Per Schefter: Su'a Cravens Considering Retirement

[megared]

12 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

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?

 

 

1.  I wouldn't care if it was Ray Lewis giving the opinion.  Players play, coaches coach, and management manages.  You don't get to not do your job then blame it on one of the other tiers.  

 

2.  See above.  Good teams take chances on guys where a value presents itself.  Bad teams are the ones that can't derive value when the situation arises.  Which do we fall under, based upon our current moves?

 

3.  I'm not comparing his highlights with Cravens. I would like to think that my team would be prudent enough to tell professional NFL players on their team to put on their 'big boy pants' and do their jobs, if they identified an opportunity for value.  We're on a message board, where we, express opinions.  I've been consistent in saying I don't agree with their decision, because the value wasn't there.  It meant more to us than it does now to the Broncos to get production out of him.  I'm sorry if that means you might actually have to do your job, but I see good teams get value out of guys that were considered questionable every season.  

[tmandoug1]

Sua interview coming up on Xm radio..... 

[megared]

5 minutes ago, -JB- said:

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

 

That's been the problem with this organization.  They devalue everything successful organizations do, to include subjective measures of locker room happiness, feelings, perceptions. 

 

I want a winner.  And it's clear that the teams that focus on winning football games get value from conventional, and unconventional means to obtain a competitive advantage.  They're doing almost the polar opposite of what we are, but somehow because we're in the game, wheeling and dealing in trades, ya'll think we're mirroring the damn Patriots.  Lol.

[megared]

16 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

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

 

 

The only similarity is that the Pats and the Redskins drafted a player in the 2nd round.  Did they deal Collins with 3 years left on his rookie deal with his value at its lowest?  No, in fact, they did the opposite.  

 

The 'wrong message', 'locker room talk' stuff is irrelevant to me.  You can't see the other side, we're purging guys that don't fit your narrative for one reason or another, but somehow that has zero effect in the opposite direction?  So the locker room is only affected when a player does something bad, but is not affected when the FO says one thing and does another?

 

You can't say Cousins priced himself beyond his value if he got it.  He was right all along.  But our FO had opportunities to meet his number before it became astronomical.  

 

I really don't care about Jay Gruden's job security and I would hate to think our FO is sacrificing building a consistent, sustainable contender because of his job.  We've seen the 49ers, Jags and other teams turn around their fortunes in very short order.  Why is a rebuild taboo?  

[Commander -JB-]

7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

That's been the problem with this organization.  They devalue everything successful organizations do, to include subjective measures of locker room happiness, feelings, perceptions. 

 

I want a winner.  And it's clear that the teams that focus on winning football games get value from conventional, and unconventional means to obtain a competitive advantage.  They're doing almost the polar opposite of what we are, but somehow because we're in the game, wheeling and dealing in trades, ya'll think we're mirroring the damn Patriots.  Lol.

I’ll guarantee you one thing, Cravens would have been sent out on the first ship sailing if he were to pull that stunt in New England.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

I love to bash this organization as much as the next guy and the Cravens situation sucks .... but besides not having the foresight to see his mental issues becoming issues, I dont blame the Skins for this. This is a unique and odd situation. 

 

He does seem to love the game mentally.. just not the heart. His twitter this last year indicated he watched a ton of football, USC, wanting to coach etc ... he is like a football junkie. I can easily see how his "commitment" would NOT be a red flag in draft interviews. He talks the talk, just doesnt walk it. 

 

discussion is getting very cyclical now.  

[megared]

3 minutes ago, -JB- said:

I’ll guarantee you one thing, Cravens would have been sent out on the first ship sailing if he were to pull that stunt in New England.

 

Doubt it.  They aren't exactly known for being on the losing end of transactions.  And if there's value to be obtained from a guy, they'll get it. 

 

Wish I could say the same for us...

[Commander -JB-]

6 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Doubt it.  They aren't exactly known for being on the losing end of transactions.  And if there's value to be obtained from a guy, they'll get it. 

 

Wish I could say the same for us...

The Redskins got the appropriate value for Su’a Cravens.  That’s what you’re failing to realize.  He’s not Ronnie Lott.  The moment he decided to quit on his team he was a sunken cost.  You can’t wish that things unfolded differently.  You deal with things how they are.  Addition by subtraction.

[megared]

Just now, -JB- said:

The Redskins got the appropriate value for Su’a Cravens.  That’s what you’re failing to realize.  He’s not Ronnie Lott.  The moment he decided to quit on his team he was a sunken cost.  You can’t wish that things unfolded differently.  You deal with things how they are.  Addition by subtraction.

 

Don't agree. 

 

1. Length of time left on his rookie contract (3 years).  

2. The fact that he was probably missing NFL paychecks, means you hold most (if not all) of the cards. 

3. He would've had to earn his way back on the field, and at the first sign of trouble, you have options.  Instead if he makes a resurgence, someone else benefits from you investing a second round pick.  

4. Compensation from trade doesn't equal the top end potential of a refocused Cravens unless we get very lucky in the draft.  

5. Team needs:  unless we get pick up a safety, we're now negotiating with Swearinger from a position of weakness, because who else can step in on our roster?

[Warhead36]

22 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Don't agree. 

 

1. Length of time left on his rookie contract (3 years).  

2. The fact that he was probably missing NFL paychecks, means you hold most (if not all) of the cards. 

3. He would've had to earn his way back on the field, and at the first sign of trouble, you have options.  Instead if he makes a resurgence, someone else benefits from you investing a second round pick.  

4. Compensation from trade doesn't equal the top end potential of a refocused Cravens unless we get very lucky in the draft.  

5. Team needs:  unless we get pick up a safety, we're now negotiating with Swearinger from a position of weakness, because who else can step in on our roster?

But you gotta factor in team morale. Obviously the guys in the locker room didn't want him around, he QUIT on them last year.

[megared]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

But you gotta factor in team morale. Obviously the guys in the locker room didn't want him around, he QUIT on them last year.

 

I'm just not seeing these consistently successful organizations not making a move that tangibly improves their chances to win...based upon potential teammates' feelings. 

 

You don't think Broncos players have the internet? They don't have access to all of the reports and articles we've read?  

 

I think the truth is more complex than he 'quit' and if it wasn't, no NFL team would want him on their roster...  

[Commander -JB-]

26 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Don't agree. 

 

1. Length of time left on his rookie contract (3 years).  

2. The fact that he was probably missing NFL paychecks, means you hold most (if not all) of the cards. 

3. He would've had to earn his way back on the field, and at the first sign of trouble, you have options.  Instead if he makes a resurgence, someone else benefits from you investing a second round pick.  

4. Compensation from trade doesn't equal the top end potential of a refocused Cravens unless we get very lucky in the draft.  

5. Team needs:  unless we get pick up a safety, we're now negotiating with Swearinger from a position of weakness, because who else can step in on our roster?

I realize that you’re a Suzy fanboy, but who cares about the 3 years left on his deal when he might get concussed and quit again game one?

[megared]

22 minutes ago, -JB- said:

I realize that you’re a Suzy fanboy, but who cares about the 3 years left on his deal when he might get concussed and quit again game one?

 

I'm not going to wave some front office poms-poms when they aren't doing what's in the best interest of building value for the organization.  There was absolutely zero risk to us in keeping him.  Guys get injured everyday.  My point has been that his potential upside outweighs any organizational risk.  And I don't know where you've been for the past few years, but I'd certainly take John Elway's opinion in team building over Bruce Allen's.  

 

You (& others) have resorted to intangible, unsubstantiated pie-in-the-sky speculation as to why Sua Cravens presence in our locker room would somehow be more of a detrimental effect on our season than our FO's incompetence/failure at team building.  And as long as you give them a pass, we'll continue the same pattern.    

[Commander -JB-]

3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I'm not going to wave some front office poms-poms when they aren't doing what's in the best interest of building value for the organization.  There was absolutely zero risk to us in keeping him.  Guys get injured everyday.  My point has been that his potential upside outweighs any organizational risk.  And I don't know where you've been for the past few years, but I'd certainly take John Elway's opinion in team building over Bruce Allen's.  

 

You (& others) have resorted to intangible, unsubstantiated pie-in-the-sky speculation as to why Sua Cravens presence in our locker room would somehow be more of a detrimental effect on our season than our FO's incompetence/failure at team building.  And as long as you give them a pass, we'll continue the same pattern.    

You can’t give Su’a Cravens a pass and consider yourself an organization that should be taken seriously.  You don’t want to be here, good.  Be gone.

[NickyJ]

1 hour ago, megared said:

 

1. Length of time left on his rookie contract (3 years).  

Length of time left on his contract means squat if he retires permanently. 3 years left on his rookie contract won't benefit the team when he's 36 and decides being a fireman is boring and he wants to reboot his NFL career.

 

Quote

2. The fact that he was probably missing NFL paychecks, means you hold most (if not all) of the cards. 

3. He would've had to earn his way back on the field, and at the first sign of trouble, you have options.  Instead if he makes a resurgence, someone else benefits from you investing a second round pick.  

What would our options be? If he quits again, he loses all worth and we get absolutely nothing. We already got the first sign of trouble last year; he quit and we're using those options.

 

Quote

4. Compensation from trade doesn't equal the top end potential of a refocused Cravens unless we get very lucky in the draft. 

5. Team needs:  unless we get pick up a safety, we're now negotiating with Swearinger from a position of weakness, because who else can step in on our roster?

We're getting the best compensation we can get. If we wait longer, he'll likely quit again and we get no compensation for no work. Swearinger's contract isn't involved in this, and it wouldn't have been if we kept Cravens. All he'd have to do is ask "do you really think Cravens is going to play?" and the answer would be no.

[megared]

11 minutes ago, -JB- said:

You can’t give Su’a Cravens a pass and consider yourself an organization that should be taken seriously.  You don’t want to be here, good.  Be gone.

 

Sure you can...you own his rights.  Wouldn't it be more positive to show the team that you'll give guys second chances versus vilifying them the first opportunity you can? 

 

I didn't hear any trade/cut rumors when Trent Williams was failing drug tests... 

7 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

Length of time left on his contract means squat if he retires permanently. 3 years left on his rookie contract won't benefit the team when he's 36 and decides being a fireman is boring and he wants to reboot his NFL career.

 

What would our options be? If he quits again, he loses all worth and we get absolutely nothing. We already got the first sign of trouble last year; he quit and we're using those options.

 

We're getting the best compensation we can get. If we wait longer, he'll likely quit again and we get no compensation for no work. Swearinger's contract isn't involved in this, and it wouldn't have been if we kept Cravens. All he'd have to do is ask "do you really think Cravens is going to play?" and the answer would be no.

 

Define 'absolutely nothing' to me...because what we got isn't much more.  It certainly doesn't change the trajectory of this season.

 

Swearinger's contract is a big part of this.  We're backed into a corner...and do you honestly think this FO had the foresight to realize that?  They'll be thinking about it March of 2019.  

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, megared said:

 

Sure you can...you own his rights.  Wouldn't it be more positive to show the team that you'll give guys second chances versus vilifying them the first opportunity you can? 

 

I didn't hear any trade/cut rumors when Trent Williams was failing drug tests... 

Trent Williams didn’t quit on the team though...and when he does play, he’s the best LT in the league. Cravens on the other hand? He’s a drama queen. 

[megared]

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Trent Williams didn’t quit on the team though...and when he does play, he’s the best LT in the league. Cravens on the other hand? He’s a drama queen. 

 

Without getting off topic, he made a choice that could have jeopardized his availability to help his team.  And then...he grew up.  Imagine that?

[SWFLSkins]

 

[Bang]

1 hour ago, megared said:

 

The only similarity is that the Pats and the Redskins drafted a player in the 2nd round.  Did they deal Collins with 3 years left on his rookie deal with his value at its lowest?  No, in fact, they did the opposite.  

 

The 'wrong message', 'locker room talk' stuff is irrelevant to me.  You can't see the other side, we're purging guys that don't fit your narrative for one reason or another, but somehow that has zero effect in the opposite direction?  So the locker room is only affected when a player does something bad, but is not affected when the FO says one thing and does another?

 

You can't say Cousins priced himself beyond his value if he got it.  He was right all along.  But our FO had opportunities to meet his number before it became astronomical.  

 

I really don't care about Jay Gruden's job security and I would hate to think our FO is sacrificing building a consistent, sustainable contender because of his job.  We've seen the 49ers, Jags and other teams turn around their fortunes in very short order.  Why is a rebuild taboo?  

 

Sorry, but all of this is drivel that ignores the realities of the situations, and in most cases, completely misrepresents what was said. You can equate values of contract lengths, i see that both players made the moves that got them fired. I doubt the Pats felt that getting back a 4th was worth it by the contract value system, but in terms of Bellichick running his ship as tight as it is, they didn't mind. They dropped a guy who went to the pro Bowl and was named to two All Pro 2nd teams in his first 3 years. They didn't trade him high. They took whatever they could get to move him out because in New England, part of their winning comes from their locker room cohesion. You never get controversy out of their locker room, they all talk the same to the press. They do not make waves. It's Bellichick's way. Make waves, and you're gone regardless. Ask Willie McGinest.

 

What Cousins got wasn't what the REDSKINS considered his value, and so they made a plan to move away.;

See how different that is from :"his value is what he got"?

What he got is what he is worth to the Vikings. That does indeed set his "value", but not everyone thinks so. The Vikings were a game from the Super Bowl, have all the pieces in place. They paid 84 mil for a Super Bowl, or it's a failure. Guaranteed money = failure if they don't win it. Who else is going to put up that money? Guaranteed? 

See the difference ?

 

Your arguments are stuck in impossible notions of optimism that are not viable on an NFL team. 

Bottom line, you think he should be here whether he can be trusted or not.

I completely disagree.

You fish.

I'll cut bait.

 

~Bang

[NickyJ]

14 minutes ago, megared said:

I didn't hear any trade/cut rumors when Trent Williams was failing drug tests...

Trent never quit playing the game and he never quit the team. Trent was held out unwillingly, as opposed to quitting out of his own free choice. You're comparing apples to bananas.

 

14 minutes ago, megared said:

Define 'absolutely nothing' to me. because what we got isn't much more.

You're being obtuse. This is my last attempt at discussing it with you. We either get some sort of compensation for a player we expect to not be worth anything, or we get nothing at all. Nobody is going to turn down money being offered for trash.

 

14 minutes ago, megared said:

It certainly doesn't change the trajectory of this season.

To use your own words about Cravens:

 

5 hours ago, megared said:

Cravens wasn't the reason we didn't make the playoffs last season.  He wasn't even considered critical to the defense

I fail to see why this a big deal to you when you yourself say that we traded someone who doesn't affect our season for a draft pick that doesn't affect our season.

[megared]

2 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

Sorry, but all of this is drivel that ignores the realities of the situations, and in most cases, completely misrepresents what was said.

for example, what Cousins got wasn't what the REDSKINS considered his value, and so they made a plan to move away.;

See how different that is from :"his value is what he got"?

What he got is what he is worth to the Vikings. That does indeed set his "value", but not everyone thinks so.

See?

 

Your arguments are stuck in impossible notions of optimism that are not viable on an NFL team. 

Bottom line, you think he should be here whether he can be trusted or not.

I completely disagree.

You fish.

I'll cut bait.

 

~Bang

 

Your value is based upon what someone (anyone) is willing to pay.  And I think the Vikings overpaid him.  But he wasn't wrong for not wanting to sign a team friendly deal after the FO rejected his agent's offer sometime ago.  It is what it is.  My overarching theme is that the Redskins have sucked at assessing and capitalizing on value as it exists, whether it is acquired or already present on the roster.  Why would I feel this trade to be any different?  Fact of the matter is, the Redskins haven't definitely 'won' a trade since Ricky Williams.  Based upon the moves we've recently made, what makes you think Bruce got it right this time?  Because you want to see a 23 year beg for forgiveness and be contrite?  

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Trench warfare getting further entrenched.

 

[megared]

1 minute ago, NickyJ said:

Trent never quit playing the game and he never quit the team. Trent was held out unwillingly, as opposed to quitting out of his own free choice. You're comparing apples to bananas.

 

You're being obtuse. This is my last attempt at discussing it with you. We either get some sort of compensation for a player we expect to not be worth anything, or we get nothing at all. Nobody is going to turn down money being offered for trash.

 

To use your own words about Cravens:

 

So why are you so upset that we traded someone who doesn't affect our season for a draft pick that may or may not affect our season?

 

Trent did something that he knew could affect his availability.  Are you saying he didn't know marijuana wasn't against league policy?  It wasn't some mystery workout supplement he took.  

 

We got offered trash for something we don't know the value of, and accepted it.  What about this team's drafting history makes you think having more picks means a better team, other than blind probability?  The guy had (& has) a chance to turn his career around and become a contributor on a defense, which means way more to the Broncos than the pittance they offered up.  And I'm fairly certain unless we luck out on a 5th round player, that potential upside from Cravens is much greater than what we gained.  For that reason, I don't agree with the move.  Locker room feelings, and hand holding be damned.  

[Cooleyfan1993]

15 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Without getting off topic, he made a choice that could have jeopardized his availability to help his team.  And then...he grew up.  Imagine that?

You think sua was bound to grow up at all? That video the other day with “a whole new world” says otherwise