Per Schefter: Su'a Cravens Considering Retirement

[Bang]

30 minutes ago, megared said:

 

What are we 'counting on' him to do?  Cravens wasn't the reason we didn't make the playoffs last season.  He wasn't even considered critical to the defense because no one knew how placing him at safety full-time would shake out.  His consequences were losing out on a year's salary, not accruing a year, having to rebuild trust with his colleagues and prove once again to everyone that he belongs in the league.  

 

And the Redskins should've held firm as in 'we own your rights for the next 3 years, so if you want to turn this around you've got to say and do the right things to earn your way back on the field'.  The fact that they had so much leverage in the situation, and gave up makes it seem to me that it was more personal than business.  I seriously doubt what we got in the trade moves this franchise closer to competing.  That's what my problem is with it.  

We are counting on him to play.

To show up and hold down the position he was drafted to do. Highly drafted. Expected to assume a starting role, to be a major player on the defense. Second round picks are valuable. We used one on him because HE declared his desire to be drafted and play in the NFL.

You know, to do what he signed his contract to do.

 

You can't count on him to do that. You can't expect to carry a position with so much flux that you have to have a starting caliber player on the bench just to cover for him if he abandons the team again.

It isn't about his being any cause for playoffs.. what he DID cause was every defensive coach to have to re-shuffle everything at the 11th hour to accommodate his texted retirement.

 

Leverage?

Here is leverage in this sort of situation:

Su'a:   Wow that training camp was hard. I appreciate you guys making me a starting safety and showing all that faith in me..  but, I quit. I want to go make lollipops for a living, or i want to join Greenpeace, or I want to go be a fireman. (you know, exactly like he did 6 months ago.)

Redskins:   But we have leverage!
Su'a:   Ok, bye! I want to be an astronaut and a cowboy! Pow! Pow!
 

Now what? All your leverage is worthless, because now you once again have to make a decision on who to fill his spot with, and who to sign to fill the backup's spot, and then adjust the gameplanning accordingly. After a complete offseason of planning of expecting this guy to be there, now you have to adjust it all at the last minute.

 You own his rights, and are getting exactly nothing for it. Nothing. You're getting no play, you're getting no value. The only thing you might be getting is petty satisfaction of the 'don't play here, and you don't play anywhere", and again, that nets you exactly nothing.

 

Teammates can't help but look at him in the locker room and wonder if he has their back, if he will be there tomorrow, or if he has so little regard for the team and all of the work all of them have put in to help each other succeed that he won't even respect them enough to let them know before the last minute via a text that he's quitting on them.  Coaches have to wonder if the next text is the one that says he's out, or if he will even show up.

 

You can't count on him, and you have to.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

 

[Burgold]

• Another thing to consider is that for a long time, people complained that we were keeping average or bad players for too long without bringing competition or unseating them. These people said that good teams get rid of the players a year early instead of a year late. ti

 

Now, the Cravens' case is a little different, but not really. Do you think the Patriots would put up with a slacker who literally quit on his team? No, they would cut bait and get someone better. Hell, someone THERE is automatically better than someone not there. 

 

People want the Redskins' front office to act like the best teams. This is how the best front offices' react. They cut bait. Su'a, unfortunately, hadn't proved valuable enough to be worth the headache to this front office. The Broncos took him on because the price was cheap enough and grabbing him doesn't cost them much. It's like the teams who every year take a flier on someone elses' first year bust to see if they can turn it around. Those teams know that most times it doesn't work, but when it works you have gold for the price of coal.

[megared]

6 minutes ago, Bang said:

We are counting on him to play.

To show up and hold down the position he was drafted to do. Highly drafted. Expected to assume a starting role, to be a major player on the defense. Second round picks are valuable. We used one on him because HE declared his desire to be drafted and play in the NFL.

You know, to do what he signed his contract to do.

 

You can't count on him to do that. You can't expect to carry a position with so much flux that you have to have a starting caliber player on the bench just to cover for him if he abandons the team again.

It isn't about his being any cause for playoffs.. what he DID cause was every defensive coach to have to re-shuffle everything at the 11th hour to accommodate his texted retirement.

 

Leverage?

Here is leverage in this sort of situation:

Su'a:   Wow that training camp was hard. I appreciate you guys making me a starting safety and showing all that faith in me..  but, I quit. I want to go make lollipops for a living, or i want to join Greenpeace, or I want to go be a fireman. (you know, exactly like he did 6 months ago.)

Redskins:   But we have leverage!
Su'a:   Ok, bye! I want to be an astronaut and a cowboy! Pow! Pow!
 

Now what? All your leverage is worthless, because now you once again have to make a decision on who to fill his spot with, and who to sign to fill the backup's spot, and then adjust the gameplanning accordingly. After a complete offseason of planning of expecting this guy to be there, now you have to adjust it all at the last minute.

 You own his rights, and are getting exactly nothing for it. Nothing. You're getting no play, you're getting no value. The only thing you might be getting is petty satisfaction of the 'don't play here, and you don't play anywhere", and again, that nets you exactly nothing.

 

Teammates can't help but look at him in the locker room and wonder if he has their back, if he will be there tomorrow, or if he has so little regard for the team and all of the work all of them have put in to help each other succeed. Coaches have to wonder if the next text is the one that says he's out, or if he will even show up.

 

You can't count on him, and you have to.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

 

 

Not saying there wouldn't be trust issues there, but for gods sake, am I unrealistic to expect my favorite franchise's management to not behave and make decisions like a jilted lover and cut off their nose to spite their face?  I mean look at our recent history, no one is coming here because of championships we won 25+ years ago.  And the program changes every offseason, every day with every different player.  There is no coherent long term strategy that is being executed, it just appears that we're piecing together what we can to get to 8 wins, maybe sneak into the playoffs to be cannon fodder for the organizations that know what they're doing.

 

22 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

I am not sure if this has been brought up before is here is a scenario ... let’s say we get to last day of cuts and injuries or talent means you have to go heavy in one position or another what do you do if Cravens was 53 and there were say another dime line backer and a standout WR were 54 and 55  mayblsvsmall school / long shots who shine in camp and who could develop into something ... ( maybe like a Dunbar) . 

 

Do you keep Cravens ? Knowing that he walked at this point last year ? Do you give up on your second round investment ... or do you give up on your diamond in the rough ? And would you  not have that feeling every year ? To keep Cravens you are going to have to can someone who maybe slightly less talented but more passionate ? 

 

To me i am a big believer in team concept ... something the patriots embrace, something Gibbs was strong in ... the team might not be littered with stars but they will die on the field for each other .

 

If that’s the culture you are trying to bring about then I am not sure how Cravens could have come back .. 

 

however if you want to culture a locker room where star players can do what the hell they want and get away with it then fine welcome him back with open arms - the scrubs do not like it ... pah forget them ... 

 

The other thing that kind of bothers me about this entire thing is Su’a doesn’t seem to have tried to build any bridges himself . The reason he was shut down for the year was because he was expecting to come back - no questions - but never spoke to the team about it . 

 

Its a bad situation sure ... maybe due diligence wasn’t diligent enough but it’s not like he got here and was a pain from day 1 . I mean he actually played out his rookie season and there really wasn’t any indication anything was wrong that would have lead to this outcome ... 

 

hindsight and foresight ... 

 

I say you leave your options open and address it, should it occur.  Are we even in a position to make that choice now?  Is it a good practice to take the easy way out now to avoid hard decisions later? The team concept is fine and dandy, I don't agree with it, but even objectively you can't call our approach consistent.  Fuller worked his butt off and was our highest ranked defender.  How was he rewarded?  What message does that send to the young guys about how this franchise values its own? 

 

There is absolutely nothing about this franchise in its current state that should be compared to what Gibbs did.  I wish they could take the trophies out of the building and banish his name from being spoken.  It's that false hope of returning to the glory days that has us thinking every season that we're one or two pieces away from competing.  Talent issues aside, what about this team gives anyone the sense that they have camaraderie or togetherness to compare to the Patriots or the teams Gibbs coached?  

 

We bought high and sold low on Cravens.  If I saw the same action in any other business I'd say it was not smart.  Just because I really want this team to succeed doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat incompetence.  

[Bang]

I agree, i'd like the FO to not act impulsively, but honestly, I think they are perfectly right in this. They aren't acting like a jilted lover, they're acting like an employer who can't count on a highly touted recruit that is expected to perform, and they are getting back as much as they can for a liability. You say you don't want them to act like a jilted lover,, ie: unreasonably, but you advocate keeping him because you own his rights, even though he can and has already screwed you over badly, and is making further indications he's not finished dreaming. That sounds like the very pettiness you're complaining about. 

 

Su'a got fired. And he should have gotten fired because of his own actions.

 

You say players aren't coming here to win championships, and I have a hard time how letting a malingering immature twit like this walk all over them and leave a gigantic question mark and festering personnel problem in the locker room helps in that regard.

That will attract the guys we were getting 10 years ago,, the ones who want money and laugh at the team and the FO as they skip on out of town. (See Sanders, Deion.  Haynesworth, Albert. and a multitude of others.

 

 

If worrying about perception is a hangup, as a player, you can't see how them cutting ties with this problem child doesn't reflect positively? The Redskins aren't putting up with a guy who can disrupt your chances to succeed if you sign here.

 

The redskins initially failed two years ago by drafting him. Keeping him increases the chances dramatically that they would be compounding the mistake.

Sometimes you have to just cut bait.

 

~Bang

[Commander -JB-]

The best organizations ARE NOT LOYAL TO PLAYERS.  

 

 

[megared]

14 minutes ago, Bang said:

I agree, i'd like the FO to not act impulsively, but honestly, I think they are perfectly right in this. They aren't acting like a jilted lover, they're acting like an employer who can't count on a highly touted recruit that is expected to perform, and they are getting back as much as they can for a liability. You say you don't want them to act like a jilted lover,, ie: unreasonably, but you advocate keeping him because you own his rights, even though he can and has already screwed you over badly, and is making further indications he's not finished dreaming. That sounds like the very pettiness you're complaining about. 

 

Su'a got fired. And he should have gotten fired because of his own actions.

 

You say players aren't coming here to win championships, and I have a hard time how letting a malingering immature twit like this walk all over them and leave a gigantic question mark and festering personnel problem in the locker room helps in that regard.

That will attract the guys we were getting 10 years ago,, the ones who want money and laugh at the team and the FO as they skip on out of town. (See Sanders, Deion.  Haynesworth, Albert. and a multitude of others.

 

 

If worrying about perception is a hangup, as a player, you can't see how them cutting ties with this problem child doesn't reflect positively? The Redskins aren't putting up with a guy who can disrupt your chances to succeed if you sign here.

 

The redskins initially failed two years ago by drafting him. Keeping him increases the chances dramatically that they would be compounding the mistake.

Sometimes you have to just cut bait.

 

~Bang

 

If they felt that they HAVE to get rid of him long term, you don't think his value could've been higher had he actually played and alleviated those concerns?  My point is, getting next to nothing for him doesn't benefit the team in any meaningful way.  I don't believe what they got for him is acceptable.  And his liability to the team is extremely limited, considering they hold every meaningful measure of leverage in the situation.  My feeling is that, they didn't have to do it at all, and they certainly didn't have to do it right now, when his value is the lowest it's ever been.

 

If Cravens decides to retire again unexpectedly, a roster has 53 spots on it.  I'm not advocating starting the guy, you make him earn his way back onto the field.  Who exactly is that hurting?

 

Again, I don't subscribe to the whole locker room fragility argument everyone is framing.  I find it hard to believe the other guys on the team are going to their jobs any better or worse because of feelings.  And I have an even harder time subscribing to that line of thinking when you let your franchise QB walk for nothing...despite him telling the entire world the last two years that he wants to test the market (i.e. get PAID), and you're trading away young guys with tremendous upside and no known issues.  What kind of locker room is really being built?  Don't get sanctimonious when it comes to Cravens...

 

From a value standpoint, I think the trade made us losers in a way that wasn't NECESSARY.  Holding onto a guy's rights when you invested a 2nd round pick isn't spite.  If the Redskins deduced that they'll never be able to get anything out of a guy that messed up, my next question is well, why is that?  Teams give guys second chances all day and benefit from them. 

 

Are we trying to build a competitive team, or a disciple-filled, boring assortment of players that are just good enough to escape scrutiny?

5 minutes ago, -JB- said:

The best organizations ARE NOT LOYAL TO PLAYERS.  

 

 

 

They're loyal to value.  What's the value in this transaction?  I don't see it.  

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

• Do you think the Patriots would put up with a slacker who literally quit on his team? No, they would cut bait and get someone better. Hell, someone THERE is automatically better than someone not there. 

 

 

Last summer former 2nd round pick turned Pro Bowl LB Jamie Collins said he was expecting to be paid "Vonn Miller" money after the season. Not a slacker, just showing the first sign of a guy thinking more about his pocket than the team.

Bellichick traded him to the Browns within a week for a compensatory pick the Browns hadn't even been awarded yet, with the provision that if they didn't get it, the Pats would accept a 4th.

Threw him not only out of town, but to the worst team. Without blinking.

 

So...

 

Megared..  if they could get better value, i am sure they would have.. but unlike us, other teams seem to regard red flags accordingly, and don't offer up too much.

Us holding him only further weakens our position UNLESS he ends up playing, which as is evident, is no guarantee.

PLUS, this sends a message,, much like Bllichick did. It threatens those who think the coaches are pushovers, and it reassures those who feel Su'a let them down that this sort of  commitment problem is not going to be a problem here anymore. There IS value in this.

 

~Bang

[Commander -JB-]

8 minutes ago, Bang said:

Last summer former 2nd round pick turned Pro Bowl LB Jamie Collins said he was expecting to be paid "Vonn Miller" money after the season. Not a slacker, just showing the first sign of a guy thinking more about his pocket than the team.

Bellichick traded him to the Browns within a week for a compensatory pick the Browns hadn't even been awarded yet, with the provision that if they didn't get it, the Pats would accept a 4th.

Threw him not only out of town, but to the worst team. Without blinking.

 

So...

 

Megared..  if they could get better value, i am sure they would have.. but unlike us, other teams seem to regard red flags accordingly, and don't offer up too much.

Us holding him only further weakens our position UNLESS he ends up playing, which as is evident, is no guarantee.

PLUS, this sends a message,, much like Bllichick did. It threatens those who think the coaches are pushovers, and it reassures those who feel Su'a let them down that this sort of  commitment problem is not going to be a problem here anymore. There IS value in this.

 

~Bang

Word. 

[megared]

9 minutes ago, Bang said:

Last summer former 2nd round pick turned Pro Bowl LB Jamie Collins said he was expecting to be paid "Vonn Miller" money after the season. Not a slacker, just showing the first sign of a guy thinking more about his pocket than the team.

Bellichick traded him to the Browns within a week for a compensatory pick the Browns hadn't even been awarded yet, with the provision that if they didn't get it, the Pats would accept a 4th.

Threw him not only out of town, but to the worst team. Without blinking.

 

So...

 

~Bang

 

And the Patriots are the kings of buying low and selling high:

 

Corey Dillon

Randy Moss

Aqib Talib

LeGarrette Blount

Chris Long

 

And the Patriots are known for trading guys who they know they aren't going to extend.  Did anyone really think he was going to get a contract bigger than Tom Brady???

[Bang]

I'm really not sure i am following the argument here.

You want to keep trash because you paid for it.

But it's trash.

 

And the fact is i just showed an instant comparison of a malcontent high draft pick they got rid of almost instantly after he showed even an appearance of selfishness.

They bought high, and cut the tie for something they didn't even know if they would get. And then went to the Super Bowl again.

You say they are known for trading guys they won't extend, but that says they had no plans to extend their pro bowl 2nd round pick (and 2 time 2nd team all pro in his first 3 seasons..). That doesn't make any sense. They changed plans the second he made it clear he was more about himself.

(Brady regularly takes less to keep space available for the team to use on other players, btw.)

See the difference between all those guys you mentioned, and Su'a Cravens?

All those guys had proven they could play at a high level and have the drive to do so. All those guys had proven careers to look back on for reference. (they are masterful at pulling guys off the heap, Corey Dillon, Blount.. they aren't shopping for bums.)

Su'a proved he will quit after an average rookie campaign, at the last second, with no thought toward his team or his teammates.

 

There are a million reasons why the Pats are the best, and one of them is they do not put up with bull**** from players.

Randy Moss is a Hall of Famer. They traded a 4th for him, and let him got for a 3rd 4 weeks into the 2010 season because he said he didn't feel wanted. They wasted no time.

So yes, they moved up a little bit there. but the catalyst is the same. He ****ed, and was gone. the fact he's a Hall of Famer at that point allows them to get value. 

 

~Bang

[Darc Requiem]

@megared Alleviate concerns by letting Cravens play? The issue with Cravens is you can't count on him to show up. If he pulls what he did last year with us or what he did at USC again, what little value he has evaporates. You get rid of him now and let Denver wonder if he'll actually show up.

[megared]

13 minutes ago, Bang said:

Megared..  if they could get better value, i am sure they would have.. but unlike us, other teams seem to regard red flags accordingly, and don't offer up too much.

Us holding him only further weakens our position UNLESS he ends up playing, which as is evident, is no guarantee.

PLUS, this sends a message,, much like Bllichick did. It threatens those who think the coaches are pushovers, and it reassures those who feel Su'a let them down that this sort of  commitment problem is not going to be a problem here anymore. There IS value in this.

 

~Bang

 

I've been careful to use the word value, because it attaches an intrinsic worth to the meaning of the transaction.  To me, that equates to cost/performance/draft picks things that are measurable.  It doesn't extend to things such as subjective measures of happiness, 'messages', culture or the pulse of the locker room.  While of course there's some worth to the latter items, the incoherent execution of that 'message' this entire offseason, in my opinion makes that argument null and void.  You don't get to sit on the mountain top and pontificate about the core Redskins you want on your team, and how everyone HAS to fall into line when:

 

1.  You paid a QB to be a mercenary for the past two seasons and continued to, when he displayed no willingness to even negotiate with you.

2.  You traded away a good, young piece as a throwaway in a deal to 'save face.'  

3.  You let another good young CB, who by all accounts is not going to break the bank, and that YOU developed, leave in free agency.  

 

What's the coherent message from all four of these transactions?

[Bang]

I haven't really seen any incoherence this offseason. 
They made it clear they were moving on from Kirk, and moved boldly.

They have shopped wisely, not overpaying and not being impatient for free agents.

Losing Fuller sucks, but a QB is essential, and Kirk's departure left that totally void. Gruden has been building and has two years left.. to expect him to start over is ridiculous. Fuller was the price of remaining competitive at the most critical position.

 

What am i missing?

 

Kirk isn't really comparable, because Kirk was going to command the most money we've ever paid anyone. As it is, he got an unbelievable fully guaranteed contract. Vikings said "Super Bowl or bust". That kind of money puts him way off the comparison chart.

 

Trading Su'a doesn't 'save face' it saves real tangible things,, like we do not have to concern ourselves if he is going to leave the team high and dry again at the eleventh hour. They have what they can count on.

 

This does effect a locker room. Guys who see what this guy did, and how management handles it affects morale. Moving him out tells serious players the FO has their backs and is not going to let some kid act like this and throw their work into chaos. Don't know if you recall but last year the DBs were NOT happy withy su'a's decision, and the defacto leader of the group DHall called him out on it hard.

Definitely affects the team in a tangible way.

 

~Bang

[megared]

4 minutes ago, Bang said:

I'm really not sure i am following the argument here.

You want to keep trash because you paid for it.

But it's trash.

 

And the fact is i just showed an instant comparison of a malcontent high draft pick they got rid of almost instantly after he showed even an appearance of selfishness.

They bought high, and cut the tie for something they didn't even know if they would get. And then went to the Super Bowl again.

You say they are known for trading guys they won't extend, but that says they had no plans to extend their pro bowl 2nd round pick (and 2 time 2nd team all pro in his first 3 seasons..). That doesn't make any sense. They changed plans the second he made it clear he was more about himself.

(Brady regularly takes less to keep space available for the team to use on other players, btw.)

See the difference between all those guys you mentioned, and Su'a Cravens?

All those guys had proven they could play at a high level and have the drive to do so.

Su'a proved he will quit after an average rookie campaign, at the last second, with no thought toward his team or his teammates.

 

There are a million reasons why the Pats are the best, and one of them is they do not put up with bull**** from players.

Randy Moss is a Hall of Famer. They traded a 4th for him, and let him got for a 3rd 4 weeks into the 2010 season because he said he didn't feel wanted. They wasted no time.

So yes, they moved up a little bit there. but the catalyst is the same. He ****ed, and was gone. the fact he's a Hall of Famer at that point allows them to get value. 

 

~Bang

 

Comparing what we did to the Patriots is rich.  Randy Moss' value was at an all-time low when the Patriots traded for him.  Not only did they trade for him, they altered his contract for his salary to be more team friendly.  And what did they do in the final year of his contract?  They traded him.  See the pattern?

 

After Collins said he wanted a Von Miller level contract, the Patriots knew they never were going to get close to that number.  They also knew from negotiations going nowhere, that it was imperative that they get value for him before he hit free agency.  

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Bang.  The Patriots appear to use leverage, trades and free agency in a logical way, while we do the exact opposite.  They got a 2nd for a guy that wasn't considered to be in the same stratosphere as Cousins before he started playing. 

 

The Redskins on the other hand let their QB walk for NOTHING, and actually sent a valuable young player, and a 3rd draft pick for a mid tier replacement.  Oh, and they shipped a player out of town when his value was its absolute lowest, and didn't extend a few of their own guys when the opportunity might have been there.  As a result they had to address CB and OLB in free agency.  How does any of this make sense?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Cooley said this morning that he and Sheehan had talked to Mason Foster, who basically told them that there was no place in the locker room for S'ua Cravens anymore.

 

What more does anyone need to hear.

[megared]

14 minutes ago, Bang said:

I haven't really seen any incoherence this offseason. 
They made it clear they were moving on from Kirk, and moved boldly.

They have shopped wisely, not overpaying and not being impatient for free agents.

Losing Fuller sucks, but a QB is essential, and Kirk's departure left that totally void. Gruden has been building and has two years left.. to expect him to start over is ridiculous. Fuller was the price of remaining competitive at the most critical position.

 

What am i missing?

 

Kirk isn't really comparable, because Kirk was going to command the most money we've ever paid anyone. As it is, he got an unbelievable fully guaranteed contract. Vikings said "Super Bowl or bust". That kind of money puts him way off the comparison chart.

 

Trading Su'a doesn't 'save face' it saves real tangible things,, like we do not have to concern ourselves if he is going to leave the team high and dry again at the eleventh hour. They have what they can count on.

 

This does effect a locker room. Guys who see what this guy did, and how management handles it affects morale. Moving him out tells serious players the FO has their backs and is not going to let some kid act like this and throw their work into chaos. Don't know if you recall but last year the DBs were NOT happy withy su'a's decision, and the defacto leader of the group DHall called him out on it hard.

Definitely affects the team in a tangible way.

 

~Bang

 

I just disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that a QB is essential right now.  Does the rest of our roster give you the impression that we're ready to make a SB run?  We went 1-5 in our division last season, so what's with the urgency?  What is so essential that precludes a rebuild? 

 

Except Kirk wasn't demanding that kind of money early on.  

[SWFLSkins]

2 hours ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

It would be the most "Redskins" thing ever if he went to Denver and became the second coming of Troy freakin' Polamalu for the Broncos....

 

 

Serenity prayer, work on what you can control, that is clearly out of the Redskins control. Whether or not Su'a decides to actually hone his craft and work is up to him. Had the Redskins kept him, it appears that he was not willing to do that for them, or his teammates. That fantasy that you can change that is just that. 

 

 

1 hour ago, -JB- said:

The best organizations ARE NOT LOYAL TO PLAYERS.  

 

 

 

Loyalty is a two way street with a no u-turn sign and not a dead end. 

[megared]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Cooley said this morning that he and Sheehan had talked to Mason Foster, who basically told them that there was no place in the locker room for S'ua Cravens anymore.

 

What more does anyone need to hear.

 

No offense to the young man, but I don't care what Mason Foster thinks.  The guy's made approximately three noteworthy plays in the three years he's been here.  

[SWFLSkins]

2 minutes ago, megared said:

 

No offense to the young man, but I don't care what Mason Foster thinks.  The guy's made approximately three noteworthy plays in the three years he's been here.  

 

It's clear you are limiting his value to highlight reels. 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000910443/article/redskins-resign-lb-mason-foster-to-twoyear-deal

 

Foster was the first to re-sign this year, and oh, he did have that one game sealing INT, so his highlight reel could contend with su'a

[megared]

2 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

It's clear you are limiting his value to highlight reels. 

 

I just can't see building a team to Mason Foster's specifications.  He'd need a 100 year career to build credentials to get into the Hall of Fame.  What are we afraid of, missing out on his one annual forced fumble or interception??

[SWFLSkins]

His Twitter really something to be admired, most always positive and team in good light. 

2 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I just can't see building a team to Mason Foster's specifications.  He'd need a 100 year career to build credentials to get into the Hall of Fame.  What are we afraid of, missing out on his one annual forced fumble or interception??

 

LOL, Su'a already in the Hall of Shame sooooooo.... the point is He shows up, works hard, great team member, #name3thingsSualacks

[Califan007 The Constipated]

13 minutes ago, megared said:

 

No offense to the young man, but I don't care what Mason Foster thinks.  The guy's made approximately three noteworthy plays in the three years he's been here.  

 

1) This comment only shows that you aren't capable of recognizing a player's actual contributions (or lack of).

 

2) The idea that only the best players on a team can gauge the atmosphere of the locker room and teammates is laughable.

 

3) He's made far, far more plays, noteworthy or otherwise, over the last three years than you have. Why are you valuing your own opinion, again?

 

 

6 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

His Twitter really something to be admired, most always positive and team in good light. 

 

 

Um lol....we'll just overlook those few tweets last season after being shut down for the season.

[SWFLSkins]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Um lol....we'll just overlook those few tweets last season after being shut down for the season.

 

I said mostly,    

[Bang]

21 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Comparing what we did to the Patriots is rich.  Randy Moss' value was at an all-time low when the Patriots traded for him.  Not only did they trade for him, they altered his contract for his salary to be more team friendly.  And what did they do in the final year of his contract?  They traded him.  See the pattern?

 

After Collins said he wanted a Von Miller level contract, the Patriots knew they never were going to get close to that number.  They also knew from negotiations going nowhere, that it was imperative that they get value for him before he hit free agency.  

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Bang.  The Patriots appear to use leverage, trades and free agency in a logical way, while we do the exact opposite.  They got a 2nd for a guy that wasn't considered to be in the same stratosphere as Cousins before he started playing. 

 

The Redskins on the other hand let their QB walk for NOTHING, and actually sent a valuable young player, and a 3rd draft pick for a mid tier replacement.  Oh, and they shipped a player out of town when his value was its absolute lowest, and didn't extend a few of their own guys when the opportunity might have been there.  As a result they had to address CB and OLB in free agency.  How does any of this make sense?

 

You aren't sure where i am going with this?

 

It's pretty obvious. I will wait while you re-read.

 

This is a ridiculous comparison?
Pats draft defensive player in second round.

Redskins draft defensive player in second round.

Both show signs of selfish behavior.

Both are traded for lower value

The Pats in fact had a proven player,, he made a pro bowl, made th all pro team twice. Su'a hadn't shown much at all. 

 

So far your point seems to be that since we have him, we should keep him until we can get more.\

This ignores that we won't get more, and the risk involved in such a plan.  You risk losing all value, you risk alienating other players, you risk sending the wrong message to the wrong kind of players..  

 

The Redskins "let" their QB walk for nothing.

This is not true. They let the QB walk because he priced himself beyond his value. Now, whether this is their own fault is a matter of debate, because all indications are Kirk never even responded to the first contract offer they sent him.

With Kirk they did exactly what you want them to do with Cravens. They haad his rights and didn't let him go until they squeezed as much value out of his play as they coul.

The fact the Vikings gave him 84 million bucks that is fully guaranteed is crazy. CRAZY. ALL guaranteed means no moving the money to pro-rate the cap.. it means if he goes out and tears up his knee in the preseason and can't play he is guaranteed his money. And if it happens the next year, he is guaranteed his money. And it happen again,...    and this is not unheard of.. ask Sam Bradford

Again, these points are obvious. That you're not sure what I am saying is hard to grasp.

 

So you are left with this for the rest of your Kirk complaint:

They traded Fuller because regardless of what fans think is 'mid lvel', Smith has steadily gotten better since his career got off the coaching carousel. Take a look at his career and he has had nearly as many new offenses to run as he's had years in the league. Last year, not mid-tier at all.

and besides, the other option is NOTHING.

Kirk is leaving, no matter what. You have Colt McCoy. what are you going to do?

Draft someone? Give a rookie to a coach who has 23 yrs left? May as well fire him right now. And then you may as well cut the rookie because situations like that klill careers.  Rookie QB = square one. The Redskins are not in position o start over... they need to complete what Gruden has been trying to do.

 

You say none of this makes sense to you.

i think that is true.

 

~Bang

 

[Commander -JB-]

23 minutes ago, megared said:

 

No offense to the young man, but I don't care what Mason Foster thinks.  The guy's made approximately three noteworthy plays in the three years he's been here.  

Way to devalue a guy who actually suits up and is a team guy, all the while being upset that the Skins cut ties with Cravens who is a quitter.  SMH