Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

I would rather have him than not if we plan to see the rookie QB anytime this season. He is also my current favorite player on the team and if it comes to an end the way it seemed 3 weeks ago then I would have been disappointed. 

 

We could have gotten better by trading him and forcing a replacement in there. But we are still the Redskins and the chances are slim that we have the staff capable of replacing one of the best Tackles in the games with out a tick in the draft. I think so atleast. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Probably not as much, because in that scenario they would know they could always go get Tunsil and Stills instead.

 

Agreed, but certainly more than the rumored Pats 1st rounder. If Tunsil and Stills garnered two 1st and a 2nd, I would assume we could have gotten at least 1st and a 2nd. A deal I would have gladly made.

 

I was giving Bruce props for passing on the Pats deal, another that I would have taken, but now I realize his stance is based on stubbornness, not intelligence. I should have known better than to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

D. Hall made it confusing by saying it could be soon or it could be whenever the end game is for accumulating an accrued season. 

Did it seem like he was posturing to keep from being too specific about what he already knows or did it sound like he is just grasping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u guys kill me....some of you would rather not have him

come back??? Lol i dont care why he held or for whatever reason it may be he has earned it with his career here hes the best at his position and beefs up our o line ten fold so if he decides to suit up im all for it..

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

We could have gotten better by trading him and forcing a replacement in there. But we are still the Redskins and the chances are slim that we have the staff capable of replacing one of the best Tackles in the games with out a tick in the draft. I think so atleast. 

 

I may be misunderstanding your point about the draft. Remember, TW dicked over the team extra good by announcing his holdout right after the draft.

1 minute ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

u guys kill me....some of you would rather not have him

come back??? Lol i dont care why he held or for whatever reason it may be he has earned it with his career here hes the best at his position and beefs up our o line ten fold so if he decides to suit up im all for it..

 

Obviously no one's upset if he suits up soon... but if he comes back mid-season just to get the accrued season under his belt then **** him. And I hate saying that about a guy who I couldn't have been prouder to have as the face of this franchise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

BA didn't care at all about it nor about the others players complaining about the med staff. Almost two years in a row with the most players on IR.

Why didn't he do his job about it when he had to, make changes in the med staff? And now he is allegedly asking Trent who to fire ? :wtf:

 

I see where you are coming from, but I dont believe this was jus about the medical staff, otherwise the contract would've never came up. 

 

I blame Bruce for the condition of the medical staff and for continuing to get players with injury history, but specific to the hold out I approve of how he handled it.  I'm skeptical of Bruce offering to fire specific people hes missing the point and kudos for Trent possibly clarifying that its bigger then one person, it's a structural issue. 

 

Now if nothing changes on the medical staff, I will stay mad at Bruce but specific to this hold out I'm fine with because I didnt want to trade him and would not of been happy renegotiating his contract with two years left for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hooper said:

We blew it with Texans. Undeniable at this point. I love Trent, but he misses multiple games each year and is hobbled in several more. 

 

Yeah that's really a key point for me.  I think his injury history flies some below the radar nationally.  And I doubt the arrow shifts for the better on that front as he gets deeper into his 30s.  I got doubts Trent is ever going to play a full season.  To say he's like Jordan Reed would be hyperbole.  But he's trending in that direction.  Missing 4 games a season could turn into 6, etc. 

 

If you can get a first for him with a draft rich in LTs to me is likely a missed opportunity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

u guys kill me....some of you would rather not have him

come back??? Lol i dont care why he held or for whatever reason it may be he has earned it with his career here hes the best at his position and beefs up our o line ten fold so if he decides to suit up im all for it..

 

I would rather have him not come back. Not because I really care about his reasons, but because I'd rather cash in on older players' value now so we are better set up for a five-year plan. I would trade Kerrigan too. My interest in dealing those two guys spans back further than this TW situation. 

 

The only way it makes sense to want to hold onto Trent Williams is if you believe we can compete for something in 2019 or 2020. Otherwise, what are we doing by NOT cashing in on guys who have value? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Did it seem like he was posturing to keep from being too specific about what he already knows or did it sound like he is just grasping?

 

It came off to me like Trent told him he will eventually come back but didn't tell D. Hall when.  So D. Hall was willing to go hard about him coming back but he hedged his bets on the timing.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

I may be misunderstanding your point about the draft. Remember, TW dicked over the team extra good by announcing his holdout right after the draft.

 

 

Naw it looks like I stroked out for a sec while typing so not your misunderstanding lol. I'm trying to say we got lucky getting Trent and developing him into the beast he is in the first place. I dont think we can replace him with our current group of coaches and execs. 

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah that's really a key point for me.  I think his injury history flies some below the radar nationally.  And I doubt the arrow shifts for the better on that front as he gets deeper into his 30s.  I got doubts Trent is ever going to play a full season.  To say he's like Jordan Reed would be hyperbole.  But he's trending in that direction.  Missing 4 games a season could turn into 6, etc. 

 

If you can get a first for him with a draft rich in LTs to me is likely a missed opportunity.

 

You are probably right. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Heres the podcast if anyone is interested.  I didn't realize Bruce called D Hall directly to address the situation.

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dhall-breaks-more-news-on-the-trent-williams-situation/id1477653711?i=1000448463563

 

It's worth a listen, it's very entertaining.  D. Hall goes he thought when Bruce called him (post D. Hall's first podcast on the subject) that he'd be in trouble.  But Bruce was cool with him.

 

Anything on the radio and on pods too you can come off with your own impression, what I put forward was my key takeaways but others might come away with a different impression.  Sometimes even my own impressions shift some when I re-listen to a podcast. 

 

For example I found it really interesting that D. Hall said that they spent much of their discussion about how this team could be good if such and such happened.  Then D. Hall talked about how the ifs and buts weighed into his own career here.  D Hall said that in sort of an off hand way but I found that intriguing. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I would rather have him not come back. Not because I really care about his reasons, but because I'd rather cash in on older players' value now so we are better set up for a five-year plan. I would trade Kerrigan too. My interest in dealing those two guys spans back further than this TW situation. 

 

The only way it makes sense to want to hold onto Trent Williams is if you believe we can compete for something in 2019 or 2020. Otherwise, what are we doing by NOT cashing in on guys who have value? 

 

Not true you hold onto Trent to protect Haskins, when Haskins comes in this year. You go and draft a LT in the 1st Rd next year and trade Trent for best offer after that. We still need him this year. Next year if the Skins are smart we won't need him.

Edited by desertbeagle85
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after listening its good to hear he's ready to go immediately.

 

I also wonder about the fact Trent didn't "want to cost someone their job".  If I was misdiagnosed on something as serious as possible cancer I would not only want them fired but I would find it to be borderline criminal.

 

It's sounding like maybe Trent just wanted to go to a contender or it is all about the money, otherwise, why would you have compassion for someone who pencil whipped your diagnosis, it doesn't make sense.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

It's sounding like maybe Trent just wanted to go to a contender or it is all about the money, otherwise, why would you have compassion for someone who pencil whipped your diagnosis, it doesn't make sense.

 

I guarantee it's all about money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Not true you hold onto Trent to protect Haskins, when Haskins comes in this year. You go and draft a LT in the 1st Rd next year and trade Trent for best offer after that.

 

Eh...I don't think it's a huge difference for a handful of games if Penn or Williams is protecting Haskins. Also, I have to imagine that the compensation would be more for 2 seasons of team control rather than 1. 

 

However, if that's your reason for keeping him, I can get on board with that. Especially if you believe the return would be comparable. At least you aren't hoping to keep him for a "if these 26 things happen, we could go 9-7 and steal the 6-seed" reason. Those are the opinions that frustrate me. 

Share this post


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

 

It's sounding like maybe Trent just wanted to go to a contender or it is all about the money, otherwise, why would you have compassion for someone who pencil whipped your diagnosis, it doesn't make sense.

 

D. Hall went into the contender drill but then when Erin questioned him on it -- D. Hall flat out said Trent didn't tell him in the mix of things that he wanted to go to a contender.  So I think that part is speculation.  The money part though was plain as day.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CTskin said:

 

Agreed, but certainly more than the rumored Pats 1st rounder. If Tunsil and Stills garnered two 1st and a 2nd, I would assume we could have gotten at least 1st and a 2nd. A deal I would have gladly made.

 

I was giving Bruce props for passing on the Pats deal, another that I would have taken, but now I realize his stance is based on stubbornness, not intelligence. I should have known better than to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Do we know that, though?...Or is that Hall's interpretation of Bruce's words?

 

Because saying:

 

"If you want us to work with you, then you have to work with us. Waiting so long to request a trade is not working with us. I think he knows that now."

 

...is different than saying:

 

"There was no way I was gonna trade Trent. I needed him to understand he's not going to be rewarded for how he screwed us over."

 

 

Since SIP said Hall "implied" that Bruce was being stubborn to make a point, it could be that Hall misread what Bruce said, or for that matter SIP's paraphrasing what Hall said might not be as accurate as assumed. For the record, I'm not saying I think either of those things about Hall or SIP...just acknowledging the all-too-normal reality that it can happen. I was chastised by the mods here a few years ago for paraphrasing what another poster said instead of quoting them directly lol...since we don't have direct quotes from about what Bruce said from Hall of about what Hall said from SIP, there is always that possibility.

Edited by Califan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

Do we know that, though?...Or is that Hall's interpretation of Bruce's words?

 

Because saying:

 

"If you want us to work with you, then you have to work with us. Waiting solong to request a trade is not working with us. I think he knows that now."

 

...is different than saying:

 

"There was no way I was gonna trade Trent. I needed him to understand he's not going to be rewarded for how he screwed us over."

 

 

Since SIP said Hall "implied" that Bruce was being stubborn to make a point, it could be that Hall misread what Bruce said, or for that matter SIP's paraphrasing what Hall said might not be as accurate as assumed. For the record, I'm not saying I think either of those things about Hall or SIP...just acknowledging the all-too-normal reality that it can happen. I was chastised by the mods here a few years ago for paraphrasing what another poster said instead of quoting them directly lol...since we don't have direct quotes from about what Bruce said from Hall of about what Hall said from SIP, there is always that possibility.

 

We're at a point now where we're quoting interpreted paraphrased second-hand rumors. Who knows wtf is going on.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You look at Jason Peters at 36 still killing it and Trent is as good if not better than Peters so the age is not such a worry, it really comes down to that knee and if the Skins think the knee is good then holding onto him is not a bad decision.

 

As many have said we need a top 5 pick in the draft to get into position to get a tackle of Trents calibur and thats not guaranteed with the Texans picks although we could have packaged them to move up.  I would have been fine getting those picks from the Texans and logically it was probably the best decision for us but here we are.

 

I do think teams may be hesitant to move out of the top 10 next year with all the high end O line, QB, and WR talent that will be available.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Since SIP said Hall "implied" that Bruce was being stubborn to make a point, it could be that Hall misread what Bruce said, or for that matter SIP's paraphrasing what Hall said might not be as accurate as assumed. For the record, I'm not saying I think either of those things about Hall or SIP...just acknowledging the all-too-normal reality that it can happen. I was chastised by the mods here a few years ago for paraphrasing what another poster said instead of quoting them directly lol...since we don't have direct quotes from about what Bruce said from Hall of about what Hall said from SIP, there is always that possibility.

 

When you got a sec, I'd listen to it and form your own impression.  I'll probably re-listen to it soon.

 

Hall brought up trading Trent.  And Hall said Bruce then got into the timing of when you are supposed to ask for a trade and said you don't do it during mini-camp but before FA.  The idea that Bruce's response to trading Trent centered on being put off about the timing of it -- including suggesting a time frame that would help them replace him -- adds up.  But still I'd have to say implied because Bruce didn't flat out say "that's why they aren't trading him.'  or if he did D. Hall didn't add that part.   But that was his answer from what i recall to D. Hall's question to him about trading Trent.

 

He also as i mentioned later on in that postcast say he doesn't want to set a precedent for holdouts resulting in pay raises.  But I took that as a separate point to trading him but i guess there could be some overlap. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

Not true you hold onto Trent to protect Haskins, when Haskins comes in this year. You go and draft a LT in the 1st Rd next year and trade Trent for best offer after that.

I agree with your post this is the best scenario for the franchise and for Trent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Bruce doesn't want to trade Trent isn't shrouded in much mystery.

 

A. Bruce flat out said himself that Trent is playing for the Redskins and not elsewhere

B. Schefter among other reporters have said they don't want to trade Trent

 

The D. Hall podcast leads you to the same well.

 

When D. Hall asked about trading Trent.  Bruce's answer wasn't hey we considered trading or still considering it.  His answer was blasting the timing of the trade request and centering his answer around the idea that you got to do it at a time before FA.  I mean yeah you don't have to be a rocket scientist to take the next leap of logic that he means you can't leave a team high and dry by asking for a trade at a period where you can't easily replace said player. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


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

 

When you got a sec, I'd listen to it and form your own impression.  I'll probably re-listen to it soon.

 

Hall brought up trading Trent.  And Hall said Bruce then got into the timing of when you are supposed to ask for a trade and said you don't do it during mini-camp but before FA.  The idea that Bruce's response to trading Trent centered on being put off about the timing of it -- including suggesting a time frame that would help them replace him -- adds up.  But still I'd have to say implied because Bruce didn't flat out say "that's why they aren't trading him.'  or if he did D. Hall didn't add that part.   But that was his answer from what i recall to D. Hall's question to him about trading Trent.

 

He also as i mentioned later on in that postcast say he doesn't want to set a precedent for holdouts resulting in pay raises.  But I took that as a separate point to trading him but i guess there could be some overlap. 

 

Appreciate the additional info. I don't have a subscription and don't really feel this is worthy of getting one lol...so I'll rely on the kindness of strangers to fill me in on what was said.

 

For the record, someone on the Kirk thread recently paraphrased what Kirk said on some podcast, and his interpretation painted an image of Kirk negating several running narratives about his not giving a counteroffer and wanting to hit free agency. That poster's interpretation backed up some long-held beliefs I had, so I liked seeing it...but I still hedged my response by saying "If your perception of what Kirk said is accurate"...had nothing to do with the poster, just that since I had not heard the podcast and didn't see direct quotes, I didn't want to immediately reach the conclusion that he had paraphrased Kirk accurately simply because it backed up my biases. I'm only saying this to emphasize that my earlier post really does not have anything to do with you (or Hall lol)...it's just how I operate.

Share this post


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

If you can get a first for him with a draft rich in LTs to me is likely a missed opportunity.

 

I agree with you about trading Trent for a first, but I would be careful about banking on a draft class having solutions for you when we're this far away from it.  That's too much like counting your chickens before they hatch.  For all we know this draft could break in a way where we don't get anybody good at tackle, either because the class ends up not being as strong as we hoped, or the good tackles go before we pick, the good tackles get injured, or the guy we end up getting is a developmental project and not ready to go early, etc.

  • Like 1

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.