Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Welp losing Trent over an OLD injury just sucked all the cool out of Haskins dropping right into our laps. And here we were worried about new injuries, self medicating again.....

 

This is SO us.  Only we can have a player fully disgruntled from an old injury let us know after the draft he no longer wants to play here, oh and its our best player, of course.

 

DecimalFirsthandApisdorsatalaboriosa-siz

 

Edited by RandyHolt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To the point above, Trent I gather knows about all of this noise.  My guess is either he or his agent responds to this tomorrow otherwise I'd presume there has to be something to all this noise about the issue. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s always been skepticism from players directed at NFL medical staff, naturally due to the medical staff being employed by those who pay the players. 

 

We’ll see how it plays out as more info is discovered. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe from Trent taking a stand, 10 years from now all medical personnel will be completely independent of the teams they support.

 

It sure sucks for us, but I cannot imagine that our caring for injuries is THAT much worse than all other teams.   If its true, there should be several malpractice suits possible.  Bah I suppose the players signed an injury waiver of some sort.


IIRC Laron Landry refused to have team recommended surgery,  and healed correctly.  How long has our medical team been employed? 

 

 

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

PPS. Where is the complaint to the Union Rep. Seems like this is a CBA issue

I'm sure it's coming, that's probably why the goal posts moved today from "I want more money" to "I received poor medical treatment".

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't care his reasons for doing it, if this is only a recent development he really threw the team under the bus by waiting until after the draft and FA. If it was about the money I would say it was a shrewd move in terms of leverage but if he had no intention of playing and chose to wait, then if I were his teammates I would be pissed off. I don't care if his gripe is legitimate, the timing was just not cool and my opinion from as recently as yesterday in terms of keeping him and extending has changed completely.

 

So if he has a legitimate gripe with his medical care, he’s the a-hole here?  Because he should have been so kind to the team as to make his decision prompt so they can prepare?

 

Fandom is wild.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Darc Requiem said:

If I signed a contract with my employer, they couldn't can me without paying what was agreed to. When NFL teams stop cutting guys midway through their deals I'll start caring about holdouts.

If you're under-performing or holding out, you absolutely should get canned. You aren't obligating that contract just by "showing up" or signing on the dotted line. A contract is an agreement. Getting cut because of an injury is one thing, but if you're playing like trash or not showing up you deserve to be cut, especially if you have a ridiculous contract.

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Guice Alex CT Moses Scherff Reed Richardson Doctson Sims Quinn and Colt don't follow Trent's lead, we should be able to eek out a few wins this year.  That is offense alone, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

If you're under-performing or holding out, you absolutely should get canned. You aren't obligating that contract just by "showing up" or signing on the dotted line. A contract is an agreement. Getting cut because of an injury is one thing, but if you're playing like trash or not showing up you deserve to be cut, especially if you have a ridiculous contract.

So when the team under performs, should players be able to bail for a good team?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how this will shake out.  It isn't clear yet what Trent's motivation is for his absence at this point.  I wouldn't trash Trent for the timing of this, or for him not handling this "behind closed doors".  We don't know what communication has happened behind closed doors, or how long ago Trent made his feelings known to the front office.

 

Once he starts missing mandatory team events, it becomes tough to keep things behind closed doors.  He still has not been derogatory towards the team publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So when the team under performs, should players be able to bail for a good team?

 

 

Pretty ridiculous question. So if you work for a company that is just barely getting by, are you going to complain about it if you're a paid employee? Probably not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nobody is begging these guys to play professional sports, everyone can be replaced and the level of entitlement of today's athlete is hilarious.

 

Let the players start their own league and let's see how it goes, they want an equal partnership but they didn't make the initial investment of time and money to set up the infrastructure and grind it out for the first 35 years before the league exploded and actually became profitable.

 

So it took 10 years for Trent to realize the Redskins jeopardized his health, he had no idea in his first 9 years that our medical staff was suspect?

 

Edited by JSSkinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

 

Pretty ridiculous question. So if you work for a company that is just barely getting by, are you going to complain about it if you're a paid employee? Probably not

 

What does what you are saying have anything to do with what I said?

 

Your point was that guys should just get to be cut and lose their $ if they underperform, contract be damned.  So why can’t the contract be damned when the team underperforms allowing the player the same luxury as the team?

 

As I said above, Fandom is wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browns waived OT Desmond Harrison.

Harrison was reportedly late to minicamp. An UDFA rookie last year, Harrison somehow won the Browns' Week 1 starting left-tackle job and remained there for the first eight games. He received atrocious grades from Pro Football Focus and was benched in favor of ex-bust Greg Robinson. The left-tackle situation in Cleveland is a real issue heading into the summer, and one that is going overlooked by many.

RELATED: 
Jun 5, 2019, 1:51 PM ET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Nobody is begging these guys to play professional sports, everyone can be replaced and the level of entitlement of today's athlete is hilarious.

 

Let the players start their own league and let's see how it goes, they want an equal partnership but they didn't make the initial investment of time and money to set up the infrastructure and grind it out for the first 35 years before the league exploded and actually became profitable.

Without the players, the league never becomes profitable.  Sure there are business folks responsible for the leagues emergence.  Most are dead or retired.  This current cop of ownership  that wipe their ass with the average players salary deserve respect for what exactly?  In particular, our terd, Dan Snyder?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

So it took 10 years for Trent to realize the Redskins jeopardized his health, he had no idea in his first 9 years that our medical staff was suspect?

 

 

. . . he didn't potentially have cancer a decade ago?

 

What is with you people?

 

The guy is unhappy because the team he has given his body for, endured pain that others simply couldn't, wouldn't take care of his body.  I don't see how that's so hard to conceptualize.

 

Man, can you believe that guy got pissed at his mechanic because his mechanic did a bad job with his car?  What a jackass.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

2. What would Bill Bellichick do?  He'd trade Trent to the Arizona Cardinals for a 4th and a serviceable OL player, and figure out how to make it work.  

 

 

"Figure out how to make it work". :ols: 

 

Tom. Brady.

 

That's how that works. That's pretty much how all their advantages as an organization works. For God's sake, Brady's willingly giving them cap relief that is historically unheard of, which is then used mostly on defensive help because you can get away with being cheaper on offense BECAUSE FRIGGIN TOM BRADY. He's arguably the greatest offensive coordinator in the league AND he's got elite QB traits so Belichick and company get to see it on the field directly. Imagine Joe Gibbs' offensive mind in his prime with an elite QB skillset to go along with it. The dude literally runs their offense for them. Why do all these coaches who leave Brady never succeed elsewhere!? 

 

Top ten salary cap hits for the Pats this year? 6 out of that goes to defensive players. The top three cap hits right after Brady? ALL DEFENSIVE PLAYERS. Top 15 cap hits? 9 are defensive players! 60%! Oh, and guess what position those players on offense there in the top 15 play on the most? Oline! To PROTECT TOM FRIGGIN BRADY. Out of the 6 offensive players, 3 of them play on the Oline (2 of whom are in the top 6 right below those 3 aforementioned defensive players that come after Brady). 

 

So just to go over this, of the players taking over 1.5% of the cap of the Pats (including Brady), 60% of them are defensive players. Out of the minority offensive players,HALF OF them come on the Oline (again, that's including Brady, so really it's more significant as only James White and Julian Edelman are the other two players and they only make more than one Olineman - the other two are well ahead of them). 

Source: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/cap/

 

"Figure out how to make it work". :ols: 

 

I mean, when I think of the kind of organizational advantages Tom Brady gives the Pats... it's outrageous, really. The ease of which they get to manage their resources is simply absurd.  And this isn't even beginning to get into what it means for the coaching time allocated to player development, game-planning, in-game strategy, establishing culture, etc... that he alone frees up for them all. 

 

Sometimes I pray we'd hire Belichick here under the same organizational structure (he'd never agree to that) or even under the one they've got there where he's football emperor so the fans who continuously get caught up in actually believing they can dissect pro-level coaching with any accuracy would realize just how utterly foolish they are. But then they'd probably just say he's "lost his touch" or the "game has passed him by" as they detail their brilliant analyses as to what needs to change while ignoring the fundamental team-building/resource management problems that will hinder ANYONE brought in here. 

 

But that's like cutting off my nose to spite my face. I'd rather they'd just get their crap together organizationally, structure it the way most successful franchises have in the past, and all work in unison towards the common goal of winning on the field with top level resource management and team-building strategies. That'd be nice. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

What does what you are saying have anything to do with what I said?

 

Your point was that guys should just get to be cut and lose their $ if they underperform, contract be damned.  So why can’t the contract be damned when the team underperforms allowing the player the same luxury as the team?

 

As I said above, Fandom is wild.

 

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying there, it's obvious we disagree still here. Contracts are terminated by employers all the time for poor performance, it's not this unheard of thing you know. If you don't meet the standards you agreed to on the contract then you deserve to be cut/fired or whatever. It sounds to me like you're saying a team should be handcuffed to a player immediately after they sign the dotted line, so basically they can just sit at home and collect the money because they signed right? No re-precautions at all, sounds like a wonderful idea. 

 

A contract is an agreement between the team and player. The team agrees to pay a certain amount of their cash for the players employment. Where in the world do you think the team's performance even comes into this? I'm curious, I'll repeat what you said "Fandom is wild". 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

 

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying there, it's obvious we disagree still here. Contracts are terminated by employers all the time for poor performance, it's not this unheard of thing you know. If you don't meet the standards you agreed to on the contract then you deserve to be cut/fired or whatever. It sounds to me like you're saying a team should be handcuffed to a player immediately after they sign the dotted line, so basically they can just sit at home and collect the money because they signed right? No re-precautions at all, sounds like a wonderful idea. 

 

A contract is an agreement between the team and player. The team agrees to pay a certain amount of their cash for the players employment. Where in the world do you think the team's performance even comes into this? I'm curious, I'll repeat what you said Fandom is wild. 

You are absolutely correct on Performance base contracts, but are the contracts in the NFL performance based?  You can have players still performing at a high level and still get cut because their contract is to high for the team.  So your argument doesn't make sense when comparing it to normal contracts of other businesses.  I'm a contractor and if I'm doing what the contract states then if you release me or fire me without cause I am do the whole amount stated in that contract.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

 

A contract is an agreement between the team and player. The team agrees to pay a certain amount of their cash for the players employment. Where in the world do you think the team's performance even comes into this? I'm curious, I'll repeat what you said "Fandom is wild". 

The team pays the player based on what they’ve done and project they will do for their team. 

 

If every team could just cut whoever they want and not pay them because the player didn’t perform to whatever set of expectations there are, guys like Bruce Allen might actually not be as much of a loser and damn near everyone would make a good GM.

 

I say fandom is wild because folks regularly leave rationale at the door, and exhibit major bias whenever it comes to team/player issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

What does what you are saying have anything to do with what I said?

 

Your point was that guys should just get to be cut and lose their $ if they underperform, contract be damned.  So why can’t the contract be damned when the team underperforms allowing the player the same luxury as the team?

 

As I said above, Fandom is wild.

 

I disagree with the characterization of "contract be damned".  The contract tends to be an agreement of what the player will receive as compensation if they continue to employ them.  Any provisions to guarantee money in future years can be negotiated by the player and the team.  If the player doesn't think the guarantees in the contract are sufficient, they can decide they are not willing to play.  Neither side can say "contract be damned".  For example, the Redskins can't just decide to stop paying Alex Smith, they have to pay the $ that was guaranteed in the contract both sides negotiated and agreed to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I disagree with the characterization of "contract be damned".  The contract tends to be an agreement of what the player will receive as compensation if they continue to employ them.  Any provisions to guarantee money in future years can be negotiated by the player and the team.  If the player doesn't think the guarantees in the contract are sufficient, they can decide they are not willing to play.  Neither side can say "contract be damned".  For example, the Redskins can't just decide to stop paying Alex Smith, they have to pay the $ that was guaranteed in the contract both sides negotiated and agreed to.

I wasn’t arguing that all contracts be damned.  I was merely making the point that it makes no sense that teams should be able to not pay guys for not meeting expectations if the player can’t do the same.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome

Share this post


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

You are absolutely correct on Performance base contracts, but are the contracts in the NFL performance based?  You can have players still performing at a high level and still get cut because their contract is to high for the team.  So your argument doesn't make sense when comparing it to normal contracts of other businesses.  I'm a contractor and if I'm doing what the contract states then if you release me or fire me without cause I am do the whole amount stated in that contract.

None of them are performance based, they're a bit of a mix and the performance parts are just incentives in the contract that they can achieve to get extra money. My point was just saying that you aren't locked into all contracts. What you're saying is true, if it's not a performance based contract and you do the job and what the contract says you can't be fired, otherwise you can take legal precautions against whoever hired you. The NFL has guaranteed and non-guaranteed contracts, players just simply need to take less money and go for the guaranteed contracts if that's the concern, that way if they're cut they still get money.

Edited by Burgundy Yoda

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