Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

They didn't mention the figure that was offered to Scherff.

I have no issue with the FO taking a hard stance when negotiating under unique conditions but you have to pick your battles wisely.  I think low balling a young stud guard is a poor way to start negotiating.

 

If Bruce blows this he's going to get killed and he'll deserve every bit of the hate. If that initial offer was anything less than $14.5M per yr and $40M guaranteed then he's an idiot and should never negotiate another contract for this team, the Kirk situation didn't bother me because IMO that was a very unique situation and I would feel the same way about Trent's situation but if we lose a 1st rd draft pick whose only 27 years old and clearly at the top of the food chain at his position it would clearly expose Bruce as being out of touch with reality.

 

It's disappointing because I could see this coming from a mile away, the way we negotiate in free agency has become so predictable.

Edited by JSSkinz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who is it that's demanded the guaranteed donuts or they're going to leave; Trent or NewCliche21's wife? I'm confused.

Share this post


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

So who is it that's demanded the guaranteed donuts or they're going to leave; Trent or NewCliche21's wife? I'm confused.

Both. Trent is NewCliche's wife.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If Sheehan said offer was “low”, no buzz, but put “insultingly low” it creates a ripple in July. Respect to Sheehan, truly do hope he makes it on his own with his podcast. 

 

Its an interesting place for the Skins with the Oline, not just an easy situation, but one you hope they’ve planned for. My thought was them hoping Christian would replace Moses and build cheaply around Williams and Scherff. 

 

How would you guys like the Oline cap to be handled in next 3 years and who? 

 

Edited by wit33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clear this up:

 

1)  We haven't heard anything yet so we don't know what we don't know.  Everything is speculation based on nothing.

2)  @Skinsinparadise is the MVP of this board

3)  I am Trent Williams and am married to myself.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewCliche21 said:

3)  I am Trent Williams and am married to myself.

 

So you likes em big. 

 

Its all good, they need love too. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Unbias said:

 

Keenum is a 31 year old career back up that had one good year. The team he had that one good year loved him so much that they decided to spend big dollars on someone else the following seasons. After that 'good year' another team gave him starter money, then benched him, then traded him for next to nothing. I know we are only 2 years removed from that 'good year', but it's fair to say that he's no Ryan Fitzpatrick... Yuck. 

 

To me that type of player is very replaceable. In terms of how this will help the team I see him in the same way I look at McCoy or Johnson (last year). They are journeymen QBs who are fine holding a clip board. One may be slightly better than another, but overall they are rarely thought of as a 'need'. Adding in that we have limited cap space and it's just an area that's not a priority. 

 

Does this move the needle on what this team will do in 2019? I don't think so. Does it take away from future resources like cap space? Yes it does. 

 

I'll rephrase what I said earlier, is this the type of move Bruce is burning the midnight oil on? These moves seem to have minimal upside, but somewhat distract from other questions like: 

 

- That Smith contract was and still is horrible. Who gave that out? 

- Why did Cousins leave again? Who in the building carries blame for how that went down? 

 

I look at this move similar to the Cravens trade. Some are applauding Allen for that deal, but I'm left wondering why we aren't talking about a 2nd round bust that never suited up a single game? He's done a great job at covering up his own errors with meaningless moves. 

 

You can spin that Keenum is a decent backup and we didn't give up too much. That's a cute story to tell, but in all honesty for this season we'll give Haskins as many reps as he can take to keep developing. If Keenum/Colt/FA are in there that suggests we are just trying to get through the season. If we are running with Keenum/Colt/FA I'd prefer they make those moves preserving as much cap space as possible for future contracts. 

 

Last response here as it is kind of hijacking the Trent thread. I will be glad to take this up in the Bruce Allen thread - which based on your response that's what your issue really is. 

 

If you just want a reason to trash Bruce, there are many - as I have said repeatedly but you seem to ignore. Yes, BA totally ****ed up Kirk Cousins. Yes, BA made a bad deal for Alex Smith then compounded it with a bad contract. I have never said otherwise so not sure why you keep pounding that drum. But like those moves, the Cravens move - not a great one by any means - has nothing to do with what they did with Keenum.  

 

You stated yourself that Denver let him go for almost nothing - yet then you go on to state this is a bad move in part because it wastes valuable CAP - so which is it? Almost nothing or a waste of valuable CAP? 

 

You had it right to start, the team got Keenum for almost nothing. No one is thinking Keenum is taking us to any promised land. But they needed a QB that has a least some experience and in this case they got one that has some experience and at least had some level of success, albeit one year. They got that for again - almost nothing. 

 

This move does not somehow wipe away BAs previous his mistakes and no one is saying it does. That's a huge overreach. Considering the position they were in - yes it was mostly self created due to poor decisions - they had to make sure they had some kind of QB. And given the options at the time - again you keep ignoring they did this without knowing they were getting haskins - they made a pretty good decision here. They got probably the best FA QB in the second level of QB FAs - for in your own words next to nothing. In fact, I would even guess this idea was not driven by Bruce at all. This is more a real football move so I am guessing he had to be sold on it by Jay and Doug. But to be fair that clearly is pure speculation on my part and is likely biased as I do not see Bruce as having that high a football IQ and therefore have trouble seeing him come up with this.  But who knows. 

 

And the $3,5M in CAP - that has to just be for effect. In the grand scheme of things in the NFL, $3.5M in CAP is almost nothing, especially for a QB insurance policy, and that's all he is, an insurance policy. 

 

Again, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest we move it here: 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I have no issue with the FO taking a hard stance when negotiating under unique conditions but you have to pick your battles wisely.  I think low balling a young stud guard is a poor way to start negotiating.

 

If Bruce blows this he's going to get killed and he'll deserve every bit of the hate. If that initial offer was anything less than $14.5M per yr and $40M guaranteed then he's an idiot and should never negotiate another contract for this team, the Kirk situation didn't bother me because IMO that was a very unique situation and I would feel the same way about Trent's situation but if we lose a 1st rd draft pick whose only 27 years old and clearly at the top of the food chain at his position it would clearly expose Bruce as being out of touch with reality.

 

It's disappointing because I could see this coming from a mile away, the way we negotiate in free agency has become so predictable.

 

The thing is with the Kirk contract is according to some who covered the story -- his camp was insulted by it when supposedly Bruce did it two years in a row.  They were willing to let go of it in 2016 but not in 2017 again or so was the narrative of Mike Jones among others.   Now forgetting what people think of Kirk because I realize that discussion can get lost in the weeds because some don't like the dude and I don't want to debate that part because it's irrelevant to my point.  My point is how do players react to negotiations?  I am not saying all react the same but it stands to reason that different players-camps will react differently to that style of negotiation.  And it might not always go over well. 

 

The fact that agents polled picked Bruce as the least trustworthy and one of the least prepared GM's in the league -- might be partly based on the offers he gives to their clients?  I don't know.  But I presume agents not digging Bruce isn't about liking or not liking the moves he makes for the team because why would they care about that?  They aren't fans who are invested in the outcome of that.  I'd presume their main dealings with Bruce is in negotiations with their clients. 

 

I get some here think the beat guys just make things up to make Bruce look bad.  But what makes it believable to me among other things is Cooley talking about his own experience which was the same thing and he even explained you just got to understand its Bruce being Bruce and that's how he rolls and you just got shrug it off.   And like i mentioned the story from MMQ which I posted on a thread back at the time was really interesting.  The main takeaway I had that from that article was there is a lot of subtle tampering that goes on where agents know if their clients will get good offers well in advance to the start of FA.   

 

So it was interesting that in cases when agents know their client is in high demand they can just laugh off a low ball offer from their client's team and just ignore.   In that case, you just make the team squirm and recover from their own low ball offer and negotiate against itself if they want your client bad enough or you never counter and just hit FA.  At least that's how that agent handled it.  I'd bet that's apples to oranges though when you are an agent with a player who isn't a high end and in demand dude.  But yeah if you are representing a high end player (at least judging by that article) you will likely have been giving some wink wink nods from GMs from teams saying if your client hits FA we will pay market price or above.   So its not that much of a mystery of what happens if they hit the market. 

 

9 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

To clear this up:

 

1)  We haven't heard anything yet so we don't know what we don't know.  Everything is speculation based on nothing.

2)  @Skinsinparadise is the MVP of this board

3)  I am Trent Williams and am married to myself.

 

Truer words were never spoken.  😎  Just kidding.   Yeah i am not that sympathetic to Trent if its all or mostly about money as some purport.  I heard that he was hanging with Antonio Brown one day (according to one report).  Brown did successfully leverage himself out of his contract.  I wonder if Trent will try to do the same.  The beat guys give the vibe that talking to who they know in the FO that Trent will ultimately relent,  I guess will see. 

 

Back to Bruce, I don't think it's bad to be a hard negotiator.   But I think you got to pick your spots for it.   The impression i get from the MMQ article is hard ball negotiations are more likely to backfire when you got pro bowl or high end players who are in demand because why not call the bluff in that case and just hit FA.  

 

The odd upside maybe to this Trent thing is maybe it compels them to up the offer to Scherff because it brings to light that this O line might not be intact forever.  If you ultimately lose both Trent and Scherff then we are talking an O line that might be comically bad like the NY Giants one from recent years.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Last response here as it is kind of hijacking the Trent thread. I will be glad to take this up in the Bruce Allen thread - which based on your response that's what your issue really is. 

 

If you just want a reason to trash Bruce, there are many - as I have said repeatedly but you seem to ignore. Yes, BA totally ****ed up Kirk Cousins. Yes, BA made a bad deal for Alex Smith then compounded it with a bad contract. I have never said otherwise so not sure why you keep pounding that drum. But like those moves, the Cravens move - not a great one by any means - has nothing to do with what they did with Keenum.  

 

You stated yourself that Denver let him go for almost nothing - yet then you go on to state this is a bad move in part because it wastes valuable CAP - so which is it? Almost nothing or a waste of valuable CAP? 

 

You had it right to start, the team got Keenum for almost nothing. No one is thinking Keenum is taking us to any promised land. But they needed a QB that has a least some experience and in this case they got one that has some experience and at least had some level of success, albeit one year. They got that for again - almost nothing. 

 

This move does not somehow wipe away BAs previous his mistakes and no one is saying it does. That's a huge overreach. Considering the position they were in - yes it was mostly self created due to poor decisions - they had to make sure they had some kind of QB. And given the options at the time - again you keep ignoring they did this without knowing they were getting haskins - they made a pretty good decision here. They got probably the best FA QB in the second level of QB FAs - for in your own words next to nothing. In fact, I would even guess this idea was not driven by Bruce at all. This is more a real football move so I am guessing he had to be sold on it by Jay and Doug. But to be fair that clearly is pure speculation on my part and is likely biased as I do not see Bruce as having that high a football IQ and therefore have trouble seeing him come up with this.  But who knows. 

 

And the $3,5M in CAP - that has to just be for effect. In the grand scheme of things in the NFL, $3.5M in CAP is almost nothing, especially for a QB insurance policy, and that's all he is, an insurance policy. 

 

Again, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest we move it here: 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: Shouldn't be in this tread - I agree that things went very 'Bruce Allen' in my response, but pertaining to the Trent Williams situation Bruce is probably around 50% of what the end outcome will be. The same way people are taking William's recent injuries into account we should also look at Bruce's history on getting these type of deals sorted out. I'm bringing up those examples because I'm thinking the end solution could easily be we trade Trent and the company line was that 'we got something for nothing', which is similar to Bailey, Cravens, etc... That logic only clouds the issue that the teams ability to negotiate with it's existing players went off the tracks and didn't come back. 

 

RE: Agents like Bruce - Your response eluded to it, but why wouldn't agents love him? He's the GM of a team that has an established history of paying big dollars for FAs. Why would any agents speak negatively about a manager/team that will be the highest bidder for their clients? Something like the Alex Smith extension was a massive failure for us, but it's the type of deal agents and players brag about for decades.

 

RE: Keenum for next to nothing and small cap space - I said we didn't give up much but for that $3.5M cap space it is important. We currently have $8.226M in space (per overthecap.com). We need around that amount just in case an unexpected FA becomes available or we get a critical injury(ies) and are forced to spend/trade for someone. Would $11.726M be better? Sure. Once again bringing it full circle to this thread, might an extra $3.5M be better allocated to make this whole Trent Williams problem disappear? very possible. I just didn't see the Keenum move as an effective use of cap space or Bruce Allen's time. Both cap and the GM should be focused on getting the team to the next plateau. 

 

RE: didn't know they were getting Haskins - Obviously they didn't, but it's fair to say they were going QB in the first and it's not like the Keenum trade did anything in the way of providing a smoke screen to the other teams. Was the Keenum trade a deal they had to move on when they did or they would have passed on some great opportunity? Hardly. Would Denver have outright cut him if there wasn't a deal? Probably. 

 

Share this post


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

I get some here think the beat guys just make things up to make Bruce look bad.  But what makes it believable to me among other things is Cooley talking about his own experience which was the same thing and he even explained you just got to understand its Bruce being Bruce and that's how he rolls and you just got shrug it off.   And like i mentioned the story from MMQ which I posted on a thread back at the time was really interesting.  The main takeaway I had that from that article was there is a lot of subtle tampering that goes on where agents know if their clients will get good offers well in advance to the start of FA.   

Wasn't there some stuff about Bruce being one of the least prepared GM when negotiating contracts or FA at the time being?

 

To me it's more Bruce thinking that he'll give X $ to Y player and won't move from it. It's a take it or leave it kind of offer with a grin and that's it. Like the guy have no clue about reality of FA market. I'm pretty sure he goes with the same stance dealing with Trent, or whoever. He stills thinks the Redskins are the best team in the world and that players would pay to play for the mighty Redskins.

 

Who knows, maybe he got player's contract from his dad's era and still haven't move from it.

OT? Let me check... My dad signed one to 20.000$/year in 1975, so I'm being nice and offering you 21.000$/year Trent! That's a great offer sign here please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Have I missed anything, or are we about 10 days from TC, and still none of us "outsiders" has any idea whether Trent will show up then ?

I’m guessing we’ll start hearing something again starting next weekend. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is OT, but per PFT Zeke is getting ready for his own hold out. 

 

I'm just happy we aren't the only ones going through this garbage. Personally a Cowboys team without Zeke makes me smile. I think he's the key cog in that offense. Many will say it's the OL, but weather it was Emmit, DeMarco or now Zeke, that offense just isn't the same without a talented RB. 

Share this post


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

 Personally a Cowboys team without Zeke makes me smile. I think he's the key cog in that offense. Many will say it's the OL, but weather it was Emmit, DeMarco or now Zeke, that offense just isn't the same without a talented RB. 

 

I remember Alfred Morris doing quite well against us, even in his latter years. That's a credit to the OL

Edited by Malapropismic Depository

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Trent news but redskins OL news. Redskins have reportedly made two contract offers to scherff but the two sides are far apart still it looks like. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Not Trent news but redskins OL news. Redskins have reportedly made two contract offers to scherff but the two sides are far apart still it looks like. 

Source?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Not Trent news but redskins OL news. Redskins have reportedly made two contract offers to scherff but the two sides are far apart still it looks like. 

 

If the first offer was characterized as insultingly low, I wonder what buzz word/headline can be used for the second. 

 

Thanks tor sharing though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scherff ain't goin anywhere folks..

49 minutes ago, volsmet said:

Clowney, Scharping & a 1st for Trent. Let’s get it done.

 

Totally a joke I get it but nooooo way would the texans be that dumb

Share this post


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

So after this season, we may lose our 2 best OL

 

Sooner than that, if history is our lead indicator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Source?

Some reporter named Erin Hawksworth. And NBC Sports Redskins tweeted it as well 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goodie...more speculationfrom news outlets that obviously have no agenda for click bait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/11/2019 at 6:37 PM, Wildbunny said:

Wasn't there some stuff about Bruce being one of the least prepared GM when negotiating contracts or FA at the time being?

 

 

He was ranked dead last by agents on the issue of being trustworthy and if I recall the third worst as for being prepared.  It wasn't specific to FA.  But since its agents I'd presume that's their exposure to him -- FA and retaining their clients. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2018/04/19/nfl-agents-name-redskins-bruce-allen-leagues-least-trusted-executive-in-anonymous-poll/?utm_term=.7f783c87c856

“You never know if he’s shooting straight with you,” one agent told USA Today Sports of Allen. 

 

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/report-brandon-scherff-and-redskins-far-apart-contract-negotiations

On Monday, a report came out from 106.7 The Fan's Erin Hawksworth that Scherff has been offered multiple contract extensions from the Redskins, but "the two sides are far apart."

Scherff is entering the 2019 season on the last year of his rookie deal and set to be an unrestricted free agent at season's end. 

The fifth-year guard will make a base salary of $12.5 million in 2019 after the Redskins picked up his fifth-year option a year ago as part of his rookie deal.

Should Scherff hit the open market, he will be a hot commodity. 

He may not receive a contract as big as Cowboys' guard Zack Martin did, but expect him to command close to top-market money. Martin received a six-year, $84 million deal in 2018 with $40 million guaranteed. A contract extension for Scherff could look something like the five-year, $66.5 million deal Jaguars' guard Andrew Norwell signed in 2018. 

Besides tackle Trent Williams, Scherff is without a doubt the most important piece to the Redskins offensive line. With Williams currently holding out, Scherff's presence on the offensive line is even more important.

Scherff missed eight games a season ago with a torn pectoral muscle, and his absence was very visible.

One thing is for certain: if the Redskins are not willing to pay Scherff top-market money, barring something unexpected, he will certainly get it somewhere else. And no Redskins fan wants that.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

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