Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

I'm shocked Trent and Brandon are in this quandary. Eric "Mr.Money" is lauded for his ability to work contracts within the realm of reason  in addition to working the cap well. 

 

What is the hold up here.... unless we are counting on cutting Norman and perhaps Davis. Does that shoe need to drop first? Perhaps they want to wait to see if they can flush out additional fat in training camp? If we see progression from one or two of our stable of cbs then Norman could easily be trade bait or a cap casualty.  Davis I'm not so sure about unless they want to roll with the 6'6? specimen they acquired late in the offseason?

 

Who else could be a late cut that will enable us to sign our best two linemen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I may be in the minority but I still don't think Trent's holdout is about money. There is a lot not to like here in DC. Should I make a list?

 

Sure, there is probably some resentment that he doesn't have guaranteed money, which is ramping up his agitation levels.  And 'he would report for a gazillion dollars' thinking aside, I think he is genuinely pissed at the org for things more than money.  Some may argue he NEEDS the money from his expected salary the next 2 years (lets keep reassuring ourselves!), and sitting out he will never recoup X of it, but he seems like a bird of a different feather. Not all are cut from the capitalism cloth. How Bruce responded early on to his holdout, is critical to our sanity this fall.

 

The sweat is forming on Bruce's brow and it aint from da heat.

 

Great movie.

 

ecf3059c332a79397e9fa19e89de7b34.jpg

 

 

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ghedrick said:

With Williams and Sherff both seem to be hurt alot.I believe both are top 5 at their positions when they are actually on the field in Williams case the best.To me if we plan on letting Haskins sit this year lets on load both of them for draft picks and clear up a ton of cap space.Does anyone believe we could land 2 1st if we unload both of these guys?With cap space and draft picks we would be able to seriously reload the offense next year.

 

I dont know about that part. Up until he went out last year in the 8th game, he started 54 of the previous 56.  And I dont think he was out there, but always nicked like Morgan Moses, who seems health compromised every week.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I may be in the minority but I still don't think Trent's holdout is about money. There is a lot not to like here in DC. Should I make a list?

 

Sure, there is probably some resentment that he doesn't have guaranteed money, which is ramping up his agitation levels.  And 'he would report for a gazillion dollars' thinking aside, I think he is genuinely pissed at the org for things more than money.  Some may argue he NEEDS the money from his expected salary the next 2 years (lets keep reassuring ourselves!), and sitting out he will never recoup X it, but he seems like a bird of a different feather. Not all are cut from the capitalism cloth. How Bruce responded early on to his holdout, is critical to our sanity this fall.

 

The sweat is forming on Bruce's brow and it aint from da heat.

 

Great movie.

 

 

 

 

Very awesome movie and as most Arnold movies were that movie was waaayyyy ahead of its time..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

I dont know about that part. Up until he went out last year in the 8th game, he started 54 of the previous 56.  And I dont think he was out there, but always nicked like Morgan Moses, who seems health compromised every week.

I feel when you have missed 10 games the last two years you been hurt way too much but thats my opinion.

Share this post


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

I feel when you have missed 10 games the last two years you been hurt way too much but thats my opinion.

When you start 54 of 56, you are not hurt way too much. Biased much? Were you one of the people that wanted the DT instead of our guard?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's a violent game. More than ever.

Injuries are non-discriminating.

They can happen to the most conditioned, disciplined players. Sometimes you just have zero control over whether you get injured, the freak way that players land sometimes.

So, just because a guy gets hurt once or twice, it doesn't make him a liability.

Edited by Malapropismic Depository
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

I dont know about that part. Up until he went out last year in the 8th game, he started 54 of the previous 56.  And I dont think he was out there, but always nicked like Morgan Moses, who seems health compromised every week.

 

The key stat about Trent is that he hadn't allowed a sack in how many weeks (at one point it was at least 15). I know going into last year it dated back to 2016 (https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/2018/05/05/redskins-trent-williams-has-allowed-the-fewest-pressures-of-any-offensive-tackle/). People like to question the stuff about him being a top tier tackle and the fact that he's missed 15 games over the last three seasons, but I'm not hearing enough about how dominant he is when he is playing. He is legit one of the top LTs in the game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just listened to Keim and Sheehan on Trent and Scherff.    In that mix:

 

A. Keim more or less said verbatim what I've been saying via the MMQ story I read about agents.  That is, good agents know in advance their client's value.  He was talking about that in the context of Scherff's situation implying that you are unlikely going to get him below market value.

B.  Keim said they have the tendency to go "very low" with their early offers to players 

C.  They referred to a previous negotiation where Sheehan said he heard Bruce was in denial about that clients value and thought his low bid offer would be accepted

D.  Keim said he heard Trent is about both both the money and the medical.  He didn't seem to have a good feel for how it would unfold.

E.  Keim said it might be best for the long term to deal Trent if they get a good offer.  But Jay is in a win now mode so it sort of screws him. 

 

As to those pumping up Trent's play, I agree he's a stud.  But he is about to turn 31, he's been banged up and somehow I doubt that he's going to get healthier as he ages so I think it comes with the turf that he's going to miss games.  I think this is the one shot to get something in return.  If i thought that Trent on the team meant a superbowl (heck I don't even think it means playoffs), i wouldn't deal him.  I still wouldn't deal him unless they get a good value in a trade.  But if someone gave a good offer, I'd take it.  It would be nice for a change to obtain a high draft pick for a veteran as opposed to giving high draft picks away.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 I think this is the one shot to get something in return. 

 

 

Yea. That's the key. If we deal him, this could be the perfect time to get compensation. Trading him earlier, of course, would not have been smart. But also, waiting later to trade him, is just going to devalue him greatly. Right now, he still has decent value.

Also, regarding the negotiations, this is just a thought I had, from my amateur point of view.

Maybe it's possible they wait until the end of camp, to cut Norman. If TC and preseason shows that the other young corners are showing flashes of early maturity, maybe they decide at the end of August, that it's safe to part with Norman, and thus giving them more room to negotiate with Scherff.

Or...if they feel the young corners aren't going to cut it, maybe they trade Trent for Norman's replacement.

And also, just like we take preseason to evaluate our young corners, maybe we also take that time to evaluate if we at least have a reasonable replacement for Trent, making it safe to trade him then.

Again, these could be a crazy assumptions, so it's just thoughts, and throwing stuff out there to see if anything sticks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just listened to Keim and Sheehan on Trent and Scherff.    In that mix:

 

A. Keim more or less said verbatim what I've been saying via the MMQ story I read about agents.  That is, good agents know in advance their client's value.  He was talking about that in the context of Scherff's situation implying that you are unlikely going to get him below market value.

B.  Keim said they have the tendency to go "very low" with their early offers to players 

C.  They referred to a previous negotiation where Sheehan said he heard Bruce was in denial about that clients value and thought his low bid offer would be accepted

D.  Keim said he heard Trent is about both both the money and the medical.  He didn't seem to have a good feel for how it would unfold.

E.  Keim said it might be best for the long term to deal Trent if they get a good offer.  But Jay is in a win now mode so it sort of screws him. 

 

As to those pumping up Trent's play, I agree he's a stud.  But he is about to turn 31, he's been banged up and somehow I doubt that he's going to get healthier as he ages so I think it comes with the turf that he's going to miss games.  I think this is the one shot to get something in return.  If i thought that Trent on the team meant a superbowl (heck I don't even think it means playoffs), i wouldn't deal him.  I still wouldn't deal him unless they get a good value in a trade.  But if someone gave a good offer, I'd take it.  It would be nice for a change to obtain a high draft pick for a veteran as opposed to giving high draft picks away.

 

 

 

 

I think you HAVE to take a good offer for the reasons you listed. 

 

As for the bolded text above, good organizations don't operate like that. You don't double-down and pour more money into someone on the downslope, even if that player is still very good. 

 

Coaches SHOULD want the best team on the field, but you can't make 5-year plan type of decisions based on that. The GM must make the tough decisions and then give the coach the roster he has to choose from. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Yea. That's the key. If we deal him, this could be the perfect time to get compensation. Trading him earlier, of course, would not have been smart. But also, waiting later to trade him, is just going to devalue him greatly. Right now, he still has decent value.

Also, regarding the negotiations, this is just a thought I had, from my amateur point of view.

Maybe it's possible they wait until the end of camp, to cut Norman. If TC and preseason shows that the other young corners are showing flashes of early maturity, maybe they decide at the end of August, that it's safe to part with Norman, and thus giving them more room to negotiate with Scherff.

Or...if they feel the young corners aren't going to cut it, maybe they trade Trent for Norman's replacement.

And also, just like we take preseason to evaluate our young corners, maybe we also take that time to evaluate if we at least have a reasonable replacement for Trent, making it safe to trade him then.

Again, these could be a crazy assumptions, so it's just thoughts, and throwing stuff out there to see if anything sticks.

 

Yeah am just guessing here, too.  I am guessing Norman's situation won't impact this considering they can get him off the books next year. Scherff's salary already is factored in this year.

 

I am guessing based on what I've heard thus far is we are dealing with how Cooley describes Bruce just being Bruce and trying to get a deal. And Bruce likes to go really low on the first offer as Keim doubled down on in that podcast. 

 

I don't fault him for trying to get players as cheap as possible.  But like anything IMO there is an art to negotiating.  And from what I gathered from Bruce's style, it can work well when you are dealing with average players, etc.  But it can easily backfire when you are dealing with the high end players who know their market value.  That's the bad news.  The good news is if they really want the dude bad then just up the offer in a big way.  I'd be more concerned if I heard actually that they gave him a really good offer but that was turned down.  The idea that they haven't successfully low balled Scherff doesn't surprise me.  Guards are getting good money on the open market especially pro bowl guards -- so why should Scherff's agent take a low ball offer?

 

The fact that Keim doubled down on what I read about agents in the MMQ article empowers me to believe my 2nd main takeaway from that article was that the agent doesn't need to bother with counter offering if they got a low offer.  I recall years back some hating on one of our players for his agent not counter offering an arguably low ball offer from Bruce.  I'd presume that move on not counter offering was on the advice from the agent.  The takeaway I got from the MMQ article is the agent can and should blow off a low ball offer from their player's team and need not counter offer.   A counter offer just shows weakness in that context.  Let the FO stew in their own low ball offer and force them to bid against themselves at that point. 

 

Because if you know that you can get market value or better on the open market than just go on that ride and enjoy it.    I am not saying it all plays out that way with Scherff.  But I think I understand the agent's point of view better after reading that article and like I said Keim doubled down on a key point from that article which is they already know ballpark what they will get on the open market before hitting it.

 

 

Share this post


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

When you start 54 of 56, you are not hurt way too much. Biased much? Were you one of the people that wanted the DT instead of our guard?

When you miss 10 out of 32 games your hurt too much.I would be one of the people that wanted the best player available and that surely wasn't Sherff.I wanted Gurely but thats beside the point.Sherff is not worth tackle money.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I think you HAVE to take a good offer for the reasons you listed. 

 

As for the bolded text above, good organizations don't operate like that. You don't double-down and pour more money into someone on the downslope, even if that player is still very good. 

 

Coaches SHOULD want the best team on the field, but you can't make 5-year plan type of decisions based on that. The GM must make the tough decisions and then give the coach the roster he has to choose from. 

 

I would.  As for Jay's supposed lame duck status -- its funny because Russell and Sheehan keep saying that they hear that he's sick of the circus so to speak so whatever happens happens and he's made peace with that.   I don't know if that's true or not but they have made that point repeatedly.   But even if so, you'd figure the competitor in him doesn't want to end it on a low.   As for Bruce, Keim said recently he's heard mixed things about his job security.

 

I think this should be an interesting year.  You got a young QB.  You got potentially a lame duck coach.  You have a new offensive coordinator who some say is the next McVay.  You got the new stadium pursuit.  You are looking to see if you can revive the current stadium's attendance and local TV ratings.  You are seeing whether this injury trend continues or not and is there a reason for it.  And you got the backdrop of Bruce saying the team is close.

 

There is a lot cooking.  If Trent isn't back, I don't think they have a legit LT on their roster.  Maybe Donald Penn who is a FA?  I can deal with a step back to take steps forward but I got my doubts that Jay, Bruce or Dan are into that for their own individual reasons.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skinsinparadise

 

You really bring up some good points. This season COULD have all the elements to finally embrace a tank...

 

I like Gruden so I'd love nothing more than to see the team succeed this year, but if things start off badly why wouldn't the team consider:

 

1) Firing Gruden and promoting O'Connell

2) Trading veterans like Williams, Kerrigan, etc. 

3) Playing Haskins

 

Then, you get part of a real NFL season for the new QB and coach to grow together and learn, get back some picks or younger players for veterans, and have your squad relatively established rolling into 2020. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Skinsinparadise

 

You really bring up some good points. This season COULD have all the elements to finally embrace a tank...

 

I like Gruden so I'd love nothing more than to see the team succeed this year, but if things start off badly why wouldn't the team consider:

 

1) Firing Gruden and promoting O'Connell

2) Trading veterans like Williams, Kerrigan, etc. 

3) Playing Haskins

 

Then, you get part of a real NFL season for the new QB and coach to grow together and learn, get back some picks or younger players for veterans, and have your squad relatively established rolling into 2020. 

 

I am good with Gruden, too.  From what I've heard, O'Connell sounds intriguing.  The one pause I keep hearing is experience with some saying would he really be ready to be a HC after just one year of being a coordinator?  Even McVay had more experience than that.  To play into that point, I am not sure about O'Connell nestling into both becoming a first time coordinator and HC all in the same season.  My last memory of someone doing that here is Zorn.   But I get your point build now for the future.  I agree with that.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am open to dealing Trent, but not giving him away for virtually nothing in the name of "ridding ourselves of the situation."  He is an annual pro bowl/all pro level player, at 31, he isn't a spring chicken but he also has enough left in the tank to really add value to a team that is ready to win now that is looking to add a big piece to the championship puzzle. 

 

As far as Scherff goes?  Stop messing around and get him signed ASAP before this becomes a bigger situation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am open to dealing Trent, but not giving him away for virtually nothing in the name of "ridding ourselves of the situation."  He is an annual pro bowl/all pro level player, at 31, he isn't a spring chicken but he also has enough left in the tank to really add value to a team that is ready to win now that is looking to add a big piece to the championship puzzle. 

 

As far as Scherff goes?  Stop messing around and get him signed ASAP before this becomes a bigger situation.

 

 

I agree that Scherff should be a higher priority. I also agree that we shouldn't just sell Williams to do so...hold him as an asset if you can't get decent return. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end I think they will choose to sign Scherff over Trent due to wanting to see what they have in Geron

Share this post


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

 

Yeah am just guessing here, too.  I am guessing Norman's situation won't impact this considering they can get him off the books next year. Scherff's salary already is factored in this year.

 

 

I was seeing a link between Norman and Scherff, financially and cap-wise, because they would overlap next year. I understand Scherff is in the books for this year, but since Norman's current contract extends through next season as well, then an extension with Scherff would/could be connected with whether Norman is still under contract in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where else can you find a thread that has reached this many pages of manic, polarizing discussions and people's certainty of a situation just based on speculation from not even 3rd party sources...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

 

I am good with Gruden, too.  From what I've heard, O'Connell sounds intriguing.  The one pause I keep hearing is experience with some saying would he really be ready to be a HC after just one year of being a coordinator?  Even McVay had more experience than that.  To play into that point, I am not sure about O'Connell nestling into both becoming a first time coordinator and HC all in the same season.  My last memory of someone doing that here is Zorn.   But I get your point build now for the future.  I agree with that.  

 

Was Zorn even the coordinator?  I thought he was going to be QB's.  But I also blocked most of that coach out of my mind, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Was Zorn even the coordinator?  I thought he was going to be QB's.  But I also blocked most of that coach out of my mind, too.

 

From what I recall he was both the offensive coordinator and HC.  Doing both for the first time.  He was the Qb coach in Seattle. 

1 hour ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

I was seeing a link between Norman and Scherff, financially and cap-wise, because they would overlap next year. I understand Scherff is in the books for this year, but since Norman's current contract extends through next season as well, then an extension with Scherff would/could be connected with whether Norman is still under contract in 2020.

 

From what I recall they can cut ties with Norman next year with hardly on dead cap money.  My take is we just got Bruce doing his typical negotiating style and either he picks up his offer significantly (which he might do) or doesn't.    Again assuming those reports are true.  There are a lot of reporters echoing though the point so I presume there is at least something to that smoke.  Keim said initially he heard some optimism about the Scherff contract in January but its faded since. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • 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.