Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

Remember that 50/50 ball that Haskins threw to P.Rich? Think 30 yard completion vs an INT. If we could trade Trent for Diggs and a 2nd?? Yes Please

I don’t think anyone could say no to that, but it’s not realistic.  At best it would be player for player.  They aren’t going to give us a 2nd and Diggs, that’s just wild.

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

I don’t think anyone could say no to that, but it’s not realistic.  At best it would be player for player.  They aren’t going to give us a 2nd and Diggs, that’s just wild.

 

Diggs is big time.  I think we'd be lucky to get a straight player swap.  Having said that I doubt Bruce-Dan would do it.  According to some Bruce is delighting in Kirk's struggles and from what I've read their O line gives him the least amount of time to throw in the NFL or it was some bad stat like that i recall stumbling on.  So I doubt Bruce would want to help protect Kirk's blindside let alone face Trent in a game.

 

And I am not being sarcastic.  It's just that from what's been said about Bruce-Dan they can be more consumed with grudges sometimes than what helps the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d give the Vikings a pick along with Trent to get Diggs to DC. Diggs is big time. Projecting Diggs on a long term deal and F1 Mcclaurin can get this pass offense back to Djack and Garçon days. 

 

Not going to happen, but it was fun thinking about it for 60 seconds. 

Edited by wit33
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don’t think anyone could say no to that, but it’s not realistic.  At best it would be player for player.  They aren’t going to give us a 2nd and Diggs, that’s just wild.

 

Id go Trent and our original 4th for Diggs and their 2nd. 

 

We should be landing a 4th for Crowder as a comp pick which fills that void.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My holdout experience with Bruce Allen

 

...Allen was unwilling to significantly address McCardell's contract primarily because he didn't want to establish a precedent of giving into a player's demands through a holdout, particularly one with two years left on his contract. He took a heavy-handed approach when McCardell missed the June mandatory minicamp. Allen exercised Tampa Bay's rights to recoup bonus money from McCardell, which was permissible back then for minicamp absences but not anymore, in addition to fining him for his absence. Most teams wouldn't begin recouping bonuses until a holdout extended into training camp. Allen's move further alienated McCardell.

There wasn't much meaningful dialogue about a resolution after a portion of McCardell's $2.5 million signing bonus and a $500,000 roster bonus was put in jeopardy. I specifically remember a conversation early in the preseason where I asked Allen to trade McCardell if he wasn't going to do anything about his contract. Allen suggested there was more trade interest in Tampa Bay reserve wide receiver Bill Schroeder than McCardell. When I told Allen I wanted to confirm it myself, he didn't object.

My first call was to Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome because McCardell played for the Browns before the name change and move to Baltimore. Newsome informed me that Allen had called him to see if there was interest in McCardell during the 2004 NFL Draft months earlier. Allen having a change of heart or getting cold feet prompted Newsome to acquire another wide receiver, Kevin Johnson, from the Jaguars instead. After confronting Allen about Newsome's interest in McCardell, we were formally given notice that we didn't have permission to shop for a trade.

...Our NFL sources indicated to us that a couple of teams were interested in acquiring McCardell early in the season but Allen wasn't open to moving him at that time. This only deepened the divide between the sides.

Eventually, we found the right button to push. A former colleague of Gruden's in Oakland told me he hated confrontation. We had McCardell fly to Tampa about a week before the trading deadline for an impromptu meeting with Gruden where he was instructed to be extremely combative, which was out of character for him, because we thought that approach might help spur movement. We wanted Gruden to get a taste of what life might be like if a disgruntled McCardell came back.

Although Allen was adamant that McCardell wouldn't be traded, this stance was re-evaluated after Tampa Bay fell to 1-5.

...I can't say for certain but suspect the meeting between McCardell and Gruden prompted the trade. Gruden couldn't have been looking forward to an unhappy McCardell returning after getting fed up enough with Johnson the year before to send him home for the final few games of that season.

The Trent Williams holdout

...The Redskins are reportedly intent on fully enforcing their rights with Williams to try to wait him out on his holdout. At 0-4, the Redskins are one of six winless teams in the NFL. The losing record hasn't seemed to deter the Redskins, just like the Buccaneers' slow start didn't change their stance with McCardell. The Redskins have also rebuffed trade inquires about Williams so far. The NFL's trading deadline is October 29 at 4 p.m. ET.

Final thoughts

Williams sitting out the entire season would be definitive proof that the holdout is strictly about principle, as it would be counterproductive contractually. Washington would likely have Williams' contract tolled for a full year under the extension provisions in paragraph 16 of the standard NFL player contract, which would mean his deal wouldn't expire until after the 2021 season instead of the 2020 season.

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

Remember that 50/50 ball that Haskins threw to P.Rich? Think 30 yard completion vs an INT. If we could trade Trent for Diggs and a 2nd?? Yes Please

 

 

Several problems with the play, it was a predetermined pump & go - it wasn’t a good pass but the route was run too wide for DH to have much room to fit it in outside where it’s designed to be thrown with coverage that tight.

 

*DH will throw that back shoulder eventually.

 

 

B7244FFA-2A89-4B5C-9A3B-E5683A816F58.jpeg

AC1E36E4-F9EA-45E0-83DA-5E3A9A3509B5.jpeg

Edited by volsmet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wit33 said:

I’d give the Vikings a pick along with Trent to get Diggs to DC. Diggs is big time. Projecting Diggs on a long term deal and F1 Mcclaurin can get this pass offense back to Djack and Garçon days. 

 

Not going to happen, but it was thinking about for 60 seconds. 

 

Don't know about adding a pick.  I'd like to keep what we got.  But I'd throw in another player if we needed to sweeten the deal as long as it's not one of your young stars.

 

LT > Wr.  If they were both the same age, I wouldn't do it.  But I'd trade Trent for Diggs considering the age differences. 

5 minutes ago, Hooper said:

Why the hell would Diggs want to come here? If the Vikings threatened it, I'm sure he would be like "damn, that's cold. I'll get on board with Kurt -- I mean Kirk." 

 

He played nearby and is tight with Haskins. 

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

After reading the events from the McCardell situation from well over a decade ago and comparing it to Trents situation today, anyone still want to defend Bruce’s stance?

 

Is it not clear enough yet that dude is a stubborn doofus that doesn’t learn from prior mistakes?

 

Yeah that McCardell situation is eerily similar to this.  Corry was just interviewed on 106.7 about it.  Pretty wild how they had to get wild including getting into Jon Gruden's face to get them to finally trade him. 

 

Corry basically said in that interview that Bruce is a really pleasant-nice guy in social settings but really hard to deal with and is super stubborn when it comes to business and he didn't mean that as a complement.

 

But yeah that McCardell story is a must read IMO for all those tracking what's happening with Trent. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like Diggs I'd still rather get a first rounder if that's still possible.  But right now am in beggars can't be choosers mode.  And I think there is a decent chance alas this Trent drill is going to play out as a lose-lose where Trent returns in week 10.

1 minute ago, Hooper said:

 

Didn't know that. Thanks. Wonder if that overcomes the dumpster fire part.

 

I get your point.  It is a dumpster fire.  But don't know.  I know that he and Haskins are friendly and practiced together in the off season.  Maryland connection. 

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

After reading the events from the McCardell situation from well over a decade ago and comparing it to Trents situation today, anyone still want to defend Bruce’s stance?

 

Is it not clear enough yet that dude is a stubborn doofus that doesn’t learn from prior mistakes?

 

The stubborn doofus apparently had a reason, though: "he didn't want to establish a precedent of giving into a player's demands through a holdout". This somewhat mirrors something SIP said on another thread (or was it this thread? lol) when I asked if there were any positives that could come from Bruce "winning" this pissing contest with Trent. He can correct me if I'm misremembering shtuff.

 

Regardless of who is making the decision, that reason above does hold validity as a course of action. Put another way, if an agent said Belichick refused to look into trading one of that agent's players because he didn't want to set a precedent of giving into players who use holding out to get what they want, I doubt either "stubborn" or "doofus" would be applied to him over it. We'd probably be praising him and chalking up that "no-nonsense" stance as one of the reasons he and the team have been so successful. It's often said that "Players go to the Pats, they know they can't get away with (fill in the blank)"...

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

 

The stubborn doofus apparently had a reason, though: "he didn't want to establish a precedent of giving into a player's demands through a holdout". This somewhat mirrors something SIP said on another thread (or was it this thread? lol) when I asked if there were any positives that could come from Bruce "winning" this pissing contest with Trent. He can correct me if I'm misremembering shtuff.

 

Regardless of who is making the decision, that reason above does hold validity as a course of action. Put another way, if an agent said Belichick refused to look into trading one of that agent's players because he didn't want to set a precedent of giving into players who use holding out to get what they want, I doubt either "stubborn" or "doofus" would be applied to him over it. We'd probably be praising him and chalking up that "no-nonsense" stance as one of the reasons he and the team have been so successful. It's often said that "Players go to the Pats, they know they can't get away with (fill in the blank)"...

 

There are reasons for everything but it doesn't make them worthy or valid.  

 

I sometimes wonder when you make posts like this one if the sole purpose is troll-like in an effort to trigger folks.  I'm not taking the bait here though. I'll just say it's best to not ever make comparisons or create examples between the two organizations and the men who lead them. 

 

 

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

 

There are reasons for everything but it doesn't make them worthy or valid.  

 

I sometimes wonder when you make posts like this one if the sole purpose is troll-like in an effort to trigger folks.  I'm not taking the bait here though. I'll just say it's best to not ever make comparisons or create examples between the two organizations and the men who lead them.

 

 

IF the only conclusion you feel is valid after reading my post is that I'm trolling, it either means you can't grasp what I'm saying or you don't want to.

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

I'll just say it's best to not ever make comparisons or create examples between the two organizations and the men who lead them.

 

TRIGGER WARNING

Bruce has better hair than Belichick, deal with it 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The stubborn doofus apparently had a reason, though: "he didn't want to establish a precedent of giving into a player's demands through a holdout". This somewhat mirrors something SIP said on another thread (or was it this thread? lol) when I asked if there were any positives that could come from Bruce "winning" this pissing contest with Trent. He can correct me if I'm misremembering shtuff.

 

 

The positive I meant on that front is how I'd think Bruce might see it.  I personally don't see it that way.     I've been jealous for years about the Pats, Eagles, etc for being about getting good capital for veterans in trades.   To me getting a high draft pick/picks for a veteran player right before a loaded draft is a no brainer slam dunk move.  

 

NE tends to get rid of problem players including ones who want more money -- they accumulate picks.  They are big time famous for accumulating picks.  I'd think NE would have traded Trent in a nano second if they could. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

IF the only conclusion you feel is valid after reading my post is that I'm trolling, it either means you can't grasp what I'm saying or you don't want to.

 

If you weren't trolling or being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, you were certainly grasping.  To the extent, that I just thought it was absolutely silly for you to even bother defending the stance or worse, making up an IF scenario where Bill ever operates the way Bruce would.  In summary, I laugh at the notion that Bruce's reasons are valid and liken it to cutting off ones nose to spite his face.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The positive I meant on that front is how I'd think Bruce might see it.  I personally don't see it that way.     I've been jealous for years about the Pats, Eagles, etc for being about getting good capital for veterans in trades.   To me getting a high draft pick/picks for a veteran player right before a loaded draft is a no brainer slam dunk move.  

 

NE tends to get rid of problem players including ones who want more money -- they accumulate picks.  They are big time famous for accumulating picks.  I'd think NE would have traded Trent in a nano second if they could.

2

 

My point, though, was that if Belichick didn't trade a player due to not wanting to establish any precedents for other players to follow, the validity of that reasoning wouldn't be laughed off as stubbornness for stubbornness' sake with no valid reasons for taking that stance. Since they can still trade Trent and get draft capital for next year's draft, that's not officially out of play.

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

 

If you weren't trolling or being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, you were certainly grasping.  To the extent, that I just thought it was absolutely silly for you to even bother defending the stance or worse, making up an IF scenario where Bill ever operates the way Bruce would.  In summary, I laugh at the notion that Bruce's reasons are valid and liken it to cutting off ones nose to spite his face.

 

I'm able to separate the action taken from the one making the decision to take it. I have zero problems with anyone--Bruce, Dan, Scot M, Jay, Kyle, Doug--thinking they don't want to set a precedent that could hurt them with different players down the road. It's a valid stance to take. Even if I would have preferred either working it out or trading him already, it's still a valid stance to take. Hell, people on this thread have said "**** Trent, let him sit out the season" at one point or another. Last season half the fans on this site were ****ing about how the Skins let players get away with too much. It's not trolling or reaching or grasping at straws. It's called seeing the validity in a stance even if you don't agree with taking it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK changed the title to !!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up
  • TK locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...