Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

 

It's perfectly in play that they end up trading Trent.  So if the point is to wait to slam Bruce until the trade deadline is over -- I'd get that angle.  That's been my hope this whole time.  I get more pessimistic with each passing day on that front but yeah its definitely in play.   

 

I got plenty of other reasons to dislike Bruce's work so for the moment he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this from me.  I agree if we saw him as Belichick and he was simply a winner, we'd back off.  But it's apples to oranges.  Most of our takes on Bruce is that he's a loser not a winner.  So he in turn gets the opposite treatment that Belichick would.  

 

As for Belichick, it's tough to entertain a hypothetical of him doing the opposite of what he typically does.   We already have somewhat of a blue print of what he likes to do.  And that wouldn't be holding on to the player.  Gibbs himself liked to say if any player doesn't want to be there, he will trade them.  That was the impetus of them dumping L. Cole.

 

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

 

It's perfectly in play that they end up trading Trent.  So if the point is to wait to slam Bruce until the trade deadline is over -- I'd get that angle.  That's been my hope this whole time.  I get more pessimistic with each passing day on that front but yeah its definitely in play.   

 

I got plenty of other reasons to dislike Bruce's work so for the moment he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this from me.  I agree if we saw him as Belichick and he was simply a winner, we'd back off.  But it's apples to oranges.  Most of our takes on Bruce is that he's a loser not a winner.  So he in turn gets the opposite treatment that Belichick would.  

 

As for Belichick, it's tough to entertain a hypothetical of him doing the opposite of what he typically does.   We already have somewhat of a blue print of what he likes to do.  And that wouldn't be holding on to the player.  Gibbs himself liked to say if any player doesn't want to be there, he will trade them.  That was the impetus of them dumping L. Cole.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if Belichick has ever said "no" to trading a player who holds out in order to be traded, so I don't know if he'd be going against what he would usually do in this situation. It could be that the players know not to take that avenue with him because it won't work. But again, judging the validity of the stance based on the person who is taking that stance doesn't make any sense to me. The stance/reasoning is its own entity.

 

 

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

 

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. 

How is it valid if it doesn’t work?  It didn’t work then and it’s not working now.  For Bruce’s entire tenure, I’ve seen nothing that suggests the way he handles players and contract situations is valid.  Perhaps if he wasn’t such a terd, he wouldn’t be put into so many situations to fumble. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

But again, judging the validity of the stance based on the person who is taking that stance doesn't make any sense to me. The stance/reasoning is its own entity.

 

 

 

It's all part reason the dude shouldn't be here at all. Never should have been hired either. He sucks, we know it, he knows it, the media knows it, and clearly the players know it too. Maybe Dan is still wearing blinders but what else is new? He's probably wearing a ball gag w/ head harness as well.

 

Nobody said that the Iraqi general was correct in expecting his troops to fight a known losing battle therefore when they all surrendered to US troops everybody was happy. Bruce is the Iraqi General, he should just happily hand over TW to the other side and receive compensation for his imminent loss.

 

The fact that he refuses to acknowledge his and Dan's ineptitude is most of the problem already. Bro, everybody knows that you have no ****ing clue what you are doing!

 

It's like knowing ahead of time that you're about to lose another game of chess and just sitting there with your arms crossed sticking out your tongue refusing to make your move. It's childish and exactly what we already knew and expect everytime these clowns have a decision to make.

 

****ing hilariously inept at such a level that they'll just sit there knowing that everybody is pointing and laughing at them but they just can't help themselves lol.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I'm not sure if Belichick has ever said "no" to trading a player who holds out in order to be traded, so I don't know if he'd be going against what he would usually do in this situation. It could be that the players know not to take that avenue with him because it won't work. But again, judging the validity of the stance based on the person who is taking that stance doesn't make any sense to me. The stance/reasoning is its own entity.

 

 

 

I know Belichick has traded players when there has been disputes about money.  Also from books I read about Belichick, he (like Gibbs) uses the line if anyone doesn't want to be here let him know.  He's big into players doing things the Patriot way and if they aren't willing to do so then adios.

 

But this conversation is going in circles.  I typically just say what I want to happen and applaud the FO if they do it and slam them if they don't.  I've wanted to trade Trent with zero equivocation.   Just because Bruce might disagree -- means nada to me.  But yeah certainly if Belichick did something I didn't agree with -- he would get the benefit of the doubt. 

 

Bruce isn't being giving the benefit of the doubt from fans for the most part.  He's on the ropes.  I just spotted this below from Bullock and that dude is very conservative normally about criticizing the powers that be.   Their unwillingness to trade Trent this far has been piled on the heap of the Redskins dysfunction by some.    And yes maybe their intention is ultimately to trade Trent but they are likely going to be derided until it happens. 

 

 

 

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

How is it valid if it doesn’t work?  It didn’t work then and it’s not working now.  For Bruce’s entire tenure, I’ve seen nothing that suggests the way he handles players and contract situations is valid.  Perhaps if he wasn’t such a terd, he wouldn’t be put into so many situations to fumble. 

1

 

What are you basing "it doesn't work" on? Whether or not Trent caves in and returns?...Because the stance I described would only be considered to have worked if it kept other players from doing the same thing (which I mentioned in my last post to you). For that reason, there's no way of knowing right now whether it will work. And in the Tampa situation, it would have only "not worked" if other players started making demands under the threat of holding out after seeing McCardell do the same.

 

You see where I'm going with this, right?

 

If other Tampa players DID threaten to hold out to get traded (or other things they wanted), would that be due to Bruce caving in instead of sticking to his stance? In other words, if it didn't work in Tampa, it can be argued it was because Bruce didn't follow through with his stance and reasoning. The ONLY way it would be considered to have failed in Tampa is if Bruce stuck to his guns, didn't trade McCardel, and at least one other Tampa player in the years afterward held out to get what they wanted. Same is true for the Skins...that stance of not wanting to set a precedent for other players has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Trent returns to the Redskins.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

It's all part reason the dude shouldn't be here at all. Never should have been hired either. He sucks, we know it, he knows it, the media knows it, and clearly the players know it too. Maybe Dan is still wearing blinders but what else is new? He's probably wearing a ball gag w/ head harness as well.

 

Nobody said that the Iraqi general was correct in expecting his troops to fight a known losing battle therefore when they all surrendered to US troops everybody was happy. Bruce is the Iraqi General, he should just happily hand over TW to the other side and receive compensation for his imminent loss.

 

The fact that he refuses to acknowledge his and Dan's ineptitude is most of the problem already. Bro, everybody knows that you have no ****ing clue what you are doing!

 

It's like knowing ahead of time that you're about to lose another game of chess and just sitting there with your arms crossed sticking out your tongue refusing to make your move. It's childish and exactly what we already knew and expect everytime these clowns have a decision to make.

 

****ing hilariously inept at such a level that they'll just sit there knowing that everybody is pointing and laughing at them but they just can't help themselves lol.

 

What is lost by waiting before trading him? You can't say "draft picks" because you don't know what was offered, nor what will be offered down the road. You can't be pissed off that he hasn't done it, only that he hasn't done it yet. I don't get pissed off about stuff that hasn't happen yet and very well may never happen.

 

And the validity of taking a stance against setting a precedent has little to nothing to do with whether or not Bruce should be in charge. Just like the validity of building through the draft has little to nothing to do with whether or not Bruce should be in charge.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know Belichick has traded players when there has been disputes about money.  Also from books I read about Belichick, he (like Gibbs) uses the line if anyone doesn't want to be here let him know.  He's big into players doing things the Patriot way and if they aren't willing to do so then adios.

1

 

If there's no holding out, or threats of holding out made late in the offseason, then that's truly apples and oranges. From what Hall said, Bruce wasn't pissed off about Trent wanted a trade, he was pissed off at how his timing of bringing it up ****ed over the team. Hall said Bruce apparently told if Trent had brought it up earlier in February or March (whichever month it was) it could have been handled differently.  I know with Gibbs he told players immediately after the season ended that if they didn't want to be part of the Redskins to let him know...but that wasn't open-ended for the next 8 months. It had an expiration date, and I think it was rather soon after he made that pronouncement. I don't know if he'd ever done it before or since. But that one time he did do it, Gibbs knew he could trade a player and plan for the next season around it if it occurred with enough time to figure free agency and the draft into things. Obviously, Trent did not do this.

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

 

If there's no holding out, or threats of holding out made late in the offseason, then that's truly apples and oranges. From what Hall said, Bruce wasn't pissed off about Trent wanted a trade, he was pissed off at how his timing of bringing it up ****ed over the team. Hall said Bruce apparently told if Trent had brought it up earlier in February or March (whichever month it was) it could have been handled differently.  I know with Gibbs he told players immediately after the season ended that if they didn't want to be part of the Redskins to let him know...but that wasn't open-ended for the next 8 months. It had an expiration date, and I think it was rather soon after he made that pronouncement. I don't know if he'd ever done it before or since. But that one time he did do it, Gibbs knew he could trade a player and plan for the next season around it if it occurred with enough time to figure free agency and the draft into things. Obviously, Trent did not do this.

Play the hand you're dealt not the hand you wish you were dealt. Bruce clearly doesn't understand this.

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

 

If there's no holding out, or threats of holding out made late in the offseason, then that's truly apples and oranges. From what Hall said, Bruce wasn't pissed off about Trent wanted a trade, he was pissed off at how his timing of bringing it up ****ed over the team. 

 

We have 50 million stories about Trent didn't want to be there.  That would likely been enough for Belichick and Gibbs to trade him on that alone. 

20 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I know with Gibbs he told players immediately after the season ended that if they didn't want to be part of the Redskins to let him know...but that wasn't open-ended for the next 8 months. It had an expiration date, and I think it was rather soon after he made that pronouncement. 

 

I doubt Gibbs had some odd expiration date.  M. Fitzpatrick wanted to be traded, Dolphins took care of it within weeks.  Players get traded before the season, before the trade deadline, etc.  This Trent thing has been looming for 6 months.

 

Your point is what?  You agree with Bruce?  Worth it to make a point to him so no one dares do it in the future?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Play the hand you're dealt not the hand you wish you were dealt. Bruce clearly doesn't understand this.

 

He is playing the hand he was dealt, he's just not playing it the way Trent (or you lol) want him to. Doesn't mean he's playing it well, nor does it mean he's playing it poorly.

 

It can also be argued that he's playing this hand with future hands in mind. Doesn't want to give up a "tell", so to speak, that others around the table will notice and exploit.

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

 

We have 50 million stories about Trent didn't want to be there.  That would likely been enough for Belichick and Gibbs to trade him on that alone.

1

 

Did you watch that America's Game or America's Cup or what-the-hell-ever it's called? lol...the one about the 1987 Skins. I think it was Russ Grimm who was getting pissed off at his lack of playing time and told Gibbs while he was benched he wanted to be traded. We all know what Gibbs' answer to that was. Also, remember when--in 2005--the Jets offered a nice draft pick for Ramsey, and Gibbs said no? And this was after moving up and drafting Campbell. I'm not so sure it's a slam-dunk that Gibbs would have traded any player based off of 5 million stories fans were hearing.

 

Quote

I doubt Gibbs had some odd expiration date.

 

He definitely did have a time limit on requesting a trade, it would be asinine to not have one...I think even Randy Thomas mentioned it at the time. And Coles had been going to Gibbs during the season requesting a trade, something I don't think Trent ever came close to doing.

 

 

Edited by Califan007
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

It can also be argued that he's playing this hand with future hands in mind. Doesn't want to give up a "tell", so to speak, that others around the table will notice and exploit.

Sounds like a culture problem, go figure.  This is only a real problem when you lead a loser franchise that folks want to leave that often.

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

 

Did you watch that America's Game or America's Cup or what-the-hell-ever it's called? lol...

 

 

thanks for reminding me of America's game.  They traded Jay Schoreder in September.   You say you know for a "fact" that Gibbs has a time limit?  Really?  And apparently 6 months wouldn't be enough enough time.

 

But again what is your position.  We've given our positions.  My position isn't about what Bruce thinks or whatever you imagine someone else might think about it.  there are plenty of smart people who think the Redskins are dolts for not trading Trent -- so not sure what's the point about trying to figure out what other people think about it.  Even D. Hall who you mentioned said would trade Trent.  But forget them. 

 

What do you want to do?  Keep him, trade him?  Unsure?

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Sounds like a culture problem, go figure.  This is only a real problem when you lead a loser franchise that folks want to leave that often.

 

Definitely not arguing against that lol...but it could also be a power problem, meaning it's not that a ton of players are willing to leave and hold out to do so, but that the guy in charge wants to make sure everyone knows who holds the power. With a lot of people that's not necessary.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

thanks for reminding me of America's game.  They traded Jay Schoreder in September.   You say you know for a "fact" that Gibbs has a time limit?  Really?  And apparently 6 months wouldn't be enough enough time.

 

But again what is your position.  We've given our positions.  My position isn't about what Bruce thinks or whatever you imagine someone else might think about it.  there are plenty of smart people who think the Redskins are dolts for not trading Trent -- so not sure what's the point about trying to figure out what other people think about it.  Even D. Hall who you mentioned said would trade Trent.  But forget them. 

 

What do you want to do?  Keep him, trade him?  Unsure?

 

I definitely do know it for a fact, and am searching for the articles that mentioned the time limit he gave players to come to him and let him know they didn't want to be on the team anymore. Gibbs wasn't an idiot...no way he willingly gives up all his leverage by saying the offer is good 365 days of the year.

 

And my position is crystal clear, not sure why anyone here would think otherwise. My stance is: Not trading a player who holds out in order to avoid setting a precedent is a valid stance to take. Said it about 5 or 6 times in the last few hours. Surely you read it.

Edited by Califan007
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Did you watch that America's Game or America's Cup or what-the-hell-ever it's called? lol...the one about the 1987 Skins. I think it was Russ Grimm who was getting pissed off at his lack of playing time and told Gibbs while he was benched he wanted to be traded. We all know what Gibbs' answer to that was. Also, remember when--in 2005--the Jets offered a nice draft pick for Ramsey, and Gibbs said no? And this was after moving up and drafting Campbell. I'm not so sure it's a slam-dunk that Gibbs would have traded any player based off of 5 million stories fans were hearing.

Grimm wanted out because he wasn't playing enough. Trent wants out because he doesn't want to play at all. 

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

Grimm wanted out because he wasn't playing enough. Trent wants out because he doesn't want to play at all. 

 

I know lol...the point I was bringing up was that the idea that Gibbs would trade anyone who didn't want to be here is hardly a slam dunk as it was being presented.

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

 

And my position is crystal clear, not sure why anyone here would think otherwise. My stance is: Not trading a player who holds out in order to avoid setting a precedent is a valid stance to take. Said it about 5 or 6 times in the last few hours. Surely you read it.

 

Surely, I missed it, sorry.   I am not asking a question just to annoy you.  

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

Definitely not arguing against that lol...but it could also be a power problem, meaning it's not that a ton of players are willing to leave and hold out to do so, but that the guy in charge wants to make sure everyone knows who holds the power. With a lot of people that's not necessary.

This only makes Bruce's stance valid to him.  Of course in his mind he thinks taking that stance is the right thing to do.  Which ultimately means it's the wrong thing to do considering he has no history of success in player personnel.  It just feels like you are arguing for the sake of arguing here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theory thought........after Miami started giving trades to those that asked, the league owners had a secret meeting saying we got to knock this off. After Bell, Brown and others leverage for a trade the owners realized it could get out of control and put down a don't break mandate. Yeah I know.....crazy right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing Bruce's end goal, it's hard to evaluate what's happening. He may honestly believe he'll get a better trade haul closer to the deadline. I just hope he doesn't think that Trent is coming back to the Skins, when it's clear he's not.

Edited by profusion
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, profusion said:

Without knowing Bruce's end goal, it's hard to evaluate what's happening. He may honestly believe he'll get a better trade haul closer to the deadline. I just hope he doesn't think that Trent is coming back to the Skins, when it's clear he's not.

All reports indicate that Bruce hasn't even listened to offers for him.  So how would he know what the haul looks like at any point?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 9:56 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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.

 

I went to check this, and according the NextGenStats, his OL actually gives him the most amount of time to throw in the NFL.  But I agree with your overall point, Bruce is the league's foremost expert at cutting his nose off to spite his face.

 

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing/2019/all#average-time-to-throw

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

 

I went to check this, and according the NextGenStats, his OL actually gives him the most amount of time to throw in the NFL.  But I agree with your overall point, Bruce is the league's foremost expert at cutting his nose off to spite his face.

 

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing/2019/all#average-time-to-throw

 

Where did you find that stat?  I know its some stat that's bad as for the O line because i recall stumbling on it on twitter.   

 

I just looked at Football Outsiders who have the Vikings O line on pass protection ranked 25th.   PFF has their pass blocking ranked 31st and they are one of only three teams with a score in the 40s on that front.   

 

I think the Vikings could use Trent.  And I see we agree on that.  Will see. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
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...