the run, but I guess we didn't see any more potential in him than we could get out of Jackson or another free agent. This is called business. He's a nice backup but he's getting old and we opted to let him go. His situation is not even similar to Ryan Clark's or Pierce's. I disagree that Evans didn't have a good year. Remember, we were still the 4th ranked defense. If your only definition of played well is sack totals it's not the whole story. He was very effective in the role he was asked to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 It recently came out that Blache never wanted Taylor in the first place -- it was all Vinny and Dan. Wonder how he feels about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 We let better players go for "sexier" players who are past their prime or never live up to expectations here or earn the money.Stupid... jsut dumb, to let a guy go for so little money compared to the 8 million JT had. ^^^ I agree..same ol skins. Value other teams free agents and show our guys the door. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 This is called business. He's a nice backup but he's getting old and we opted to let him go. His situation is not even similar to Ryan Clark's or Pierce's. It isn't just age, but it is also probably how much he was asking for. If it is true that we have about 6m of cap space, spending 1.5m on Evans probably doesn't make much sense. It is also probably why the team isn't in a hurry to get Daniels or Washington on the roster and why they are looking at relatively cheap options for OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think its safe to say that the Redskins are pretty consistant.. You NEVER know what direction they are going until the start of the season.. I wouldnt put to much into them letting Evans go without a fight. Trust me they have a serious plan by letting both Taylor and evans go. Just be patient everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Pierce was undervalued by Gregg Williams as was Ryan Clark. Both were entering their prime and were good chemsitry guys that should not be let go. Evans started a lot of games for an AWFUL D-Line. I don't understand how the line was terrible, but he had a breakout season with 3.5 sacks??? He's a 30-year old DE who is more of a run stuffer. I'd prefer to sign Daniels to fill that role at a minimum salary and then use our 1st or 3rd on a DE. I'd also like to see more Rob Jackson and Chris Wilson.....I was upset about Pierce and Clark but have no problem with this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Although Evans isn't a world beater, I am a bit dissapointed we didn't get him re-signed, mostly for the fact that he was the only other viable starter we had left on the roster aside from Andre Carter. With Evans gone, we now have three major holes to fill: - Right Tackle - Left Defensive End - Strong Side Linebacker Linebacker can be pretty easily filled through Free Agency and we'll probably get some cheap veterans for the tackle and end positions, but I can see us trading down from #13 and trying to pick up future starters at LDE and RT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I agree with you guys who say he wasn't that good. But when fielding a team, you have to look at:Who better do we have to replace him- His cost, and the cost to replace him- His age, health and future potential- And if it might be better to keep him as depth UNTIL we are able to replace him with an upgrade at that position. I'm not exactly saying we should have hung onto him, but I don't know the plan. History shows that with this FO, there might not even be a plan. That's exactly what I'm getting at. When you add in the other holes to fill and the limited draft picks it makes little sense to me. Again, I'm not saying he's starter material or a world beater. All I'm saying is he was cheap, filled a role well on our team and he plays at a position where depth is needed. Why not even try to bring him back when we know a low cost depth DE is needed? Why is the other team's guy always better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pungopal Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Evans was a good blue collar guy who did his job. Sorry to see him go. However, there will be other DE's of his same caliber to choose from when teams start making their cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2009/03/demetric_evans_moving_on.html#moreYou know, I'm fine with the spending on free agents, I'm happy to keep Hall, I'm happy with Haynesworth and Dockery but Evans is right. It just bothers me, why do we never ever value the guys who've toiled for us, worked their asses off, carved a niche for themselves and aren't even that expensive? I just don't get it, I don't get it at all. I want to believe that Snyderatto has learned some things and they seem to be making some smarter decisions, I want to dismiss the tired old criticisms from mediots rehashing Deion and Bruce but damned if it doesn't seem sometimes like they will just never learn. This is a guy who's a solid player with good character, great commitment and work ethic who's grown with us, wanted nothing more than to stay here and can be had for excellent value on top of it. He should still be here. :2cents: totally agree, these are the types of players you help build a squad with. Could have given us a few more years of serviceable production on the cheap, while we actually developed these younger guys. Had we even agreed to match it, i doubt the 49'ers would have countered. If that had happened I would have been ok with it. But we never even gave the guy a chance. The thing is, you know what you get Evans, he may not be an all-pro ... but you KNOW he's gonna get the job done and allow the other stars on the team shine. This sucks, we could have completely turned out focus to the OL. Now we are bringing back PD and possibly Wynn (2 guys over 35 years old?). It's like every time Vinny does something good, he goes out and lets a good player go. best of luck to you Evans, you will be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 They gave him basically a one year 2 mil deal. Had we offered him 1.5 mil per for 2 or 3 years (barely above vet min) at any time in the last year or this offseason he'd still be here. I doubt that, didn't San Fran give him 4 mill over 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Evans didnt fit in the plans anymore, just like Big Joe didn't a few years ago, sucks to see these types of players go but it's a nature of the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I doubt that, didn't San Fran give him 4 mill over 2 years? 2 years, 4 mil, but voidable by San Fran after the first season so it's essentially a one year, 2 mil deal. Evans basically said he wanted nothing more than to stay here. His wife is a doctor who has a year left of residency in this area, you really think if we offered him 1 year, 1.5 mil he would've walked from it? It's possible but the point is we didn't even attempt to do that, we basically just said he's not part of our plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.