Breaking: Redskins claim Reuben Foster NFL.COM

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

Foster wasn't playing all that great this year anyway, was he?  Wasn't he often injured?

 

If I recall hamstring issues this year, if I recall there were concerns about his health before the draft, I got to refresh my memory on what that was.

 

https://www.49erswebzone.com/articles/116999-49ers-linebacker-reuben-foster-primed-year-stay-healthy/

To me, the big question is: Can he stay healthy? He plays with that kind of reckless type of mentality. I don't know that there was a game all of last year where he didn't get banged up in some fashion. He's got to stay on the field. To me, that's the main thing.

"He's going to be a great player when he's out on the field. He's going to make plays. He's going to wow you with his athletic ability. He just has to find a way to limit the damage that he does to himself because you know he's going to be doing some damage to the guy with the football."

[Voice_of_Reason]

So I decided to wait and think about this overnight before determining an opinion.

 

And finally, here's what I came up with: From a football perspective there really isn't any downside.  He won't play this year, he might not ever play for the 'Skins, he doesn't take up a roster spot, and you control his rights for 2 years while investigations are going on.  So really, no harm no foul.

 

That said, I wouldn't have made the move anyway because leading up to what might be the most important game since the 2016 Giant's play-in game, we have invited the 3 ring circus to town, and instead of having a complete hunkered down mentality of focusing solely on beating the Eagles.

 

It's not just Gruden who's going to get questions, it's going to be every player.  And this is going to be a big story on Monday Night Countdown.  It just pulls attention, even if it's not significant, away from the task at hand.

 

So, I get the reasons for doing it, and they didn't have a choice on the timing.

 

But I wouldn't have done it anyway, just because of the timing.

 

I should also mention that while all of the above is football focused, if what he did is true, or even partially true, I honestly don't care what the circumstances are, I personally would not like to have him associated in any way with the team I root for. He could serve his time and get an opportunity elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. 

 

And this might not be the right forum for it, and there are definitely differences from a production standpoint, but it is fascinating that Foster was in jail over the weekend for allegedly striking a woman and at least has an opportunity to go through the investigative process while on a team and Kap is still out there as an untouchable. Let's not go down that path (I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it) in this thread, but it popped into my head as, at the very least, ironic. 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, dyst said:

I don't understand the "PR nightmare" angle of the discussion. I can understand not wanting to sign him for other reasons, but the PR angle is the least of my concerns.

It’s more others having to deal with the PR than it is the Redskins FO taking the hit.  Jay and the team being distracted talking about it, probably differing opinions amongst the team, the burden of the Bama Boys having to shoulder mentoring him, etc.  Just seems unnecessary given the state of their season to create distractions.

[justice98]

Nothing's going to happen with this for a good while, so it's really a one day story for the foreseeable future.

[DJHJR86]

I think this is exactly what happened here:

 

 

 

[zCommander]

6 minutes ago, PortisBetts said:

Embarrassing on and off the field....Seems like the same story of the last 25 years.

 

But he is only 24 years old though. 

[PortisBetts]

4 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

But he is only 24 years old though. 

....the Redskins

[zCommander]

6 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

I think this is exactly what happened here:

 

 

Has it occurred to you or anyone else that the Redskins actually wanted him instead and weighed their option of PR. If there is a so call fallout (legally) they cut him. Risk low with high rewards. Not sure why people are getting worked up on it though. 

[PortisBetts]

8 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

I think this is exactly what happened here:

 

 

 

Are you accusing the Redskins of being dummies?

 

Because yes....they are, no matter what the reason being. Either they are stupid and have no finger on the pulse of what the rest of the league may be doing, which wouldn't be the first time, or they are just malicious and really dont give a **** about the possible domestic abuse if they can get a good football player.

There really is no other way of looking at it.

[zCommander]

1 minute ago, PortisBetts said:

....the Redskins

 

So you are saying we have had these types of players come and go for the Skins in the last 25 years? But wouldn't that be wrong to dump Foster in the same bucket?

[Mr. Sinister]

12 minutes ago, PortisBetts said:

Are you accusing the Redskins of being dummies?

 

Because yes....they are, no matter what the reason being. Either they are stupid and have no finger on the pulse of what the rest of the league may be doing, which wouldn't be the first time, or they are just malicious and really dont give a **** about the possible domestic abuse if they can get a good football player.

There really is no other way of looking at it.

 

Agreed. That's the one thing you can set your watch to

[Est.1974]

Picking Foster up via waivers ensures we get to retain his rights against his rookie contract. You're basically looking at a 2 year 3mil deal if he plays in 2019 and 2020.

 

If he'd cleared waivers and become a FA down the line that deal may well have been less team friendly.

[PortisBetts]

3 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

So you are saying we have had these types of players come and go for the Skins in the last 25 years? But wouldn't that be wrong to dump Foster in the same bucket?

What I said, which I thought was pretty clear, is that this team has been an embarrassment on and off the field for the last 25 years. There is no 1 specific incident. There are what feels like infinite reasons to be embarrassed by this team, whether it be ****ty trades, pimping cheerleaders, suing the elderly, lying about sell outs, getting blown out on national tv, signing bad character players, etc.

[dyst]

33 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

@dyst

 

Just a minor (for me) observation, but "PR nightmares" or even just PR issues may be something that many fans don't worry about or "feel" the effects of directly, but organizations and individuals within do. You do know there are whole industries and many job positions dedicated just to PR issues.

If it gets so bad, maybe Snyder has to sell. A win in my book. I get what you are saying though and especially in today's climate things are different.

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Picking Foster up via waivers ensures we get to retain his rights against his rookie contract. You're basically looking at a 2 year 3mil deal if he plays in 2019 and 2020.

 

If he'd cleared waivers and become a FA down the line that deal may well have been less team friendly.

 

Right, at this point I'm trying to look at this move in a vacuum and understand that this move doesn't endorse or accept any behavior, all it does is give us the chance to have him a member of this team if we chose to do so.  Where we go from here will be the true test, depending on the outcome of the investigation and whatever events take place from here.  If he's guilty, we can cut him and it's like it never happened.  No moneys paid, no real harm done.  If he's guilty and we decide to hang by him with some false narrative... then we'll come out of this thing looking terrible.  

[Skinsinparadise]

To follow up on my post that this move picks on Zach Brown more than Mason Foster point considering Zach-Reuben being more Mo MLB types than Mike. 

 

I was just listening to Chris Russell talk about this on the radio a minute ago, just read an article too, he thinks could be driven by the cap and Zach's effect on it last year.  He also said more or less that the people at Redskins Park who were opposed to the move were dead fast hardcore opposed.  If so it must have been an interesting and I gather heated discussion.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/cap/2019/

 

Here's a huge reason why the Redskins likely pulled the trigger and why it makes more sense. Brown is due to count $8.75 million against the 2019 salary cap. The Redskins would incur a $3 million dead cap hit if they were to release him, saving $5.75 million in overall cap space.

Mason Foster only counts $2.25 million against the 2019 cap in the final year of his deal, which is basically nothing for a leader and sturdy veteran.

Because the Redskins could have to pay over $25 million in cap space to the quarterback position, they are going to need to trim wherever possible. Assuming he's on the team in 2019, Foster would only cost the Redskins $1.28 million, per OverTheCap.com.

[HardcoreZorn]

Somehow I don't think this move is made if Smith didn't suffer that injury.

 

That injury is catastrophic, let's be real. To allocate potentially 10% of the cap to a guy not taking the field=no bueno.

 

So what's that mean? Take chances on cheap talent. Low risk high reward chances. If Foster is cleared, or it comes out it was less serious than reported or what have you, you now have a defensive centerpiece on a rookie contract.

 

IF he is tried legally and it comes out that he did something that malicious, cut him. You didn't lose anything really, except you created some bad PR which we all know we already have in spades. It's simple as that in my opinion.

[DJHJR86]

1 minute ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Somehow I don't think this move is made if Smith didn't suffer that injury.

 

Eh, I don't know if this is accurate.  I know how much Gruden loved him coming out of college, so I'm not entirely sure we wouldn't have done this with or without the Smith injury.  

[HardcoreZorn]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To follow up on my post that this move picks on Zach Brown more than Mason Foster point considering Zach-Reuben being more Mo MLB types than Mike. 

 

I was just listening to Chris Russell talk about this on the radio a minute ago, just read an article too, he thinks could be driven by the cap and Zach's effect on it last year.  He also said more or less that the people at Redskins Park who were opposed to the move were dead fast hardcore opposed.  If so it must have been an interesting and I gather heated discussion.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/cap/2019/

 

Here's a huge reason why the Redskins likely pulled the trigger and why it makes more sense. Brown is due to count $8.75 million against the 2019 salary cap. The Redskins would incur a $3 million dead cap hit if they were to release him, saving $5.75 million in overall cap space.

Mason Foster only counts $2.25 million against the 2019 cap in the final year of his deal, which is basically nothing for a leader and sturdy veteran.

Because the Redskins could have to pay over $25 million in cap space to the quarterback position, they are going to need to trim wherever possible. Assuming he's on the team in 2019, Foster would only cost the Redskins $1.28 million, per OverTheCap.com.

Yep exactly basically just said the same thing! Thanks for posting.

Just now, DJHJR86 said:

 

Eh, I don't know if this is accurate.  I know how much Gruden loved him coming out of college, so I'm not entirely sure we wouldn't have done this with or without the Smith injury.  

Pure speculation on my part of course. I just think we are more willing to take chances even with bad PR looming because of how much money we may have to allocate to that position.

[zCommander]

8 minutes ago, PortisBetts said:

What I said, which I thought was pretty clear, is that this team has been an embarrassment on and off the field for the last 25 years. There is no 1 specific incident. There are what feels like infinite reasons to be embarrassed by this team, whether it be ****ty trades, pimping cheerleaders, suing the elderly, lying about sell outs, getting blown out on national tv, signing bad character players, etc.

 

Yes you were clear. My whole point was talk about Foster and the current situation and not what has happened in the last 25 years. Dan is not going anywhere so why continue to beat a dead horse? 

[PortisBetts]

2 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

Yes you were clear. My whole point was talk about Foster and the current situation and not what has happened in the last 25 years. Dan is not going anywhere so why continue to beat a dead horse? 

How is this beating a dead horse? It is just another **** thing to throw on top of the pile of ****. I think it is very relevant.

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Somehow I don't think this move is made if Smith didn't suffer that injury.

 

That injury is catastrophic, let's be real. To allocate potentially 10% of the cap to a guy not taking the field=no bueno.

 

So what's that mean? Take chances on cheap talent. Low risk high reward chances. If Foster is cleared, or it comes out it was less serious than reported or what have you, you now have a defensive centerpiece on a rookie contract.

 

IF he is tried legally and it comes out that he did something that malicious, cut him. You didn't lose anything really, except you created some bad PR which we all know we already have in spades. It's simple as that in my opinion.

 

Could be. This could be telling on three things beyond what's being discussed exclusive to this transaction.

 

A. The cap implications of the Alex injury is concerning to say the least.  And you also got Colt's salary potentially rising too if he meets certain incentives.

 

B.  Good chance Dan is really mad about it or even if he isn't there is likely some scrambling going on about where can they make up ground on the cap.

 

C.  Zach is a target to be replaced especially with Foster on the roster at a cheap price.

 

Russell's point which I think is a good one paints a picture that extends to other spots.   Going through the rest of the cap, V. Davis looks like a goner for sure, ditto Norman.  Jordan Reed could be.   

 

Makes me think TE might end up a bigger draft-FA target than we might think -- or at least I thought of until now.   It's actually a good draft for TEs IMO.   And if they remain Alabama happy, Irv Smith, one of my man crushes, might be a target.  But I digress.  But I do think the Smith injury will make some of the cap cuts that we've speculated about before -- are going to be very likely now.

[OVCChairman]

If we end up doing this to move on from Zach Brown that makes it even worse since we just brought him back in March.  

[HardcoreZorn]

2 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

If we end up doing this to move on from Zach Brown that makes it even worse since we just brought him back in March.  

Yes and no. Every team, even the great ones make bad moves every year. It's my belief the most successful teams are able to recognize early they made mistakes and not operate future moves based off sunk costs.

[oraphus]

i think it's the pile on mentality. Redskins fan are so fed up with a constantly underperforming team that they use any excuse to add fodder to the fire and beat down their team... facts be damned.

so lets look at the facts since so many of the gullible fans around here like to just hear themselves type...

1. He was arrested in January in Alabama for marijuana possession; the charges were later dropped because he was considered a first-time offender.
2. In April, he was charged with felonies for domestic violence, making criminal threats and assault weapon possession after his girlfriend said he struck her in February. She later recanted the allegation, and the domestic violence charge was dropped.
3. In June, he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor possession of an assault weapon and was given two years of probation, a 50-day work sentence and a $235 fine.

now lets try to decipher this without all the drama queens around here:

1. He smoked weed and got caught - who doesn't smoke weed these days? its legal in half the states.

2. Charged w domestic abuse by a woman that later said that she lied under oath just to get him in trouble.

3. got caught with a gun. stupid.. yes, but many nfl players carry guns

4. got charged with domestic violence by the same woman that earlier said she lied under oath

 

Here is my take, however unpopular it might be..

-He is young and dumb.. probably just dumb. He is also immature and puts himself in bad situations and/or surrounds himself with people that cause problems for him (gf, friends).

-His team mates from Alabama probably said the same to the skins leadership along the lines of " he is a good guy, great player .. that puts himself in bad situations w poor choices and by surrounding himself with wrong people."

 

Skins decided to take a stab at this player by claiming him and not waiting until he hits FA.. since they get his contract for 2 more years and a 5th year option. If the charges end up being true, they cut him and lose absolutely nothing aside from PR hit... and honestly once they cut him a lot of the bad PR will subside.

 

Now lets look at other NFL players that were in similar situations:

1. aldon smith - multiple assault and you name it arrests - yet he played after

2. greg hardy - domestic violence charges - still played after

3. Dez Bryant - assaulted his mother, still played after that

4. James winston - multiple sexual assault allegations and theft - still starting

 

Not a pretty company to be in but all got the opportunity to turn their life around.. why shouldn't Foster get the same benefit of the doubt? especially since his charges are still very much suspect.