Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It's too late to trade Trent, Bruce was serious.  If the possibility of Houston offering two first rounder wasnt enough, we arent holding out for a better deal.  This is a perception versus pride issue with Trent stuck because Bruce doesnt have to do anything and hes acting like it.

 

They don’t want to trade Trent because they have the leverage.  He’s under contract for two more seasons, and they could use multiple Franchise Tags after that.  His only real leverage is to withhold his services, which he is doing.  But is he really going to not play and be fined for 2-3 years?  Seems unlikely.

 

LTs are hard to find and are a top commodity in the league.  Skins are hesitant to be forced to give one up.  So, they’re not. 

Edited by Andre The Giant

Share this post


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

Jay HAS BEEN a problem, and a big problem.  Bruce HAS BEEN a problem, and a big problem.  Both can be true and neither are mutually exclusive.  

 

 

That's true there could be two problems at the same time.  I just disagree that we got two.  But I got no problem sacrificing whomever to get rid of the other problem.  B

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Though the post you quoted really didn’t suggest in any way which I see as more of the problem.  I said the “close thing” was going to backfire on Bruce. I don’t know where you got the judgement I see Jay as more of the problem.  

 

 

OK if you see Bruce as the bigger problem, cool.  Where I am coming from is your rallying cry seems to be Jay not so much Bruce.  You post it seems more on Jay then you do on Bruce.  If I am wrong on that, sorry.

 

Back to Trent, seems clear that teams have reached out to them -- question is do they have a price they are willing to take or is it true that they aren't trading Trent no matter what?

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/redskins-reportedly-no-go-possible-jadeveon-clowney-trade-despite-conversations

The Houston Texans, who are dealing with their own holdout in pass rusher Jadeveon Clowney, reached out to the Burgundy and Gold about a potential trade involving the two players, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Not surprisingly, Washington shot down the offer...

Additionally, Williams is from Longview, Texas, and lives and works out in Houston every offseason. Putting all these factors together, it wouldn't be surprising if the Texans were at the top of the left tackle's preferred destinations.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This assertion that Bruce won't trade Trent for a bounty of picks and players is completely ridiculous. The guy is a freaking tool to be sure but he is not going to pass up a king's ransom for an aging player who has missed significant time over the last 3 seasons.  Clearly we haven't received an offer like the Houston > Miami deal or it would be in the books. It would be malpractice on Bruce's part to pass on it and he would never work in his capacity again not to mention Dan, Doug, Jay, Kyle  the freaking hotdogs vendor in the 200 level at the Fed and anyone else who gives a damn wouldn't allow it. It's not only bad business, its incompetence at the highest degree and would never play out as some kind of junk measuring contest that some are speculating it to be. Get a grip people there are a few adults in the building over in Ashburn. Not many but a few.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Me:  Tunsil and Trent aren’t a good comparison because of age, injury history and upside.

@Skinsinparadise (whom I think very highly of, btw):  Yes they are because of Pro Bowls 7 years ago.

Me:  Maybe let’s compare Tunsil to the Dave Butz trade?  Same age, similar position, identical package of #1s and #2s.

SIP:  But what about Herschel Walker?

 

:pint:

 

 

I agree about Tunsil being younger and by extension his trade value would be higher.  Like I said if you take the Tunsil trade compensation and cut it severely by taking off one of the first round picks they got -- then I think we are talking fair compensation for Trent.  That is, a first rounder and another higher pick.  That would be consistent with Schefter and what another national reporter said (forgetting which one) then there were two national reporters who said just a first.    

 

I don't think Tunsil will ever be anything close to Trent.  PFF isn't perfect but they claim their ratings for O line translates better than any other of their grades.  If recall Tunsil was their 36th highest rated O lineman last.  I think he's good but not special and will never be special.  Trent is special.  So yeah young > old.  But I'd give some points for Trent just simply being a lot better especially in the context of a contending team wanting to win now. 

 

As for the Butz trade I think I mistook your point.  Sounds like you aren't talking trades in general but just the value is higher for a young dude in a trade?  If so I agree.  I was just giving examples of trading veterans for picks and it adding up big time for the team doing it.   And then sometimes not.  You got examples all over the place as to trades.  But it sounds like that wasn't the point you were arguing so my bad on that. 

 

Bringing this back to Trent.  Gary Zimmerman, LT, was same age as Trent was traded for a first, 2nd and 6th.  Duane Brown a year older than Trent, not as good as Trent, traded in the middle of the season for a 2nd and 4th.  

 

I still think Trent can be had for a first and change if they decide to trade him.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

It helps when people don't start a response with "That's Dumb", That's Stupid"..etc. No need for that..people may be wrong in the mind of the reply-er but denigrating people's opinion starts most of this crap..

tenor.gif?itemid=11138655

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Huh? The Browns just did it and the Dolphins are currently doing it.

 

"Tanking" isn't about throwing games and purposely losing on gameday for higher draft position. In fact the coaches and players on the roster are still doing their best to save their jobs, as hamstrung as they are. "Tanking" happens at a higher level in the organization, and they might not even call it that in private--but it involves stockpiling draft resources and youth, shedding vets who won't be there when the rebuild is over, and trying through roster costruction and trades (again, not through gameday decisions) to have a young roster that won't win games until it all comes together with a young QB, to ensure the most and highest draft picks possible while accumulating young talent. This happens in every sport. 

 

Okay, it appears the word “tanking” is going to take over as the argument. Your definition of tanking does take place in the NFL. NBA teams tank with wanting to get a player to change its fortune. 

 

The San Antonio Spurs “tanked” when keeping David Robinson on IR for second half of season to get Tim Duncan. Sacrificing wins to get a generational player. This is tanking, NBA teams do this because one player can change the fortunes of a franchise and the special generational talents have higher hit percentages in the NBA.

 

**The NBA has tried to combat this with the top 3 teams having the same opportunity percentage to get top pick with picks 4,5, and 6 not far behind. 

 

**Dolphins are most definitely tanking to position themselves to get a QB. Not sure I can remember a team ahead of a season operating this way. Maybe they will hit on an elite QB. The Browns appear to have hit on Mayfield, so it can be done.  #suckfortua

Edited by wit33
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Am presuming this is a joke or if not sorry am missing what this means?

 

You’d want to tank for a LB or WR? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Schaffer and Smith have a significant voice in this matter.

1 hour ago, Andre The Giant said:

 

They don’t want to trade Trent because they have the leverage.  He’s under contract for two more seasons, and they could use multiple Franchise Tags after that.  His only real leverage is to withhold his services, which he is doing.  But is he really going to not play and be fined for 2-3 years?  Seems unlikely.

 

LTs are hard to find and are a top commodity in the league.  Skins are hesitant to be forced to give one up.  So, they’re not. 

 

I disagree.

They don't have the leverage because of Trent's age. 2 years from now, they aren't going to Franchise a player, who's what, 34 ? And hadn't played in a few years.

And his trade value will diminish the longer we sit on him, as well.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

You’d want to tank for a LB or WR? 

 

OK I was just saying I didn't follow your point.  OK, so I think I do now which is tanking for a QB.  

 

In relation to the Redskins, I don't need them to tank.  But it doesn't have to be an all or nothing version of it.   I see this team about 2-3 seasons out from being potentially really good if Haskins emerges.   So our 30 something stars I don't see part of that surge.  Replacing Trent for example with someone like Andrew Thomas is tailored made for this organization.  And I doubt we are getting Thomas or whichever LT emerges as the best in this draft without a top 5 pick.

 

I get the argument that the NFL draft isn't the NBA.  That's true.  One player doesn't change everything unless they are a QB.  But no doubt the odds of you hitting on star players is a lot better with a top 5 pick or top 10.  Arguably our division rivals top players were all top 5 picks.   If Haskins emerges, do I think he'd have a better run with a potential star WR like lets say Jeudy or Lamb? Yes.  Or would I rather him have a young LT who can protect him for the next 10 years versus a dude for 2-3 years or so who will likely miss part of the season.  Yes. 

 

Lets' take this coming draft some say Jerry Jeudy looks to be the next Odell Beckham.  He's likely a star.  If so he's going early, i doubt he's going to be there at lets say 15.  Would I enjoy for example watching the Giants land a top 5 pick and replace Beckham with arguably the next version of him?  Nope. Or the Giants who have been building a good interior O line finish the job by getting the top LT in the draft.  Nope.

 

Yeah you can land a star player at any point in the draft.  But the odds are higher when you have high picks than not.  That's part of the reason why its so steep to trade into the top 5.   But for this team specifically, its IMO lacking star power -- a killer receiver for example would be a bigger deal to a roster that's stacked with other good young players like this one than lets say the Dolphins which has much further to go.

 

Or for me to say this differently, you give Kyle 2 first round picks in the next stacked draft and another mid rounder in the mix of what they already have --  and Haskins emerges...now you might be talking about a team that finally emerges out of mediocrity. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


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

Why am I not surprised that those that live in an alternative universe are reaching tremendously to make Tunsil a god and Trent chop liver?

 

I for one am not doing that. With that being said Tunsil might have been more on the Texans radar because of his age. He's 6 years younger than Trent. Trent has already had injury problems and that normally doesn't get better with age. So if they're looking for a long-term solution I think Tunsil is the better option. If they only want a guy for a couple years. Trent is the better solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

I for one am not doing that. With that being said Tunsil might have been more on the Texans radar because of his age. He's 6 years younger than Trent. Trent has already had injury problems and that normally doesn't get better with age. So if they're looking for a long-term solution I think Tunsil is the better option. If they only want a guy for a couple years. Trent is the better solution. 

The Texans don’t even have a GM and their time is right now.  Nobody bypasses Trent Williams for Tunsil, unless Trent Williams is not available.  Would the haul be as much, who knows? But I’d bet everything I own that they made a significant offer that should have been accepted, and the Texans moved on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK I was just saying I didn't follow your point.  OK, so I think I do now which is tanking for a QB.  

 

 

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

In relation to the Redskins, I don't need them to tank.  But it doesn't have to be an all or nothing version of it.   I see this team about 2-3 seasons out from being potentially really good if Haskins emerges.   So our 30 something stars I don't see part of that surge.  Replacing Trent for example with someone like Andrew Thomas is tailored made for this organization.  And I doubt we are getting Thomas or whichever LT emerges as the best in this draft without a top 5 pick.

 

I doesn’t appear the FO thinks it’s a super bowl type roster, more like a playoff one. Meaning, they’ve not gone all at the expense of creating issues in the future, like teams so who are contending. I’m one who believes there isn’t a right or wrong way to go about it, but establishing some momentum (a playoff season) is significant. 

 

For example, if Skins were going into this season having made playoffs with a healthy Alex Smith last season Id have higher expectations for this year’s roster. 

 

**It seems the FO is executing what you explain above from a resources perspective and remaining flexible. 

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the argument that the NFL draft isn't the NBA.  That's true.  One player doesn't change everything unless they are a QB.  But no doubt the odds of you hitting on star players is a lot better with a top 5 pick or top 10.  Arguably our division rivals top players were all top 5 picks.   If Haskins emerges, do I think he'd have a better run with a potential star WR like lets say Jeudy or Lamb? Yes.  Or would I rather him have a young LT who can protect him for the next 10 years versus a dude for 2-3 years or so who will likely miss part of the season.  Yes

 

Its not as if the Skins have not picked in the top top 10 in the last 20 years lol. How’s that worked out? Average QB play (outside of RG3 season) has been consistent and will continue to make it most difficult to get momentum going without legit QB. 

 

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Lets' take this coming draft some say Jerry Jeudy looks to be the next Odell Beckham.  He's likely a star.  If so he's going early, i doubt he's going to be there at lets say 15.  Would I enjoy for example watching the Giants land a top 5 pick and replace Beckham with arguably the next version of him?  Nope. Or the Giants who have been building a good interior O line finish the job by getting the top LT in the draft.  Nope.

 

No way (IMO) should a team be thinking about specific players or a certain pick for the following, just seems completely counterproductive to the goal of developing a team. 

 

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah you can land a star player at any point in the draft.  But the odds are higher when you have high picks than not.  That's part of the reason why its so steep to trade into the top 5.   But for this team specifically, its IMO lacking star power -- a killer receiver for example would be a bigger deal to a roster that's stacked with other good young players like this one than lets say the Dolphins which has much further to go.

 

Or trade for them (OBJ & like the “how we should do it” Browns.

 

I hear ya though, it’d be nice to get a game breaker WR. I think the roster is almost at a point to start targeting game breakers in the draft. 

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Or for me to say this differently, you give Kyle 2 first round picks in the next stacked draft and another mid rounder in the mix of what they already have --  and Haskins emerges...now you might be talking about a team that finally emerges out of mediocrity. 

 

For me, it all hangs on Haskins. As you know, I’m encouraged and as confident as ever about the future. This season I’m hoping for a miracle playoff to continue the continuity within the organization as Haskins gets self ready to wreck havoc on the league (one can hope). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But I’d bet everything I own that they made a significant offer that should have been accepted, and the Texans moved on. 

You're crazy, you have no idea what's been going on in these talks but you would bet everything you own?

 

CarefulFrequentDrafthorse-small.gif

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

You're crazy, you have no idea what's been going on in these talks but you would bet everything you own?

 

CarefulFrequentDrafthorse-small.gif

Okay, Mr. Literal. You say that as if we will ever know what transpired. Houston making a play for Trent before Tunsil makes all the sense in the world.  Especially considering the Trent scenario has been public for some time now.  It also makes absolutely zero sense that they would lowball an offer for Trent and then pay out the ass for the trade they just got.  

Share this post


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

It also makes absolutely zero sense that they would lowball an offer for Trent and then pay out the ass for the trade they just got.  

What if Trent didn't want to go there? 

 

What if Trent's knee isn't worthy of that kind of trade, did you hear what Trent said in his preseason interview before last year, that he would be playing with pain in his knee forever?

 

What if the Texans liked the fact this other guy was 6 years younger.

 

There have been multiple situations in the last couple of years where people jumped to conclusions that the team made the wrong decision and in the end, they didn't.

 

I don't know much about Tunsil but I would never give away multiple 1st rounders and a 2nd for a 32 yr old LT whose body is declining so I could see a possibility that the same deal wasn't offered but I wouldn't bet everything I had on it.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Its not as if the Skins have not picked in the top top 10 in the last 20 years lol. How’s that worked out? Average QB play (outside of RG3 season) has been consistent and will continue to make it most difficult to get momentum going without legit QB. 

 

 

All you are doing here is doubling down on a point I've made a zillion times including to you.  And I know we agree, QB is by a mile the #1 thing.  But yeah its not like the rest of the roster doesn't mean anything.  Yeah I'd much rather for example to give a franchise QB a great receiver than just a good one.  A great LT versus just a good one.  Or name that position. 

 

Yeah the Redskins, Browns, Lions, Jax among others have picked a lot in the top 10 over the years but they didn't land a QB for most of those years.  The Redskins wouldn't have landed Sean Taylor if they were picking 15 or Trent Williams.   But yeah a LT isn't taking you to the playoffs.  Still, surrounding your QB with a really good supporting cast helps that QB.   Sean couldn't catch Jason Campbell's passes but it helped to have a player with that type of talent on the field to the bottom line.  We've had arguably the best LT back to back player runs in the NFL with Trent and Samuels.  Both were top 5 picks. 

 

19 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

No way (IMO) should a team be thinking about specific players or a certain pick for the following, just seems completely counterproductive to the goal of developing a team. 

 

With this comment, it's obvious you don't read my comments in the draft thread.  😀  Not that you should.  But yes I am a BPA guy.  Me talking about specific players was in order to make a point.  Obviously, we have no idea now who they should pick.  The college season has to play out among other things.  I got no idea who I want right now.  So my point to you wasn't about picking out the draft Christmas presents now.  It was about saying there is a value to having a top 5 pick versus 15 -- it doesn't guarantee squat but it helps to pick higher.  It's not some weird happenstance that teams have to give up a lot of draft capital to trade up.    

 

21 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I doesn’t appear the FO thinks it’s a super bowl type roster, more like a playoff one. Meaning, they’ve not gone all at the expense of creating issues in the future, like teams so who are contending. I’m one who believes there isn’t a right or wrong way to go about it, but establishing some momentum (a playoff season) is significant. 

 

To each their own on that.  I am not that interested in momentum like that unless it seems sustainable.   And that would mean a franchise QB.   Not that I wouldn't like them making the playoffs but I'd sacrifice a 9-7 squeak into the playoff run for longer term success any day of the week. 

 

22 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

For me, it all hangs on Haskins. As you know, I’m encouraged and as confident as ever about the future. This season I’m hoping for a miracle playoff to continue the continuity within the organization as Haskins gets self ready to wreck havoc on the league (one can hope). 

 

I see no momentum. at least not in terms of joining the crowd of perennial winner teams.   But to me its not a train wreck either.  Their moves to me perfectly fit their mediocrity run.  I don't think they are on the verge of squat (unless Haskins develops) nor do I think they are a bottom feeder like most of the national media and some of the local ones think.  The Alex run so to speak would have been 5-5 if not for a miraculous defensive performance in the red zone in Tampa coupled with the Tampa field goal kicker stinking.  

 

But playing along, we've had 6-3 runs in previous incarnations of their mediocre streaks.  I know you feel a lot stronger than I did about Alex and where they were going with him.  But we've debated that one to death so let's agree to disagree on that one.  Moving forward, they have to get the QB position right.  

 

As for Haskins, I've liked what I've seen.  But I've lived and died with the potential of all of our young QBs going back to Shuler.  I've been teased by these guys before.  I recall many of the sentiments/posts about each guy and yes there was a narrative about this time its different.  So I am going to stay cautiously optimistic about Haskins.  If I went back to 2010, I'd probably be mega man crushing on Haskins.  But been there done that with a series of our young QBs.  Now, I am being cautious. 😀

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheBlueIndian said:

This assertion that Bruce won't trade Trent for a bounty of picks and players is completely ridiculous. The guy is a freaking tool to be sure but he is not going to pass up a king's ransom for an aging player who has missed significant time over the last 3 seasons.  Clearly we haven't received an offer like the Houston > Miami deal or it would be in the books. It would be malpractice on Bruce's part to pass on it and he would never work in his capacity again not to mention Dan, Doug, Jay, Kyle  the freaking hotdogs vendor in the 200 level at the Fed and anyone else who gives a damn wouldn't allow it. It's not only bad business, its incompetence at the highest degree and would never play out as some kind of junk measuring contest that some are speculating it to be. Get a grip people there are a few adults in the building over in Ashburn. Not many but a few.

 

most of the tackles in the Pro Bowl last year were Trent's age or older okay.  31 is no longer old for OTs, he could have another multi year contract in him

43 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Okay, Mr. Literal. You say that as if we will ever know what transpired. Houston making a play for Trent before Tunsil makes all the sense in the world.  Especially considering the Trent scenario has been public for some time now.  It also makes absolutely zero sense that they would lowball an offer for Trent and then pay out the ass for the trade they just got.  

 

the most likely thing that happened was the Skins got a call and it went like this

 

Houston: What would it take to trade for Trent Williams

 

Allen: Trent Williams is not available for a trade

 

Houston: What if we offered....

 

Allen: Goodbye. click

Share this post


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

What if Trent didn't want to go there? 

 

What if Trent's knee isn't worthy of that kind of trade, did you hear what Trent said in his preseason interview before last year, that he would be playing with pain in his knee forever?

 

What if the Texans liked the fact this other guy was 6 years younger.

 

There have been multiple situations in the last couple of years where people jumped to conclusions that the team made the wrong decision and in the end, they didn't.

 

I don't know much about Tunsil but I would never give away multiple 1st rounders and a 2nd for a 32 yr old LT whose body is declining so I could see a possibility that the same deal wasn't offered but I wouldn't bet everything I had on it.😉

I didn’t say I’d bet everything that the same deal was offered.  I said that I’d bet anything a significant deal was offered to the Skins prior to Miami and the Skins passed.  It makes you feel better to believe that didn’t happen, that’s your prerogative.  Personally, I’d always bet against Bruce Allen successfully managing a situation involving one of the team’s biggest assets.  Easy money.

12 minutes ago, carex said:

 

the most likely thing that happened was the Skins got a call and it went like this

 

Houston: What would it take to trade for Trent Williams

 

Allen: Trent Williams is not available for a trade

 

Houston: What if we offered....

 

Allen: Goodbye. click

Okay, and that’s still malpractice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jerryred24 said:

so now that the texans are out who are suitors that trent William's could be traded too

 

Well the Browns just released OT Greg Robinson in what's perceived as a wink-wink temporary move so they could get another player to IR - designated to return without that player having to go through waivers.  And they might try to tack some years to Greg's contract.  But I would think the Browns are still be a possible suitor if the price fits them.  Not sure they'd trade away a 1st two years in a row unless it was for a player in their mid 20s.   

Edited by drowland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know what the plan is. The Dolphins just traded away their LT. They need a new one. Those two first round picks were them just stocking up on ammo. The Dolphins are going to offer us THREE first round draft picks.

 

You heard it here first.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

I think I know what the plan is. The Dolphins just traded away their LT. They need a new one. Those two first round picks were them just stocking up on ammo. The Dolphins are going to offer us THREE first round draft picks.

 

You heard it here first.

You've got to be joking, right?

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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.