Flex Tape Team Building

[bobandweave]

2 hours ago, carex said:

 

wht is wrong with you?  Allen would have known that Pryor was injured by that point, which makes attempting to trade him pointless.  Are you not able to put that together because of your bias, or what?

 

http://reviewtimes.com/national-sports/2017/10/24/redskins-wr-terrelle-pryor-struggles-to-fit-in-with-new-offense/

 

The Ap put that out on 10-24-17. The trade deadline is 10-31-17. He wasn’t put on IR until 11-21-17. He played in every game recorded

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/terrellepryor/2531332/gamelogs

 

Appeared on no inactives list

 

http://www.nfl.com/inactives?team=WAS

 

And manage to record two more catches for 20 yards during the season. Case closed on the injury angle

 

My biased ness does have me to believe that Pryor was a colossal 8 million dollar bust and stain on the team. A year after giving up on Garcon and Jackson. Clear need, Clearly on Bruce. An insult to those of us like myself who wanted them to keep Garcon. Not what a good GM does. 

 

Bruce lost two good players and signed one that catches 20 passes for 240 yards. I think this was a bad decision. Bruce traded 8 million bucks for a 6th round pick now according to over the cap in comp pick.  

 

Bruce Allen’s decisions are bad for this team, owner, and fans. Pryor was the cheap answer. Didn’t work. 

[OVCChairman]

32 minutes ago, megared said:

 

How can you possibly believe that when there was a story about Bruce telling Doug to ignore his phone the night the A. Smith trade was finalized??? 

 

Do you think that Doug had anything to do with that trade?  And if so, despite media sources, quoting him, you think Doug had anything to do with finalizing that deal?

 

 

Doug also came out and said it was a consensus agreement that Smith was the guy they all wanted well before that day.  Again... Bruce is an idiot, and you'd want him to be communicative about everything, especially with the Senior VP of Player Personnel.  Doug also came out and said it was a round table agreement that Smith was who they wanted, so it's not like Bruce went out and made that deal on his own.  

 

Quote

Doug Williams said that at the first meetings of the “brain trust”, the coaches and the personnel department met separately, each group coming up with a quarterback solution. When they got together as a group, the found that they had come up with the same solution—Smith, the Chiefs quarterback who was available in a trade because the team was moving on to a younger QB in Patrick Mahomes.

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/doug-williams-says-redskins-said-decision-get-alex-smith-was-unanimous

 

 

Doug is not the GM, he's a player guy.  His job is to find the talent.  YES I believe we need a GM, and Bruce is not the guy... but I don't think he's the one evaluating the talent.  It would appear to me that there are quite a few voices in that room and while Bruce might have 'final say,' that doesn't mean he trumps a majority.  

[megared]

14 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

Doug also came out and said it was a consensus agreement that Smith was the guy they all wanted well before that day.  Again... Bruce is an idiot, and you'd want him to be communicative about everything, especially with the Senior VP of Player Personnel.  Doug also came out and said it was a round table agreement that Smith was who they wanted, so it's not like Bruce went out and made that deal on his own.  

 

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/doug-williams-says-redskins-said-decision-get-alex-smith-was-unanimous

 

 

Doug is not the GM, he's a player guy.  His job is to find the talent.  YES I believe we need a GM, and Bruce is not the guy... but I don't think he's the one evaluating the talent.  It would appear to me that there are quite a few voices in that room and while Bruce might have 'final say,' that doesn't mean he trumps a majority.  

 

It's great that you have belief in the process.  I'm glad everyone is on board for Smith, if there's a silver lining to the transaction.  

 

My whole skepticism centers around the fact that Bruce made the trade, with seemingly no input or consideration to the cost (draft pick AND good young player).  I mean, the 49ers got Garoppolo for a 2nd rounder...and not that I have a draft chart handy, but it doesn't seem like good value to go one round lower and give up a 23 year old player (with two years left on a rookie deal) for a QB that's 7 years older.  Perhaps if our scouts or coaching were involved in that aspect of the transaction, someone would have told him what the Chiefs want is too much, and that Fuller should be untouchable. 

 

And before anyone argues "we had to get him", did we really, at that price?  If someone else trades for him, it isn't the end of the world.  I don't think in any alternate universe we're looking back on the 2018 season and saying..."if only we had Alex Smith...."

 

Same thing for Paul Richardson...no one sees it as a major risk to sign a guy, whose best career season consists of a 44 catches, 703 yards to a five year, $40 M contract?  I just can't imagine any pro scouting department being totally on board for such a big commitment to a total gamble.  Even if he doesn't work out, we're paying him $10 M for two seasons ($20 M guaranteed)...wasn't not paying that kind of money, the reason we let go of our two receivers we knew could produce?  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, megared said:

And before anyone argues "we had to get him", did we really, at that price?  We could've identified him as a potential FA target...if someone else trades for him, it isn't the end of the world.  I don't think in any alternate universe we're looking back on the 2018 season and saying..."if only we had Alex Smith...."

Right here with you on this.  Obviously, I hope Smith surprises me and fits in really well this offense and picks it up where left off and then some.  But I just can't buy into the whole idea that Bruce gets a pat on the back for "making the best" of the QB situation.  As I don't really see it as making the best out of it.  It's hard for me to feel like we won anything in this deal.  I'd rather have given up a second and no Fuller.  Like you, to me Fuller is an untouchable player given his play vs. his compensation for 2018 and 2019, particularly knowing they were going to let Breeland walk as well.

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, megared said:

 

And before anyone argues "we had to get him", did we really, at that price?  If someone else trades for him, it isn't the end of the world.  I don't think in any alternate universe we're looking back on the 2018 season and saying..."if only we had Alex Smith...."

 

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Right here with you on this.  Obviously, I hope Smith surprises me and fits in really well this offense and picks it up where left off and then some.  But I just can't buy into the whole idea that Bruce gets a pat on the back for "making the best" of the QB situation.  As I don't really see it as making the best out of it.  It's hard for me to feel like we won anything in this deal.  I'd rather have given up a second and no Fuller.  Like you, to me Fuller is an untouchable player given his play vs. his compensation for 2018 and 2019, particularly knowing they were going to let Breeland walk as well.

 

 

 

I was not happy that we gave up Fuller.  I will not come on here and say that I am, i can assure you that. 

 

To counter your point though, I bring up the notion of continuity.  You say we didnt NEED him... and to a point, I agree with you.  We could have drafted a QB at 13, rode Colt, or tried to find a less expensive option.  To the point on continuity though, what value does having Alex here present to the team as a whole?  Beyond just level of play.  Does Paul Richardson sign here if he see's our depth chart with Colt McCoy and a developmental guy being the only two options we have?  Does Zach Brown decide Colt McCoy as the future isn't enough for him to want to stay?  Does Scherff feel like he doesn't want to sign a big time deal without a solid QB in place?  

 

Look, I understand that you can't put a tangible value on it, so it's all my opinion and speculation, but I know if I've got a limited lifespan in the NFL, I'm going to want to have an idea about who's manning the most important position on my team.... and I want them to be good.  Guys sign for teams with bad QBs all the time... I know, I know.

 

 

Did we NEED Smith?  Nah, we would still have had a season next year without him... did we need to give up what we did in order to get him?  The only people who know that are going to be the Chiefs FO guys.  I do think Smith brings something to the table more than just 'a guy' under center.  It probably is a bit of a reach that we wanted to keep him here to muster out a couple extra wins when in reality next season we're likely to not contend...but as much as I've seen teams like the Eagles, Panthers, and Saints take a mid pack team and make a run at this thing.... the most important thing that those teams have had in order to make that run is better than average QB play.  

[megared]

4 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

To the point on continuity though, what value does having Alex here present to the team as a whole?  Beyond just level of play.  Does Paul Richardson sign here if he see's our depth chart with Colt McCoy and a developmental guy being the only two options we have?  Does Zach Brown decide Colt McCoy as the future isn't enough for him to want to stay?  Does Scherff feel like he doesn't want to sign a big time deal without a solid QB in place?  

 

Look, I understand that you can't put a tangible value on it, so it's all my opinion and speculation, but I know if I've got a limited lifespan in the NFL, I'm going to want to have an idea about who's manning the most important position on my team.... and I want them to be good.  Guys sign for teams with bad QBs all the time... I know, I know.

 

Did we NEED Smith?  Nah, we would still have had a season next year without him... did we need to give up what we did in order to get him?  The only people who know that are going to be the Chiefs FO guys.  I do think Smith brings something to the table more than just 'a guy' under center.  It probably is a bit of a reach that we wanted to keep him here to muster out a couple extra wins when in reality next season we're likely to not contend...but as much as I've seen teams like the Eagles, Panthers, and Saints take a mid pack team and make a run at this thing.... the most important thing that those teams have had in order to make that run is better than average QB play.  

 

Continuity is a strategy of good teams to continue being good.   Just what are we continuing?  Being just mediocre enough to not land impactful draft picks?  Is that really best long term?  IMO, the only continuity Bruce was looking out for was his job after botching the whole Cousins situation.  

 

Continuity also means making a concerted effort to keep some of the guys you have expiring, if for nothing else, than at least the fact that they've performed, and are familiar with your system.  We've got so many new moving parts going into next season, I can't believe Alex Smith is going to really change the fact that Richardson has to learn the nuances of a new system, his QB, a new route tree, etc.   Or that our young CBs are not going to have a learning curve.  

 

I still think everyone overvalues the effects of a QB in general.  Maybe Aaron Rodgers could mask the deficiencies of an average team...but I'm not seeing it with Alex Smith.  Especially not with the supporting cast Bruce is putting around him.  

[OVCChairman]

4 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Continuity is a strategy of good teams to continue being good.   Just what are we continuing?  Being just mediocre enough to not land impactful draft picks?  Is that really best long term?  IMO, the only continuity Bruce was looking out for was his job after botching the whole Cousins situation.  

 

Continuity also means making a concerted effort to keep some of the guys you have expiring, if for nothing else, than at least the fact that they've performed, and are familiar with your system.  We've got so many new moving parts going into next season, I can't believe Alex Smith is going to really change the fact that Richardson has to learn the nuances of a new system, his QB, a new route tree, etc.   Or that our young CBs are not going to have a learning curve.  

 

I still think everyone overvalues the effects of a QB in general.  Maybe Aaron Rodgers could mask the deficiencies of an average team...but I'm not seeing it with Alex Smith.  Especially not with the supporting cast Bruce is putting around him.  

 

 

Thats fair, and it's a multi-step process.  We need to add a couple more pieces, but knowing that Doctson, Thompson, Roullier, and Perine are going to be running, what I would imagine, the same offense with a very similar style QB is beneficial to their development.  Scherff as well.  Scherff is an absolute monster, so the developmental angle isn't as important because I think he's effective no matter what.  Now like I said, we need more, but not NEEDING a QB helps that.  It also helps having a QB that would appear to be able to execute the system the way it's meant to be run.  It's that much more difficult for our young guys to get the system, if the guy running it isn't at their best.  Colt CAN run it... But I'd rather have Smith.  

[carex]

21 hours ago, megared said:

 

It's great that you have belief in the process.  I'm glad everyone is on board for Smith, if there's a silver lining to the transaction.  

 

My whole skepticism centers around the fact that Bruce made the trade, with seemingly no input or consideration to the cost (draft pick AND good young player).  I mean, the 49ers got Garoppolo for a 2nd rounder...and not that I have a draft chart handy, but it doesn't seem like good value to go one round lower and give up a 23 year old player (with two years left on a rookie deal) for a QB that's 7 years older.  Perhaps if our scouts or coaching were involved in that aspect of the transaction, someone would have told him what the Chiefs want is too much, and that Fuller should be untouchable. 

 

And before anyone argues "we had to get him", did we really, at that price?  If someone else trades for him, it isn't the end of the world.  I don't think in any alternate universe we're looking back on the 2018 season and saying..."if only we had Alex Smith...."

 

Same thing for Paul Richardson...no one sees it as a major risk to sign a guy, whose best career season consists of a 44 catches, 703 yards to a five year, $40 M contract?  I just can't imagine any pro scouting department being totally on board for such a big commitment to a total gamble.  Even if he doesn't work out, we're paying him $10 M for two seasons ($20 M guaranteed)...wasn't not paying that kind of money, the reason we let go of our two receivers we knew could produce?  

 

Garrapollo had no history, Smith does

[megared]

1 hour ago, carex said:

Garrapollo had no history, Smith does

 

No, it was more than likely due to the fact that there were several teams vying to trade for Smith.  

 

From reports, the Broncos offered a 2nd + Talib...but the Chiefs weren't going to trade him within the division, and Talib at $11 M next season is more of a liability than an asset.

 

The Browns offered a 2nd...but get this, they weren't going to extend Smith because they plan on drafting a QB.

 

So Bruce comes in and offers a highly rated, cheap young player, a 3rd, and to make Alex Smith happy, a $94 million extension.  Like I said, I didn't feel like we had to have him, especially at the price.  And another downside to it is that, we probably aren't going to be bad enough to be in a position to address QB in the draft without trading up.