Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

Well that might be the end of Trent in Washington. It might have been the case anyway, but signing another tackle has me believing he is done here. If he truly doesn't want to be here. At least trade him for something other than releasing him for nothing later. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously a complicated situation, but nothing concrete has come out of either camp.  But I'm not trading Trent for anything less than a #1. 

 

If that sort of deal doesn't arise, then let him forego $16 million (or whatever it is.)  Hopefully he comes back soon.

Share this post


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

Well that might be the end of Trent in Washington. It might have been the case anyway, but signing another tackle has me believing he is done here. If he truly doesn't want to be here. At least trade him for something other than releasing him for nothing later. 

 

 

Nope. Hang onto his rights for 2 years. Change tactics and don't encourage others. UNLESS we can get a early #2 or better

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

signing penn was a great necessary move irregardless of trents situation we needed tackles.

 

Agreed but I don't think they sign Penn if Trent showed up. So this tells me they aren't planning on him coming back anytime soon if at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Penn signing, if anything, applies the pressure for Trent to return to work.  We control his future.  If I am the Redskins, I start playing hardball with the guy. (BTW Trent is my favorite player and has been for years.  But if I am running this business, I do not let him out of here on his own accord.)

1 minute ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

Nope. Hang onto his rights for 2 years. Change tactics and don't encourage others. UNLESS we can get a early #2 or better

 

Agreed but substitute that #2 to a #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a stat that Penn has 16 holding calls in 12 years.  And avoids penalties in general.  Far fewer penalties than Trent, in general..  

 

And no, I'm not suggesting he's better than Trent.  Before you knuckleheads start arguing with me.  lol

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

Nope. Hang onto his rights for 2 years. Change tactics and don't encourage others. UNLESS we can get a early #2 or better

 

Well yeah I wouldn't trade him for nothing I would want at least a 2nd rd pick or a player that is equal value that can help this team now. We have to draft LT in the 1st Rd now next year. 

Edited by desertbeagle85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

If this is correct I'm thinking Trent is going to be traded/released soon. Not sure what the $ will be, but Penn would be over $5M IMHO. In that case, he's probably going to be our starting LT. 

No value in out right releasing him. THAT would just encourage more of the same tactics

Share this post


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

Well that might be the end of Trent in Washington. It might have been the case anyway, but signing another tackle has me believing he is done here. If he truly doesn't want to be here. At least trade him for something other than releasing him for nothing later. 


I tend to agree with you. We've got $11.6M in cap space. Going into the season you need at least $5M just in case an injury or opportunity pops up. Penn has been over $6M/season since 2016, so I'm assuming he'll get something in that region. 

 

I know they can extend Trent, back load the contract where he gets more guaranteed cash, but also has a lower cap hit for this year, but with Trent's nagging injuries over the past few years I'd rather they get a higher draft pick now then nothing later. 

 

This is just my opinion on why he's leaving - It seems like there was a medical issue with the team which Bruce hoped it would fix itself over time. With us getting into TC and Trent holding out Bruce is looking for plan B, C, D, etc... 

 

This is a big time bummer. Trent hasn't been perfect, but he's been a player I've been happy to cheer for. If, and I'm still holding out hope that I'm wrong, but 'if' he's gone and he's another good player/person that will have left for reasons that could have been avoided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Tedskins 21 said:

 

Agreed but substitute that #2 to a #1.

 

He's not worth a #1. He's a 31 year old aging LT that hasn't played a full year of football for 5 years. I don't expect the Skins to extend him for that reason. Same as I wouldn't expect a team to trade a #1 for him, because of that reason. 

Edited by desertbeagle85
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I think the Penn signing, if anything, applies the pressure for Trent to return to work.  We control his future.  If I am the Redskins, I start playing hardball with the guy. (BTW Trent is my favorite player and has been for years.  But if I am running this business, I do not let him out of here on his own accord.)

 

Agreed but substitute that #2 to a #1.

 

I think there's no pressure on Trent.  We dont have the luxury of just sitting on a guy all season to make a point.  He surely knows this.  He knows he'd get moved and is probably fine with it.

Just now, desertbeagle85 said:

 

He's not worth a #1. He's a 31 aging LT that hasn't played a full year of football for 5 years. I don't expect the Skins to extend him for that reason. Same as I wouldn't expect a team to trade a #1 for him, because of that reason. 

 

Not worth a 1, in a vacuum.  But it only takes one team.  Probably a team with a window.  I can see a team like Minn ponying up a #1 if they thought they had a SB contender.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Nope. Hang onto his rights for 2 years. Change tactics and don't encourage others. UNLESS we can get a early #2 or better

 

I understand sometimes you need to take a hard stance, but how does that help us field a better team? Players on the roster will constantly be asked about Trent, so it's not like the detraction will go away. It's also important to know Trent has made ~$98M in his career, so he could easily wait for the 2 years, or just go Barry Sanders and retired. 

Share this post


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

 

I think there's no pressure on Trent.  We dont have the luxury of just sitting on a guy all season to make a point.  He surely knows this.  He knows he'd get moved and is probably fine with it.

 

I sure hope you are wrong.  Not sure what stops other players from pulling the same thing down the road.

3 minutes ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

He's not worth a #1. He's a 31 year old aging LT that hasn't played a full year of football for 5 years. I don't expect the Skins to extend him for that reason. Same as I wouldn't expect a team to trade a #1 for him, because of that reason. 

 

Then sit on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

I think there's no pressure on Trent.  We dont have the luxury of just sitting on a guy all season to make a point.  He surely knows this.  He knows he'd get moved and is probably fine with it.

 

I disagree there is no reason to release him he's under contract. Only way he leaves Is a trade. I doubt the Skins want to trade him for nothing. So if he wants to make money the pressure is on him. If he's fine with losing it. Well no one wins. 

2 minutes ago, Tedskins 21 said:

 

Then sit on him.

 

Sit on him for this year for sure, but if this isn't resolved by free agency next year. I say trade him for best offer. Or maybe wait until after draft and trade him. Either way sit on him for sure this year. Some team could get desperate if they lose a LT mid season. So who knows maybe you get that 1st.

Edited by desertbeagle85
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

I think there's no pressure on Trent.  We dont have the luxury of just sitting on a guy all season to make a point.  He surely knows this.  He knows he'd get moved and is probably fine with it.

 

Not worth a 1, in a vacuum.  But it only takes one team.  Probably a team with a window.  I can see a team like Minn ponying up a #1 if they thought they had a SB contender.

 

Totally agree with your first point. Not much leverage from the team's side and Trent can wait us out. This is more of a commentary of pro sports in general (look at the Paul George situation in the NBA). 

 

As for getting a first for him I just don't see Bruce being savvy enough to execute. I've just grown accustom to not winning many trades. That doesn't mean they are always bad, but my expectations on the returns are 'meh'. I think we can get a 4th that if certain conditions are met (extension and games played) it can turn into a 3rd or maybe a 2nd. 

4 minutes ago, Tedskins 21 said:

 

I sure hope you are wrong.  Not sure what stops other players from pulling the same thing down the road.

 

Then sit on him.

 

I can hear you are very pro team in the response, but let's take a step back and look at this from a culture building side. 

 

Many in the locker room has looked up to Trent. If it was a medical issue where he's taking a stance players will respect that, which doesn't look great for the team (in their eyes). If they sit on him it will seem (again through the players' eyes) that they are doubling down on mistreating him. 

 

See what you can get, take the best offer and let all sides move on. This will involve the team accepting that their might have been some wrongdoing on their side, but at least we are moving past that. 

Share this post


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

 

Totally agree with your first point. Not much leverage from the team's side and Trent can wait us out. This is more of a commentary of pro sports in general (look at the Paul George situation in the NBA). 

 

As for getting a first for him I just don't see Bruce being savvy enough to execute. I've just grown accustom to not winning many trades. That doesn't mean they are always bad, but my expectations on the returns are 'meh'. I think we can get a 4th that if certain conditions are met (extension and games played) it can turn into a 3rd or maybe a 2nd. 

 

Plenty have alluded to it already; Trent's value is decreasing by the minute.  He stands to earn A LOT of money this year.  If he doesn't want it/need it, fine.  But he misses out on it and will NEVER have the opportunity to make that money again.

 

Basketball is a totally different world, for several reasons. Paul George has what, 5 more years of high level play?  Possibly 8+ years of total years left in the NBA?  Paul will also be making DOUBLE what Trent stands to make this year.

 

I would be willing to bet a team would trade a first for Trent.  But I would prefer to have Trent than that first, and I am sure the Skins feel the same.  I think the Skins have more leverage than a lot of you are saying, especially with the signing of Penn.

Edited by Tedskins 21

Share this post


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

 

Totally agree with your first point. Not much leverage from the team's side and Trent can wait us out. This is more of a commentary of pro sports in general (look at the Paul George situation in the NBA). 

 

As for getting a first for him I just don't see Bruce being savvy enough to execute. I've just grown accustom to not winning many trades. That doesn't mean they are always bad, but my expectations on the returns are 'meh'. I think we can get a 4th that if certain conditions are met (extension and games played) it can turn into a 3rd or maybe a 2nd. 

 

The problem is Trent isn't young. So to say he can just wait us out isn't accurate. So what if waiting us out means him not playing football until the age of 32 or worse. His value drops with every year that goes by. So he should be a little worried.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rapoport on air right now. I take him with a grain of salt considering how often he is wrong.

 

he says he expects Penn to start. He says he hears Trent’s hold out will last awhile, he is mostly frustrated by the training staff saying they took their time to diagnose the cyst and didn’t take it as seriously as he thought they should have and it took his doctor to push things along.

 

he thought more money might help assuage Trent. He thinks Dallas is more likely to figure things out with Elliot versus the Redskins with Trent as to things being settled quickly.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Plenty have alluded to it already; Trent's value is decreasing by the minute.  He stands to earn A LOT of money this year.  If he doesn't want it/need it, fine.  But he misses out on it and will NEVER have the opportunity to make that money again.

 

I would be willing to bet a team would trade a first for Trent.  But I would prefer to have Trent than that first, and I am sure the Skins feel the same.  I think the Skins have more leverage than a lot of you are saying, especially with the signing of Penn.

 

I agree I would rather have Trent this year and trade him next year after drafting a tackle in the 1st Rd. With that being said having Trent might not be a option and if it isn't take the 1st. If anyone was willing to even give us a 1st. Houston needs a tackle I know that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tedskins 21 said:

 

Plenty have alluded to it already; Trent's value is decreasing by the minute.  He stands to earn A LOT of money this year.  If he doesn't want it/need it, fine.  But he misses out on it and will NEVER have the opportunity to make that money again.

 

I would be willing to bet a team would trade a first for Trent.  But I would prefer to have Trent than that first, and I am sure the Skins feel the same.  I think the Skins have more leverage than a lot of you are saying, especially with the signing of Penn.

 

RE: Leverage - It's debatable weather Trent or the team have more leverage. There are compelling arguments for both sides. Ideally we'd find a middle ground, but that doesn't seem to be the case. 

 

RE: 1st for Trent - Not sure when a player with his age/contract have ever warranted a first in the modern salary cap era. Can anyone provide an example just so we have some historic reference? If a team is panicked with an injury we'd have leverage, but it also means we need something else to happen before we can fully realize the value. Might be easier just to move on. 

Share this post


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

Rapoport on air right now. I take him with a grain of salt considering how often he is wrong.

 

he says he expects Penn to start. He says he hears Trent’s hold out will last awhile, he is mostly frustrated by the training staff saying they took their time to diagnose the cyst and didn’t take it as seriously as he thought they should have and it took his doctor to push things along.

 

Well if it's truly about training staff and not money. I'm not sure how this can be fixed unless they fire the training staff. 

Share this post


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

Rapoport on air right now. I take him with a grain of salt considering how often he is wrong.

 

he says he expects Penn to start. He says he hears Trent’s hold out will last awhile, he is mostly frustrated by the training staff saying they took their time to diagnose the cyst and didn’t take it as seriously as he thought they should have and it took his doctor to push things along.

 

he thought more money might help assuage Trent. He thinks Dallas is more likely to figure things out with Elliot versus the Redskins with Trent as to things being settled quickly.

giphy.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

frustrated by the training staff saying they took their time to diagnose the cyst and didn’t take it as seriously as he thought they should have and it took his doctor to push things along.

WTF????? Push what along?? The decision to have it removed?? the TS has no input as to when and who puts a knife to a player if the player's doctor says it's needed. I don't understand that quote at all???

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

RE: Leverage - It's debatable weather Trent or the team have more leverage. There are compelling arguments for both sides. Ideally we'd find a middle ground, but that doesn't seem to be the case. 

 

RE: 1st for Trent - Not sure when a player with his age/contract have ever warranted a first in the modern salary cap era. Can anyone provide an example just so we have some historic reference? If a team is panicked with an injury we'd have leverage, but it also means we need something else to happen before we can fully realize the value. Might be easier just to move on. 

 

Easier for who exactly?  If I am in charge, I'd rather deal with the "drama" all year if it means he didn't get his way.  Again, on a personal level, I would more than likely side with Trent and whatever his concerns are.  But if I am Bruce or Dan, I am not moving on to make things "easier."

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