Owls0325

!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, volsmet said:

Spriggs, want.

 

Educate me. Our FO often gets bashed for signing marginal players with an injury history and expecting them to be something else once here. Yet, here's another guy that fits that exact description. Due to his injury, it's improbable that he will be able to show us anything in camp worthy of his taking a roster spot from a player actually showing promise. Would our goal here be to take him off of the Packers IR and move him to ours? Can we do that?

 We're already keeping 3 QBs and probably at least 4 RBs on our roster. We don't have a lot of roster space for what limited talent we have. Tough decisions to be made. I would think that giving a roster spot to a player who can't practice (and apparently hasn't shown much when he has) would be classified as a classic BA type move. So the only option would be to sign a player from the waiver wire and place him onto our IR. If the league even allows for that, I'd expect Mara to cite us for violating the spirit of the IR.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

I'd expect Mara to cite us for violating the spirit of the IR.

 

Line of the year.

 

As far as whoever this Spriggs cat is. Anybody available in FA is going to be old/hurt/both. This the Skins aren't kicking the tires on just about every OL out there, they aren't doing their jobs. Doesn't mean to sign them and dump some other marginal camp guy. Means they should be working out guys constantly this month to see if any are better than what they currently have even as depth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bowhunter said:

Educate me. Our FO often gets bashed for signing marginal players with an injury history and expecting them to be something else once here. Yet, here's another guy that fits that exact description. Due to his injury, it's improbable that he will be able to show us anything in camp worthy of his taking a roster spot from a player actually showing promise. Would our goal here be to take him off of the Packers IR and move him to ours? Can we do that?

 We're already keeping 3 QBs and probably at least 4 RBs on our roster. We don't have a lot of roster space for what limited talent we have. Tough decisions to be made. I would think that giving a roster spot to a player who can't practice (and apparently hasn't shown much when he has) would be classified as a classic BA type move. So the only option would be to sign a player from the waiver wire and place him onto our IR. If the league even allows for that, I'd expect Mara to cite us for violating the spirit of the IR.

 

It's one thing to sign a player with an injury history to a large deal and expect said player to be a starter. It's another thing to claim a guy with an injury history on a rookie deal. There's little investment, other than creating a spot on the 90 man roster. So it's the definition of a low risk move. The other question is the injury. When can he play? Is it possible to get healthy before the season? If it is, Spriggs can be given a chance to win a spot on the 53. If Spriggs cannot get healthy, then there's little incentive to make a claim.

 

Note that Spriggs isn't on the Packers IR. He's on waivers. Any team can submit a claim for him. If the Redskins do and are awarded him, they control his rights. They could place Spriggs on their own IR if they want, though there's little benefit to that as players on IR don't play and he's in the last year of his contract. I suppose if they really liked him, they could make Spriggs one of the two players they bring back from IR. But that's extremely doubtful. More likely than not, his injury isn't super serious and he could be back pretty soon. If that's the case and assuming no one else claims him, then the Redskins would be better off waiting for Spriggs to get healthy and reach an injury settlement with the Packers. And then sign him. But that's contingent upon no one else claiming him first.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bakedtater1 said:

Vegan....what's that?...is that a typo?..ya mean Vegas?

You know, what food eats

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I honestly don't think he'll be back.

This was literally a life or death situation. And it shook him to the point, that he will indeed keep his feet dug in the ground.

If he comes back, even if he uses his own doctors from here on out, to some degree he still has to use our medical staff during the season, I would presume.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bowhunter said:

Educate me. Our FO often gets bashed for signing marginal players with an injury history and expecting them to be something else once here. Yet, here's another guy that fits that exact description. Due to his injury, it's improbable that he will be able to show us anything in camp worthy of his taking a roster spot from a player actually showing promise. Would our goal here be to take him off of the Packers IR and move him to ours? Can we do that?

 We're already keeping 3 QBs and probably at least 4 RBs on our roster. We don't have a lot of roster space for what limited talent we have. Tough decisions to be made. I would think that giving a roster spot to a player who can't practice (and apparently hasn't shown much when he has) would be classified as a classic BA type move. So the only option would be to sign a player from the waiver wire and place him onto our IR. If the league even allows for that, I'd expect Mara to cite us for violating the spirit of the IR.

 

I don’t know the severity of the injury, I do like the talent Spriggs showed when coming out of Indi & we have plenty of room for help on our Oline. 2019 is irrelevant to me, we stink, I would be planning for the years beyond this one & id be excited to see what Callahan could do with Spriggs. I couldn’t possibly care less about who bashes the FO nor why they do it... what have these “bashers” of the FO proven they know? If being bashed by twitter experts ever enters your thought process, you don’t have a thought process, you have an irrational emotional need to please strangers with egg avatars. 

 

Spriggs, like Thuney, can move inside.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember if I asked this already, if I did please delete, but can we trade Williams for Nsekhe and maybe a 2nd or 3rd round pick?  He knows our system already but won't be as good so they throw in a 2nd or 3rd rounder to compensate.  Williams gets a new team and maybe more money and trust and we get a player familiar with our system and adequate in the position.  I've seen others mention something similar so just wondering why it isn't more prevalent?  Is it not doable?  To me, it just seems very logical to do so wondering why it hasn't happened (especially if Williams doesn't want to play here anymore).  Are there trade rules preventing this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The August 6 deadline has come and gone and I had earlier thought it was significant. But, apparently, only if you’re a rookie as it means your chance to become an UFA is extended by a year... but not really. According to the CBA, you can still hold out until week 10 if the regular season before a player will actually lose a contract year. So, I’m guessing Trent will easily hold out until the 10th week or we trade him first. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/deadline-passes-as-elliott-loses-accrued-season-fines-reach-24500k/ar-AAFtB3Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life goes on.  Have the Redskins not played without Trent Williams before?  He’s had suspensions and a lot of injuries.  He has battled through a lot over the years.  Just trade him and let him move on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some fans wonder why players move on around here. Fans around here are so damn politically embedded!! ****!! So quick to believe Ian and other guys that probably have axes to grind with the team you all ironically root for. But alas, some of you are hook line and sinker to every report that comes out negatively about the Redskins. What you end up doing is (collectively along with this sorry ass media) run players out of town. 

I say again, have you heard anything from Trent? No. So how can you honestly believe and run with all the speculation and rumors? Let alone (and suddenly) scream for trading the best LT in the league? Oh and btw, with a suspect line going into this year? Child ****ing please!!!

 

Here's a tip: step back and think **** through logically when you hear rumors.

 

He who has an ear, let him hear.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

Some fans wonder why players move on around here. Fans around here are so damn politically embedded!! ****!! So quick to believe Ian and other guys that probably have axes to grind with the team you all ironically root for. But alas, some of you are hook line and sinker to every report that comes out negatively about the Redskins. What you end up doing is (collectively along with this sorry ass media) run players out of town. 

I say again, have you heard anything from Trent? No. So how can you honestly believe and run with all the speculation and rumors? Let alone (and suddenly) scream for trading the best LT in the league? Oh and btw, with a suspect line going into this year? Child ****ing please!!!

 

Here's a tip: step back and think **** through logically when you hear rumors.

 

He who has an ear, let him hear.

 

 

Brother players move on from EVERYWHERE. I mean two of the top WR's in the league switched teams this year. Cam Wake. The number 2 sacker in the past 6 years moved on. Moving on is what the NFL is all about. And Trent is not the best tackle in the league. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JaxJoe said:

The August 6 deadline has come and gone and I had earlier thought it was significant. But, apparently, only if you’re a rookie as it means your chance to become an UFA is extended by a year... but not really. According to the CBA, you can still hold out until week 10 if the regular season before a player will actually lose a contract year. So, I’m guessing Trent will easily hold out until the 10th week or we trade him first. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/deadline-passes-as-elliott-loses-accrued-season-fines-reach-24500k/ar-AAFtB3Z

I believe if Trent is not here by the 3rd or 4th PS game he's traded.  Just my guess. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, joeken24 said:

Some fans wonder why players move on around here. Fans around here are so damn politically embedded!! ****!! So quick to believe Ian and other guys that probably have axes to grind with the team you all ironically root for. But alas, some of you are hook line and sinker to every report that comes out negatively about the Redskins. What you end up doing is (collectively along with this sorry ass media) run players out of town. 

I say again, have you heard anything from Trent? No. So how can you honestly believe and run with all the speculation and rumors? Let alone (and suddenly) scream for trading the best LT in the league? Oh and btw, with a suspect line going into this year? Child ****ing please!!!

 

Here's a tip: step back and think **** through logically when you hear rumors.

 

He who has an ear, let him hear.

 

You tell us why he hasn’t reported to camp yet.  It isn’t about fans “running him out of town.”  It’s about that if he doesn’t want to be here, BIG IF, then let the man leave and try to get compensation instead of losing him for nothing.  It’s not the fans fault.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, GOSKINS_08 said:

 

Trent Williams fine with missing regular season and will not play for Redskins, 'period,' per sources

 

Thats a link to the story. No idea how to post links but it’s there lol.

 

Sources explained that the situation is not all about money, rather his contract status along with the series of allegations that the seven-time Pro Bowl tackle has lost faith in the team's front office and medical staff. Still, money might be the only way to fix the holdout. 

A reported plan that Washington could fine Williams enough for missing practices so that he would hurry back and report was "funny." Williams has made nearly $100 million in his career, and the threat of fines that could reach up to perhaps $500,000 are of small consequence to the veteran left tackle, sources explained.

There's also the threat of not being on the Redskins roster before Week 1, which means Williams' 2019 salary will no longer be fully vested. "Not a concern," according to those in the know. 

Word from some inside the Redskins organization suggests that the holdup actually is all about money. How that could be fixed remains to be seen, but those with direct knowledge of the Williams' camp suggest a resolution would require a new deal. It's hard to envision a scenario where the Redskins would do a new deal, as it would set a new precedent for Bruce Allen to rework a contract that has two years remaining. Washington historically only works on extensions in the last year of a contract.

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/trent-williams-fine-missing-regular-season-and-will-not-play-redskins-period-sources

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's pretty easy to piece together that if beat guys ask their Redskins sources about Trent they say its all about money.    But if you ask people close to Trent, he says its not about money.  That's why it so hard to piece together what's reality.

 

Personally I am sticking with this if its about money -- unless its keeping the contract status quo but they add more guaranteed then I am not on board with Trent.  If Trent has other gripes and wants to make a stand for himself and teammates as some purport -- then I can entertain his side of things.  Regardless, though of who is right or wrong, I think Trent is oddly doing this team a favor if they can get good trade compensation for him.  We never sell (granted its rare to have players good enough that teams covet to the degree where they'd give a high pick) players for good compensation before they descent like NE routinely does.  This might force them to do it for a change.

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't feel like this is news.  Of course those in Ashburn are going to say it's about money, and of course Trent's camp is going to say it's not.  The only piece that really stuck out to me was "lost faith in the front office and the medical team".  That's the first I've heard it worded that way other than speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Our ability to trade Trent should be influenced by injuries at the position, league wide. 

 

Penn limping after practice - its life in the NFL for an old battle ax OL.  Heck we saw our young OL limping back to the huddle or tapping out proper many times last year. He will be getting his fair share of treatment as they all will. He may be one of the few smart enough to take it easy at every chance, and not give a rats ass what anyone thinks.

 

I hope Jay calls a safer play than he did for Alex's first snap last year, when he got creamed to start the season. Jay can't expect our OL to have gelled this quickly, right? It seems like Penn has been here less than 2 weeks. Flowers at LG, the same.

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some beat guys think Bruce is too stubborn to trade Trent.  I hope they are wrong.  Cooley's point below IMO is dead on. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/08/08/dwayne-haskins-should-play-with-redskins-starters-during-preseason-chris-cooley-says/

Cooley also shared his thoughts on Redskins left tackle Trent Williams, his teammate for three seasons. Williams, who continues to hold out, is frustrated with the Redskins for several reasons, including their decision to draft tackle Geron Christian in the third round of last year’s draft and the way the team’s medical staff handled a growth on his head that turned into a health scare. Williams has expressed a desire for the Redskins to either trade him or pay him more.

“You gotta trade him,” Cooley said. “I love Trent. I do. He’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I respect if he truly feels the way he feels about the medical staff, that that’s a problem for him. I respect that all players want new money if that’s a problem for him. … Good organizations move on. The Steelers, the Patriots, they move on from those guys.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RWJ said:

I believe if Trent is not here by the 3rd or 4th PS game he's traded.  Just my guess. 

Depends on the offering. Anything above a #2 ( 3 & up) and I would think he stays and looses money along the way. I'd wait for the 53 mandatory cut line to see who is available

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

You gotta trade him,” Cooley said. “I love Trent. I do. He’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I respect if he truly feels the way he feels about the medical staff, that that’s a problem for him. I respect that all players want new money if that’s a problem for him.  Good organizations move on. The Steelers, the Patriots, they move on from those guys.

 

Cooley is thinking like a player here.

 

The Redskins have to what is best for the Redskins. Not what is best for Trent Williams.

 

If that means holding on to him till the best offer comes along or the market favors a better offer because injuries start cropping up in the preseason on other team's offensive lines, then that's what they have to do.

 

I still find it hard to believe that he would get upset that the Redskins would draft a OT in the third round. He couldn't possibly have felt threatened, and he doesn't come off as insecure. The Redskins have drafted other OL since he was here, and he didn't get upset about it.

 

Could it be that they drafted Christian and let Tyler Nsekhe walk? How good of friends were Trent and Tyler?

 

Edited by SkinsGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Still don't feel like this is news.  Of course those in Ashburn are going to say it's about money, and of course Trent's camp is going to say it's not.  The only piece that really stuck out to me was "lost faith in the front office and the medical team".  That's the first I've heard it worded that way other than speculation.

 

It's not really new.  It's rarely the prime point though.  The FO has crept in some of the reports before.  2 different reports (one was Brewer, I don't recall off hand the other) included Bruce/FO in the mix of Trent's beefs.   Not that he is front and center but in the mix of his gripes.  Theismann just repeated that too on air a few minutes ago as part of the soup.  I haven't jumped down that rabbit hole yet because there are plenty of reports that don't mention him or the FO at all.   And the initial Bruce report was denied by Tony Wyllie.  So you got me if his feelings about him and or the FO is in the mix but there is certain enough there to not rule it out.

 

On this count though, i don't recall care.   My take on the FO/Bruce isn't changing for worse or for better based on this.  My position on that is firm.  Big enough sample size for me to make up my mind on that front.  I just want to see this resolved -- hopefully with a trade.  This draft looks more loaded than the typically one.  I love having Sweat on the roster but hate not having a 2nd round pick right now.  To me this is a rebuilding team. go get a high pick or two.  I wouldn't want to give Trent away cheap but if they can get some good compensation, I'd like it. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Cooley is thinking like a player here.

 

The Redskins have to what is best for the Redskins. Not what is best for Trent Williams.

 

If that means holding on to him till the best offer comes along or the market favors a better offer because injuries start cropping up in the preseason on other team's offensive lines, then that's what they have to do.

 

I still find it hard to believe that he would get upset that the Redskins would draft a OT in the third round. He couldn't possibly have felt threatened, and he doesn't come off as insecure. The Redskins have drafted other OL since he was here, and he didn't get upset about it.

 

Could it be that they drafted Christian and let Tyler Nsekhe walk? How good of friends were Trent and Tyler?

 

 

Cooley though isn't making a claim to when to trade him.  He is saying to trade him period.  I am sure he'd agree to get the best compensation you could. 

 

As for the Christian point.  Brewer in an interview basically said that it was party about them drafting Christian when they needed an OG and part of the soup of his gripe was he wants to win now and didn't love ignoring LG while drafting a tackle considering he saw himself and Moses as mainstays. And that Trent doesn't have faith that this FO can build a winner during his career.  And Brewer also said its not just about this but a number of things. 

 

But who knows.  The one thing we keep hearing from people that I gather are talking to Trent's camp is that he has multiple gripes not just one.  So if that's truly the case then its tough to interpret Trent's beef by just zoning in on one thing.  it would be like me saying to a friend that my beef with another is about death of many cuts and that person listening to me only zeroes in on one thing and goes to me hey what gives that alone shouldn't set you off.  Even the medical staff narrative tends to be that the cyst was the last straw as opposed to the one and only thing that bothered Trent. 

 

I am not suggesting that this stuff is true, too.  You got me.  I need to hear it from Trent or his agent both of whom are quiet.   But to be fair to Trent, there is some narrative out there (presuming from Trent's camp) that includes the point that it's the accumulation of multiple things as opposed to just one incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member