Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[fordranger76]

Just now, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

LOL Good post and so true,But maybe you are young guy, im guessing. Or maybe you just forgot how bad things have been at QB since Mark Rypien won our last SuperBowl. Compared to the others who were under center for us over the past 25+ years, Cousins was looking like Montana

Oh I'm 41 lol I have just understood we have stunk for a good long time and losing Kirk freaking Cousins is not close to the biggest blunder this mess of a team has had. I guess the taste of success has driven people insane. If that TB game  hadn't happened my guess is people would not even be having a talk now. Crazy how things snowball over time. I'm just not ready to kill Alex Smith over bad throws and stupid decisions yet. Give me until week 4 for that. 

[sempre_victrix]

38 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

Anyone else not completely on the Alex Smith hate train? I mean, Im not happy about letting Kirk walk, and i think the trade was poor but lets at least try to be positive. Alex Smith was a stud at Utah the number 1 overall pick of the 2005 draft, 3X PROBOWL 189-96 TD ratio, extremely durable tough guy,He has played in 7 career playoff games with a rating in those games of 97.4.... I'm just sayin guys, we could be doing alot worse here.. 

 

Lets give the man a shot

 

My ****ing has nothing to do with Smith.  He's a very serviceable QB.  My complaints are about losing Fuller and Kirk pretending that he'd negotiate with the Redskins in good faith.  Screw him. 

 

Come on Jets, make him an offer he can't refuse.......

[CommanderDOOM]

9 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Well, TSS, by this time the fans should be entering the early stages of the Helsinki Syndrone....

 

 

Now that **** dies hard

 

12 hours ago, FrFan said:

Chiefs complete season with no wide receiver touchdown catches

Talking about checkdowns !. 

 

 

It would be about how ****ty the wrs are and still almost making the playoffs if it were Kirk and the redskins.

[Temper11]

1 hour ago, Xameil said:

I really have to wonder if what Scott M had to say about Cousins not being special had anything to do with this....I would also be very interested in what Vernon Davis thinks...

 

There is a longer V Davis take out there somewhere (saw it yesterday) but this is the one at the top of the search list right now. 

http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/01/vernon-davis-alex-smith-washington-redskins/

[Xameil]

21 minutes ago, Temper11 said:

 

There is a longer V Davis take out there somewhere (saw it yesterday) but this is the one at the top of the search list right now. 

http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/01/vernon-davis-alex-smith-washington-redskins/

Thank you...now makes me wonder if he had some input on this

[Gamebreaker]

6 hours ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

Giving up Fuller weakens us but not getting Smith would also weaken us.  You can argue over who is better or worse when it comes to Cousins or Smith but with McCoy and Smith it is not even close.  Kirk was not coming back other than on another 1 year tag and so you go to plan B and I am fine with it.

 

I know some people advocate for rolling with McCoy and drafting a new QB but 1st round QBs are boom or bust and this years class looks like a whole lot of bust, particularly as we have no shot at the top prospects unless we want to give up 3 years of first rounders again and that gets a hell no from me. 

 

Why do people do this every year? We have no shot at the top prospects, according to the TV analysts who get it wrong every single year. The top prospects don't always end up being the top quarterbacks. None of them said Jared Goff and Carson Wentz would be this good in year two. All of them said Andrew Luck would be the next Brady or Peyton; he is not. None of them thought Kirk or Russell Wilson were starter material. Let's just cut the BS, they don't know what they're talking about and the scouts for teams are hardly better. 

 

If you've got good QB coaching, a competent offensive coach(not an idiot like Jeff Fisher), and a decent pass pro, you can take any of the QBs in a draft that understand route trees and progressions and turn them into Andy Dalton. We just had to be willing to go into this season without making some dumbass trade or free agent splash, keep improving the defense and keep drafting well to fill our holes. But nah, we can't expect this front office to do what all the winning organizations have been doing for decades. 

[WelshSkinsFan]

Where is that factually wrong though?  The top prospects go in the top 10 where we are not selecting.  Good quarterbacks can be found further down in the draft it is true but it is a lottery.  The boom/bust rate on Quarterbacks taken number 1 overall is only around 50% and that gets drastically lower the later they are selected.  Maybe there is a Tom Brady or a Russell Wilson in this draft but ask yourself this, do you think Doug Williams and Bruce Allen are going to find him?

[KingGibbs]

Days later and I still hate you Bruce.

 

 

I

[Est.1974]

It's not just Bruce. 

 

Grudens fingerprints are all over this one too. I would wager he's damn happy with Smith as his QB. No bull, I reckon he'd take Smith over Cousins.

[Gamebreaker]

23 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

Where is that factually wrong though?  The top prospects go in the top 10 where we are not selecting.  Good quarterbacks can be found further down in the draft it is true but it is a lottery.  The boom/bust rate on Quarterbacks taken number 1 overall is only around 50% and that gets drastically lower the later they are selected.  Maybe there is a Tom Brady or a Russell Wilson in this draft but ask yourself this, do you think Doug Williams and Bruce Allen are going to find him?

 

Even if they don't find him, this draft isn't the only draft where you choose a QB. What is the difference between going 3-13 with McCoy/young rookie and 6-10 with Alex Smith? An even higher chance to get the best players to fill out this roster and/or draft a better prospect at QB. Minnesota and Jacksonville went all the way to the conference championship games with Case Keenum and Blake Bortles at QB, the major differences between their team and ours is they didn't waste time franchising a better QB twice, built up their rosters to have awesome defenses and strong running games. Now they're poised to be even bigger contenders if they can poach our former QB.

 

Allen should've let the Browns take Alex Smith, throwing in Fuller was an idiotic move. You don't give away young for old. EVER. No matter what sport, you never give away your young good talent for old, limited ones. Alex Smith has 2-3 years before he is no longer even the QB he was in KC. We'll be drafting a QB either next year or the year after anyway. Which makes his contract extension even more pointless. If you aren't trying to build a championship contender than what exactly are you doing? 

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

They do get it, but Snyder can't be fired. He can only sell the team, or die.

 

[WelshSkinsFan]

I would argue they are trying to build a contender.  Going 3-13 with Colt is not getting us any closer and unlike you I think the ceiling with Smith is 11 or 12 wins a season and that gets us to the post season with a shot at the whole thing.  I do not understand the mentality behind flunking a season just to get a better draft position. 

 

New England may be about to win it's 6th Superbowl this Sunday and they have built their roster with late round picks, free agents, guys that went undrafted and other teams cast offs.  Cleveland has picked at the top of the draft virtually every year for the last two decades and it has never brought them any success.  The myopic obsession with draft picks is ridiculous, players win games and there is no sure thing in a pick but you get a player with years of NFL experience you know what you have.  Tanking and drafting high is the most conservative approach to the game there is, coaches hide behind it because it lowers expectations. 

[joeken24]

19 hours ago, stevenaa said:

Kirk had no plans to sign a long term deal here.  That seems abundantly clear.  He was clearly sucking the guaranteed franchise teet as long as possible and then hitting the market.  Thoughts of tagging and trading are wasted.   There's no leverage there.  Every team knows you aren't going to franchise him a 3rd year. No team was gonna give us anything for him.  We'll get a 3rd as a compensatory pick,  so the third we're giving is a wash.   Losing Fuller sucks,  but any team in need of a qb would have traded a player like him for Smith.   That's a no brainer, much as it sucks.    Running Colt out is a joke.  He's a backup.   Having Smith gives us the best chance to win of all the available QB options.  Nothing changes with the need to draft a QB to develop.  At our draft position,  that's what will be available unless we luck into that rare gem in the lower rounds that nobody expects to excel.    You have to remove any thoughts that signing Kirk was ever an option.  It was never gonna happen,  and not because the team didn't make reasonable offers.   The funny thing is, the team just set the Free agent QB market.  It will be interesting to see if any team will pony what KC is wanting, or if he'll be forced to take a lower offer. 

Two words to describe the Redskins' new QB....."Pro Bowler". 

For those that have doubt, that has to account for something.

[Bonez3]

17 hours ago, Nerm said:

 What if the deal the Skins match has a $30 million signing bonus, which hits the minute you trade him.  Any team can sign him to a contract that would make the Skins unable to trade him for more than a year.  

That sounds an awful lot like a 'poison pill'. They became illegal years ago. For tags, the contracts have to be fairly rudimentary with years and values. Can have unique qualifiers like what you desrcibe

 

[Gamebreaker]

12 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

I would argue they are trying to build a contender.  Going 3-13 with Colt is not getting us any closer and unlike you I think the ceiling with Smith is 11 or 12 wins a season and that gets us to the post season with a shot at the whole thing.  I do not understand the mentality behind flunking a season just to get a better draft position. 

 

New England may be about to win it's 6th Superbowl this Sunday and they have built their roster with late round picks, free agents, guys that went undrafted and other teams cast offs.  Cleveland has picked at the top of the draft virtually every year for the last two decades and it has never brought them any success.  The myopic obsession with draft picks is ridiculous, players win games and there is no sure thing in a pick but you get a player with years of NFL experience you know what you have.  Tanking and drafting high is the most conservative approach to the game there is, coaches hide behind it because it lowers expectations. 

 

I am not suggesting we tank. I'm suggesting we can win without a QB who hasn't been given up on by every professional NFL team that has had him. I'm suggesting we build our team through the draft and adding occasional FAs to fill spots. Not that we actually tank a season. Starting McCoy and drafting a QB could net us the same amount of wins as rolling with an established veteran, considering the money lost in his extension could've been used in other places and the 3rd round pick and Fuller could've been contributors. This absurd notion that they HAD to do something, that they HAD to throw in Fuller to outbid the Browns. It's ridiculous. And no, being conservative with draft picks, not tanking, isn't coaches hiding behind it to save their job, it's called building a winner. Giving up your best players on defense to cover up your own incompetence is not building a winner. 

[joeken24]

53 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

It's not just Bruce. 

 

Grudens fingerprints are all over this one too. I would wager he's damn happy with Smith as his QB. No bull, I reckon he'd take Smith over Cousins.

So Smith is named the "starter" in the 2017 Pro Bowl, led the league in QB rating and was 7th overall in QBR (Kirk was 15th in QBR), went to the playoffs and (?????)

 

I think media pundits begin a dialogue about a player (right or wrong). That dialogue takes root and becomes a tree full of bull****. The **** falls off the tree; evaporates in a cloud of people; and WA LA!!!

 

A **** storm!

 

I admit (after a little research...hint hint): Statistically, they are comparable. Alex threw 5 interception all year, Kirk threw 13. But the big difference for me is the all mighty dollar difference (millions I might add!!) for essentially the same (I think better) talent. I'll take those fingerprints any time.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/passingYardsPerGame/seasontype/2

 

Also if anyone has NFL Mobile, take a look at the Chief vs the Patriots game this year. Hell, check most of the Chiefs games!

 

 

[joeken24]

2 hours ago, Xameil said:

Thank you...now makes me wonder if he had some input on this

Hear the reporter try to bait him with that White House question. 

They love **** storms

[RWJ]

KC has left the building.  I wanted him here on a LTD but we SHOULD embrace Alex Smith as our new semi short term franchise QB.  I'm hoping the FO will surround him with an outstanding OG, RB and WR/TE in FA or draft.  I also hope that Smith is provided a young, promising QB he can groom to become our future franchise QB.  

[joeken24]

So I'm watching last years Chiefs vs Eagles game. 

The Stats for Smith wasn't bad.

21/28; 251 yards passing; 1 TD pass and 0 int.

 

Biggest stat: They beat the Eagles!

 

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

39 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

That sounds an awful lot like a 'poison pill'. They became illegal years ago. For tags, the contracts have to be fairly rudimentary with years and values. Can have unique qualifiers like what you desrcibe

 

LOL. Signing bonuses are in the vast majority of NFL contracts, and have nothing to do with "poison pills".

[Bonez3]

5 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

LOL. Signing bonuses are in the vast majority of NFL contracts, and have nothing to do with "poison pills".

So it's a transition tag, one year deal... the team bettering the offer has to better the offer on the table--- a 1 year deal. Nothing in the offer has a signing bonus.

 

If a team offers a better contract, its a 1 year contract. Only so many ways to skin a cat. Again, the tags were meant for rudimentary contracts that favor team on contract rights and players in salary share. 

 

Fact is, teams matching are taking a chance he'll eventually sign a LTD with them. They'll only get his rights for 1 year and he could easily play the waiting game again with that team if that's not where wants to be. IMO, it makes a team matching far less likely and more sense to slap that transition tag on and trade.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 minute ago, Bonez3 said:

So it's a transition tag, one year deal... the team bettering the offer has to better the offer on the table--- a 1 year deal. Nothing in the offer has a signing bonus.

 

If a team offers a better contract, its a 1 year contract. Only so many ways to skin a cat. Again, the tags were meant for rudimentary contracts that favor team on contract rights and players in salary share. 

I really don't get what you're saying. Are you saying teams can't give offer sheets of more than one year? Or that they can't give bonuses as part of them? Because you'd be very wrong on both counts. 

[Bonez3]

Just now, Rufus T Firefly said:

I really don't get what you're saying. Are you saying teams can't give offer sheets of more than one year? Or that they can't give bonuses as part of them? Because you'd be very wrong on both counts. 

See above... the transition tag is a one year deal

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 minute ago, Bonez3 said:

See above... the transition tag is a one year deal

Yes, and when teams sign Transition tagged players to offer sheets, they don't have to be.

[Nerm]

42 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

That sounds an awful lot like a 'poison pill'. They became illegal years ago. For tags, the contracts have to be fairly rudimentary with years and values. Can have unique qualifiers like what you desrcibe

 

 

I may have phrased my point confusingly.  I'm not saying they would add a special clause in the contract to make it hard on the Skins.  I'm saying most large contracts include signing bonuses.  So, most large contracts make it hard to trade a player the first year, because the full signing bonus hits the cap if a player is traded (rather than being prorated over the course of the deal).  In a "match and trade" scenario, the Redskins would be on the hook for the signing bonus.  If a team signed Kirk to a Stafford type deal, I think the signing bonus was 50 mil.  It would make no sense for the Skins to match, unless they were going to keep him as a starter.