ESPN via Adam Schefter: 1st round tender on Jason

[Hunter_R]

Exactly. Not to mention that JC got the second highest (I think) tender available. If they wanted to cut him loose, they could just cut him, offer a lower tender, or not tender him at all. The fact that negotiations start at a 1st round picks means they value JC.

Its really amazing how delusional the JC hate crew see things through angry glasses.

EDIT: I was correct. For Jasons tender class, his is the second highest available. Meaning that while the team may be willing to parts ways with JC, it does not mean its a sure thing and they "want" to get rid of him.

Pretty sure the tender needed to be at least 110% of Campbell's base salary. If that's the case, then he was offered the lowest tender possible.

[Passizle]

Pretty sure the tender needed to be at least 110% of Campbell's base salary. If that's the case, then he was offered the lowest tender possible.

While i'm no contractual expert, from what I have read, they could have given him 4 different tenders. He got the second highest one. Maybe I'm wrong. From what I read... it makes sense to me.

Lets also not sidestep the issue that the DID tender him. They were not obligated to... so like I stated. He has value to the team. The negotiation will start at first round pick should he sign with another team.

If what is speculated by the "boys" they would not have tendered him at all. They dont wnat him on the team, so just cut him. Period. The fact that he has been tendered proves that the team does value him. How much, we dont know fo r sure... but the 1st rounder suggests that its pretty high.

Have you even looked at the FA QB availability? In the QB catagory... its REALLY slim pickings.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency#players-tab-set-1:players-grid-container-position

Surprisingly, I was very surprised about the amount of offensive linemaen available.

[Passizle]

In what way?

BTW Jason got the second lowest tender but the way I understand it he was only eligible for two and he got the lower one.

Maybe it was not you. Nevermind.

[wvtbred]

While i'm no contractual expert, from what I have read, they could have given him 4 different tenders. He got the second highest one. Maybe I'm wrong. From what I read... it makes sense to me.

Lets also not sidestep the issue that the DID tender him. They were not obligated to... so like I stated. He has value to the team. The negotiation will start at first round pick should he sign with another team.

If what is speculated by the "boys" they would not have tendered him at all. They dont wnat him on the team, so just cut him. Period. The fact that he has been tendered proves that the team does value him. How much, we dont know fo r sure... but the 1st rounder suggests that its pretty high.

Have you even looked at the FA QB availability? In the QB catagory... its REALLY slim pickings.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency#players-tab-set-1:players-grid-container-position

Surprisingly, I was very surprised about the amount of offensive linemaen available.

They tendered him because with the FA QB situation as bad as it is he does have some value.

Also and more importantly it helps to hide what they are going to do in the draft. He won't be dealt until they get the number 1 or at the last minute (possibly both).

BTW they tendered Los too so tenders aren't saying much.

[Passizle]

They tendered him because with the FA QB situation as bad as it is he does have some value.

Also and more importantly it helps to hide what they are going to do in the draft. He won't be dealt until they get the number 1 or at the last minute (possibly both).

BTW they tendered Los too so tenders aren't saying much.

Nice. So when the news is announced that he tendered... you guys get all giddy... "thinking" it means JC is definitley gone.

Then when a person comes by and expliains the tender, logically (which also happens to put serious doubt in your speculation), all the sudden, tenders dont mean much anyway. Classic.

[wvtbred]

Nice. So when the news is announced that he tendered... you guys get all giddy... "thinking" it means JC is definitley gone.

Then when a person comes by and expliains the tender, logically (which also happens to put serious doubt in your speculation), all the sudden, tenders dont mean much anyway. Classic.

1.) You have to tender to be able to trade.

2.) Campbell was given the lower of the two available tenders.

3.) Just because he is tendered doesn't mean you have to take the tender value. You can negotiate down to whatever you want to deal him for.

4.) Tender is only for one year.

5.) Tenders have no signing bonus.

6.) They can still cut him with a tender at any time.

7.) They had multiple opportunities to give him a multi year deal just like Rabach but didn't they only tendered him

[Gregpeck99]

8. They tried to trade him but could not. Tender gives Jason ability to cut his own deal without the indignity of being released and hurting his value (Skins doing Jason a favor).

[RED06]

1.) You have to tender to be able to trade.

2.) Campbell was given the lower of the two available tenders.

3.) Just because he is tendered doesn't mean you have to take the tender value. You can negotiate down to whatever you want to deal him for.

4.) Tender is only for one year.

5.) Tenders have no signing bonus.

6.) They can still cut him with a tender at any time.

7.) They had multiple opportunities to give him a multi year deal just like Rabach but didn't they only tendered him

They also had the opportunity to give multi-year deals to Rocky, Carlos, Reed Doughty, and several others but they didn't so what's your point?

And wasn't Rabach UN-restricted? I think he was...........So its not the same at all as a restricted free agent as JC, Rocky and several others are.

****Case and point you can't "TENDER" a UN-restricted free agent*******

Look around the league WVTBRED........ALL "RESTRICTED" free agents where tendered.

RED06

[RED06]

8. They tried to trade him but could not. Tender gives Jason ability to cut his own deal without the indignity of being released and hurting his value (Skins doing Jason a favor).

Uhm they couldn't trade him because the Bears gave up two 1st round draft picks and a 3rd along with Orton for the trade to work and we didn't have two 1st to give up, and the picks is what the Broncos where looking for hence the reason why Kyle Orton is tendered right now and didn't get a "LONG" term deal when that trade happened.

And we didn't want to loose the picks we had so we didn't move up in the draft last year because of lack of ammo from the previous 10 years of stupid deals we've done with Cerratto at the helm.

The Bears are the "NEW" old Redskins now with NO draft picks and lots of needs so they have to spend money now and "ALOT" of it to make things happen for them.

That was more of your view on the whole deal because you just hate Jason Campbell, and before you say that Josh McDaniels didn't want Jason Campbell, please provide the link of him saying that or an article............

RED06

[The Mayor]

I just have one question. If they absolutely wanted to keep him, why not sign him to a long-term contract? Or at least tender him higher?

Sorry....that was two questions.

[RED06]

I just have one question. If they absolutely wanted to keep him, why not sign him to a long-term contract? Or at least tender him higher?

Sorry....that was two questions.

You can ask that question for every player that was tendered on every team, and remember there where only a few 1st and 3rd round tenders place on ALL of those restricted free agents out there.

Darren Sproles had no tender at first but when they heard ALL the reports the Redskins wants him they placed a 1st and 3rd on him thinking that Shannahan and Co will pull a Vinny move and give them the farm for Darren Sproles LOL and they didn't.

If they keep Campbell they will make him earn his keep whether he starts or not as they are with everyone on this roster and I'm glad they're doing that. But it doesn't say "We don't want you because we're not offering a long term contract at this point". I don't see alot of teams jumping at alot of these tendered free agents on the market right now.

So to tender him with a 1st like Allen said in his presser that's what they feel he's worth, and they can see JC in their plans for 2010 and beyond.........in other words "show us if you're worth it and we'll pay you" after this year if you're here.

RED06

[hieverybody]

Listen, I'm a JC fan, but the Redskins tendered him at the lowest possible tender that his required salary (110% of last year) dictated. Yes, they could have tendered him lower but doing so would make no sense because it wouldn't have saved them any money. Tendering him for a 1 and 3 would only have cost an extra $100,000, but they didn't see enough in him to do so.

[CommanderDOOM]

The move is smart. It tells teams you'll listen but it also says we value JC, which we should if for no other reason we spent a 1st and other **** to get him. I heard a second is where the convo starts depending on our other tenders.

[fansince62]

Look. I understand you dont like the current QB. But at least be honest with yourself and most of all... factual.

JC, despite the circumstances has gotten better every year statistically. Look it up. Next, the line WAS NOT healthy in 2007... unless you consider losing your starting right tackle for the season in the second snap of the season healthy.

the delusional purveyor of convoluted and twisted statistical argument in these parts happens to be staring back at you each morning in the mirror. You obviously can't see the pot, kettle, black quality to your own posts.

- the team attempted to unload JC...twice in the last season. why would that be?

- the team did not extend his contract last season when it had every opportunity. why would that be?

- the team did not tender the highest price for JC. as Allen himself noted the other day the team tendered to what they thought was value. why would that be?

- to the degree that the media has sources, other teams are not offering trade scenarios either in fact or at a level palatable to the Skins. why would that be?

- Your argument about line quality is pathetic and dishonest in the extreme. It's a catch all that excuses every measure of performance. not only that, but it leads you to a comical place where you argue failings are attributable to line play....but improving statistics are an acceptable measure of JC's abilities and potential. ok. got it. bad = line. good = JC. you don't happen to work for the government do you?

- Yes. You're right. Jason is the only QB in the league who requires a starting line-up of top tier players to thrive. He's the only QB in the league who can't adapt to adversity and lead his team to success. That's the kind of QB we want!!!

In the end, you resort to selected statistics because you can't answer the critics who point at mechanical and execution flaws that have plagued this QB - through all the OCs and variations in line play. And that is because....you can't recognize in yourself the very same insular process you accuse others of: you are emotionally invested in the debate itself and are willing to assume the conclusion drives the "facts".

honesty indeed. arrogant fraud.

[fansince62]

here's the reality: the FO knows the team has to get younger; knows the team has holes all over the roster; knows it has to accomplish most of its ends through the draft. my guess is that the long-term strategy is much like the Lions...

- rebuild the team through the draft

- restore fiscal maneuverability/flexibility through reductions in high price, older players

- maintain short-term competitiveness (i.e., don't lose/decimate the youth through repeated 4-12 seasons) by signing interim, older players at reasonable contracts for a couple years.

this is going to be a 2-3 year rebuild. the going is uphill because they have to overcome the financial, personnel, draft, etc., blunders/cul de sac of the past FO regime.

[HailRiggoRanger]

This back and forth nonsense...look, jsteelz (sp.) posted here and said JC was worth a third round pick. If the Redskins get a third round pick or better, JC is gone. If not, he stays. That's it, end of argument.

All this arguing back and forth nonsense about what "the tender means, whether the Redskins think JC is a decent QB, whether or not it's JC's fault the OL sucked"...is asinine.

[RocketCitySkins]

- the team attempted to unload JC...twice in the last season. why would that be?

And the second time would be when? The first attempt to trade was for Cutler in a three way deal of some sort with Tampa, but I'm not aware of a second attempt at a trade. Whatever the trade was to move up to draft Sanchez, JC wasn't a part of it. How very non-factual of someone who is preaching getting the facts straight. In fact, Cerrato said just the opposite.

Redskins.com April 25th

Asked by reporters if Jason Campbell would remain the starting quarterback, Cerrato replied: "Jason was always going to be the starter."

[MustangSteve]

the delusional purveyor of convoluted and twisted statistical argument in these parts happens to be staring back at you each morning in the mirror. You obviously can't see the pot, kettle, black quality to your own posts.

- the team attempted to unload JC...twice in the last season. why would that be?

- the team did not extend his contract last season when it had every opportunity. why would that be?

- the team did not tender the highest price for JC. as Allen himself noted the other day the team tendered to what they thought was value. why would that be?

- to the degree that the media has sources, other teams are not offering trade scenarios either in fact or at a level palatable to the Skins. why would that be?

- Your argument about line quality is pathetic and dishonest in the extreme. It's a catch all that excuses every measure of performance. not only that, but it leads you to a comical place where you argue failings are attributable to line play....but improving statistics are an acceptable measure of JC's abilities and potential. ok. got it. bad = line. good = JC. you don't happen to work for the government do you?

- Yes. You're right. Jason is the only QB in the league who requires a starting line-up of top tier players to thrive. He's the only QB in the league who can't adapt to adversity and lead his team to success. That's the kind of QB we want!!!

In the end, you resort to selected statistics because you can't answer the critics who point at mechanical and execution flaws that have plagued this QB - through all the OCs and variations in line play. And that is because....you can't recognize in yourself the very same insular process you accuse others of: you are emotionally invested in the debate itself and are willing to assume the conclusion drives the "facts".

honesty indeed. arrogant fraud.

These are the facts and this is why I want another QB leading this team. To even say Jason has gotten better every year is a joke, just because a QB completes more 5 yard passes doesn't make him better in any way.

No other qb in the history of this team has been given more chances for losing as many games as Jason has. No other QB in the entire league needs the excuses Jason needs, his O-line is bad, so was Big Bens when he won the SuperBowl, the worst in the league to be exact. It's definitely time for Jason to move on and take all of his excuses with him.

[Passizle]

the delusional purveyor of convoluted and twisted statistical argument in these parts happens to be staring back at you each morning in the mirror. You obviously can't see the pot, kettle, black quality to your own posts.

- the team attempted to unload JC...twice in the last season. why would that be?

- the team did not extend his contract last season when it had every opportunity. why would that be?

- the team did not tender the highest price for JC. as Allen himself noted the other day the team tendered to what they thought was value. why would that be?

- to the degree that the media has sources, other teams are not offering trade scenarios either in fact or at a level palatable to the Skins. why would that be?

- Your argument about line quality is pathetic and dishonest in the extreme. It's a catch all that excuses every measure of performance. not only that, but it leads you to a comical place where you argue failings are attributable to line play....but improving statistics are an acceptable measure of JC's abilities and potential. ok. got it. bad = line. good = JC. you don't happen to work for the government do you?

- Yes. You're right. Jason is the only QB in the league who requires a starting line-up of top tier players to thrive. He's the only QB in the league who can't adapt to adversity and lead his team to success. That's the kind of QB we want!!!

In the end, you resort to selected statistics because you can't answer the critics who point at mechanical and execution flaws that have plagued this QB - through all the OCs and variations in line play. And that is because....you can't recognize in yourself the very same insular process you accuse others of: you are emotionally invested in the debate itself and are willing to assume the conclusion drives the "facts".

honesty indeed. arrogant fraud.

Oh... I see. Another over the top, over dramatic poster. Save this type of drivel for your next attempt at fiction.

If you want to inslut my intelligence, my candor, or anything else, take it to pm and I will gladly discuss it. Otherwise stick to the topic champ.

The poster I replied to stated that JC had his worst year of his career in 2009. He followed that by stating we had a healthy top quality line in 2007. Try and debate those "facts" smart guy.

The truth of the matter is that we COULD do worse at the position. We could also do better. The real frauds in this debate are the smug, righteuos characters (such as yourself) that think the current QB is the worst one in the NFL, with zero upside on any given day. You are the same characters that will thump your chest and pounce on ES with news of a reporter/coach/player possibly critiquing JC, then in the same breath, call any reporter/coach/players that give the props a fool and just giving the kid lip service.

At the same time, they think the offensive line does not need addressing, and also happen to think Moss is a top tier WR... Portis is still a stud with a terrific bunch of RB spelling him, a solid coaching history, and evironment to groom and sustain a legit NFL team.

Fraud indeed sir.

[RWJ]

Just a thought

It will be interesting to see if JC gets an invite like Brandon Marshall from a team that might be interested in his services. I hope he does. IF he does I THINK a deal can be struck for as little as a 3rd round pick or lower multiple picks.

If he doesn't visit any teams, then that will speak volumes of what the other NFL teams think of his value.

[wvtbred]

Just a thought

It will be interesting to see if JC gets an invite like Brandon Marshall from a team that might be interested in his services. I hope he does. IF he does I THINK a deal can be struck for as little as a 3rd round pick or lower multiple picks.

If he doesn't visit any teams, then that will speak volumes of what the other NFL teams think of his value.

This is a good point, has Jason visited anyone yet?

[RWJ]

This is a good point, has Jason visited anyone yet?

Nope, but I sure hope a visit is lined up soon.

[Newera]

Just a thought

It will be interesting to see if JC gets an invite like Brandon Marshall from a team that might be interested in his services. I hope he does. IF he does I THINK a deal can be struck for as little as a 3rd round pick or lower multiple picks.

If he doesn't visit any teams, then that will speak volumes of what the other NFL teams think of his value.

Bingo.

[Newera]

Like I said, I think Jason's value is higher in the league as a back up then as a starter.

[GenMgr]

I'm pretty sure Jason's agent/Allen are working the phones as we speak. BTW, ESPN's NFC West blog is reporting that ARIZONA is looking for two QB's....hmmm.