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

[carex]

6 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Not if he says screw these assholes and retires already rich as hell.

 

he could've already done that

[Skinsinparadise]

Sellers?  That's what loser clubs do.  Not clubs who are close...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wit33]

10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Sellers?  That's what loser clubs do.  Not clubs who are close...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trent Williams situation aside.

 

I don’t think the whole in vogue seller model is a right or wrong avenue. Sure, if there’s a player on the roster a team doesn’t foresee a future with and said player has value in NFL circles, then value in making a trade may make sense. The NFL is a year to year league providing teams realistic opportunities to go from worst to first in a calendar year. 
 

There are some here who’d support getting rid of Kerrigan for a 4th or 5th round pick or something. A trade for a draft pick doesn’t equal a win for team that traded the player. I’m not throwing Kerrigan away for a 4th round pick that has a low chance of being impactful and most likely out of league after first contract. 
 

Yes, trades have increased over last few years, but it’s still not many

[RWJ]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Sellers?  That's what loser clubs do.  Not clubs who are close...

 

SIP, SnyderAllen are going to find out how close we are when the season ends.  Most media and fans know but they seem to be blind. 

[Est.1974]

Scherff for Leonard Williams is a no brainer, right 

 

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Let's be truthful; Danny and Bruce are clueless as it pertains to any and all football matters!!! Of course Bruce is sitting on Danny's lap while Danny works his mouth like a puppet!! 

My guess is; not trading Trent has more to do with Danny boy not being able to admit he created such a toxic organization that players want nothing to do with it! Capitulating to Trent's demand to be traded would only validate the disaster Danny has built...and Danny can't live with that, so his only play is to wait out Trent in hopes that Trent see's the light and comes home, proving Danny boy "does" know what he's doing!!! We are a joke of an organization, and always will be so long as Danny own's the team!!! 👎👎

 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

Trent Williams situation aside.

 

I don’t think the whole in vogue seller model is a right or wrong avenue. Sure, if there’s a player on the roster a team doesn’t foresee a future with and said player has value in NFL circles, then value in making a trade may make sense. The NFL is a year to year league. 
 

There are some here who’d support getting rid of Kerrigan for a 4th or 5th round pick or something. A trade for a draft pick doesn’t equal a win for team that traded the player. I’m not throwing Kerrigan away for a 4th round pick that has a low chance of being impactful and most likely out of league after first contract. 
 

Yes, trades have increased over last few years, but it’s still not many

 

Disagree.  Unless you embrace the Bruce "we are close" argument.  And in their defense if that's what they truly believe then they are doing it the right way.  Bring back Trent, have themselves a season next year (which to them is 9-7) and all the fans will come back and embrace the team.  Personally, I think they are delusional and stupid.   

 

Unless I am missing a trade?  Dan has never traded a veteran for a high draft pick (first three rounds) in 20 years.  While being one of the bigger buyers of veterans for high picks.  That says everything to me.  They are always "close".  Heck Vinny before he left said he gave Zorn a playoff roster.  I think they always think they got a playoff roster.   

 

Giants were sellers before last trading deadline and ditto before the draft.  IMO they were a joke of a team last year but have surpassed us in one year's time.  Looks like they will be sellers again.  IMO that's what true rebuilding teams do.

 

If I recall you disagree.  I recall you saying something to the effect that Dan is indeed doing a rebuild.   IMO a team that has 19 teams in the NFL younger than them and buys veteran assets as opposed to sell them -- isn't in a rebuild mode.  Maybe in the context of being a Redskin fan it feels like a rebuild because in "Redskins terms" it is compared to other Redskin off seasons.  But it's not IMO in real NFL terms.   

 

If I am throwing some sunshine here, I am perfectly fine with the theory that some have here that just wait and Bruce will pull the trigger before the trading deadline.  I know most reporters say it won't happen.  But I am open to them being wrong and he's leveraging trade value until the end.  But if it doesn't happen its same old same old loserville to me. 

 

Chad Dukes to me summed it well for me on a show recently, its not even about Trent per se but about the symbolism that they get that they aren't close.  This isn't some new dance.  This is Dan's whole era.  And it's one of a number of reasons why IMO he's a loser.  

[skinsmania123]

23 hours ago, Ghedrick said:

This team is dead in the water because of the offense.The defense has play good enough to win 4 games.They did enough against San Francisco,New York,Miami and Minnesota to win. They need to sell on everyone on offensive side of the ball besides Scary Terry.Trading Trent and Brandon would supply the needed resorces (high draft picks and cap spce ) to replace almost everyone on offense next year and continue to improve the defense. Other than Terry no one on this offense has shown to be a valuable asset for this teams future.Some will say Brandon is a valuable member of the future but he not playing the best and will be paid like he is the best.I believe the cap space and draft picks we could get would be more valuable in the future to this team than keeping him.

The sad part is you can easily say that Keenum and the offense did their best against Filthy  and the Cowturds and the defense couldn't hold up or we could have started the season 2-0.   Against the Eagles Keenum threw for 380 yd. 3 touchdowns 30-44, 0 INTS pretty much keeping pace with Wentz, so the offense was not the reason they lost game 1, by a fairly close margin, 32-27.  In fact our secondary was a steaming pile of garbage and Jackson had what, two bomb, TD's against Josh Norman, and whoever the safety was that got turned around...In game 2 Keenum threw for 2 TD's, 221 yards and no INTs.  His passer rating average for the first two games was aroun 116.0.  Prescott threw for an INT in the second game.  But again our secondary folded like cheap tents and actually the D line did not get enough pressure on Prescott so they won 31-21.

 

But for the rest of the games the offense has been a steaming pile of **** your right  Keenum has been horrendous. And our secondary has always given up the long ball.  Other teams tend to focus on one guy, and throw to his side and they have done that for at least ten years plus.  There have been occasional flashes from what i see to be a good D line, but they are not elite.  Elite D lines, get the QB out of rhythm, force mistakes, etc. If they had played better as a unit overall, I think we could have won game 1 and game 2.  Got to control the LOS.  But the rest of the games? Not a chance in hell.  

 

All units on this team are poorly coached historically.  There has been seemingly more energy the last three games but they are still hot garbage.  Have I said I cannot stand Moses on the O line, that imbecile, who has been beaten so badly and is so absent on some plays in games, Chicago, San Fran,  come to mind, that some of his performance have p turned into laughing stock Gifs on twitter?  And Josh Norman?  Pathetic.  And we have overpaid again for another guy in Collins who occasionally flashes but has assimilated into a mediocre secondary. 

[Ghedrick]

1 hour ago, skinsmania123 said:

The sad part is you can easily say that Keenum and the offense did their best against Filthy  and the Cowturds and the defense couldn't hold up or we could have started the season 2-0.   Against the Eagles Keenum threw for 380 yd. 3 touchdowns 30-44, 0 INTS pretty much keeping pace with Wentz, so the offense was not the reason they lost game 1, by a fairly close margin, 32-27.  In fact our secondary was a steaming pile of garbage and Jackson had what, two bomb, TD's against Josh Norman, and whoever the safety was that got turned around...In game 2 Keenum threw for 2 TD's, 221 yards and no INTs.  His passer rating average for the first two games was aroun 116.0.  Prescott threw for an INT in the second game.  But again our secondary folded like cheap tents and actually the D line did not get enough pressure on Prescott so they won 31-21.

 

But for the rest of the games the offense has been a steaming pile of **** your right  Keenum has been horrendous. And our secondary has always given up the long ball.  Other teams tend to focus on one guy, and throw to his side and they have done that for at least ten years plus.  There have been occasional flashes from what i see to be a good D line, but they are not elite.  Elite D lines, get the QB out of rhythm, force mistakes, etc. If they had played better as a unit overall, I think we could have won game 1 and game 2.  Got to control the LOS.  But the rest of the games? Not a chance in hell.  

 

All units on this team are poorly coached historically.  There has been seemingly more energy the last three games but they are still hot garbage.  Have I said I cannot stand Moses on the O line, that imbecile, who has been beaten so badly and is so absent on some plays in games, Chicago, San Fran,  come to mind, that some of his performance have p turned into laughing stock Gifs on twitter?  And Josh Norman?  Pathetic.  And we have overpaid again for another guy in Collins who occasionally flashes but has assimilated into a mediocre secondary. 

This team would be alive in this division if they had an offense that was even below average.The defense over the last 5 games  is giving up 20 points per game. This with an offense that turns the ball over and cannot move the ball.This offense is one of the worst offense in recent NFL history. While I feel the defense has under achieved they are good enough to win with.

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

25 minutes ago, Ghedrick said:

This team would be alive in this division if they had an offense that was even below average.The defense over the last 5 games  is giving up 20 points per game. This with an offense that turns the ball over and cannot move the ball.This offense is one of the worst offense in recent NFL history. While I feel the defense has under achieved they are good enough to win with.

I thought for a long time that Jay's offense was VERY predictable and the DC's were feasting on it. Glad he's gone but the damage was done. That and the talent really sucks. Doctson (if not on IR) is better than Richardson..especially in Red Zone attempts.

[Veryoldschool]

Why on earth would Snyder want to hang on to a guy pissed off enough to sit out like Trent?  Especially when the team is so poor it is in their interest to trade away aging Pro Bowl players for high draft picks.  It's not clear that time is not on the side of the Redskins either because Trent could be hanging out at his house eating his way to 400 lbs.  

[wit33]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Disagree.  Unless you embrace the Bruce "we are close" argument.  And in their defense if that's what they truly believe then they are doing it the right way.  Bring back Trent, have themselves a season next year (which to them is 9-7) and all the fans will come back and embrace the team.  Personally, I think they are delusional and stupid.   

Im failing to remember any teams rebuilding through trading their veteran players. Unless trading one or two players qualifies as rebuilding. 

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Unless I am missing a trade?  Dan has never traded a veteran for a high draft pick (first three rounds) in 20 years.  While being one of the bigger buyers of veterans for high picks.  That says everything to me.  They are always "close".  Heck Vinny before he left said he gave Zorn a playoff roster.  I think they always think they got a playoff roster.   

Personally, I believe you’re overlapping norms of other sports while not appreciating that the NFL and how trades have been done have not been a situation of being sellers or buyers like in baseball or basketball. Trades in 5-10 years ago were predominantly done because a player wanted out or there were some kind of issues. 
 

I do believe these norms are changing. 
 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Giants were sellers before last trading deadline and ditto before the draft.  IMO they were a joke of a team last year but have surpassed us in one year's time.  Looks like they will be sellers again.  IMO that's what true rebuilding teams do.
 

 

OBJ was a special case and wouldn’t qualify as trading an older player to build for the future due to him being 25 at the time of the trade. This is my main contention with fans wanting to be sellers, as there’s no way trading OBJ last year should be chalked up as win for the Giants and helped make them better.
 

It seems you’re choosing this narrative as rebuilding and being the better way, due to it aligning with your beliefs. Not right or wrong, but you can become a winner without bottoming out and becoming a “seller” (whatever that means in NFL terms). 

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If I recall you disagree.  I recall you saying something to the effect that Dan is indeed doing a rebuild.   IMO a team that has 19 teams in the NFL younger than them and buys veteran assets as opposed to sell them -- isn't in a rebuild mode.  Maybe in the context of being a Redskin fan it feels like a rebuild because in "Redskins terms" it is compared to other Redskin off seasons.  But it's not IMO in real NFL terms.   
 

 

The defense was rebuilt and can’t get much younger if you tried. 
 

The offense is currently under construction and in process of a “rebuild”. 
 

Not a right or wrong, but philosophically I never want the Skins to have the youngest roster, as I like having a mixture youth and vets, especially around the eventual young starting QB. This probably stems from me being a coach and appreciating youth and experience on a roster. 

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If I am throwing some sunshine here, I am perfectly fine with the theory that some have here that just wait and Bruce will pull the trigger before the trading deadline.  I know most reporters say it won't happen.  But I am open to them being wrong and he's leveraging trade value until the end.  But if it doesn't happen its same old same old loserville to me. 
 

 

I’ll pass on trading Kerrigan for a 4th round pick. I say 4th as I don’t believe any team will give more than that (I know nothing). 
 

 

[KillBill26]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Why on earth would Snyder want to hang on to a guy pissed off enough to sit out like Trent?  Especially when the team is so poor it is in their interest to trade away aging Pro Bowl players for high draft picks.  It's not clear that time is not on the side of the Redskins either because Trent could be hanging out at his house eating his way to 400 lbs.  

Because now our culture is too damn good, and Bruce wants the gray cloud that trent brings to help bring our high level culture back to earth our of fairness for the rest of the league.  He obviously knows what's best, and the rest of the world isn't smart enough to understand his moves.

 

Sarcasm aside, I think there is some good dialogue still happening here, and i admit I'm finding it hard to contribute anything of value lately (for instance, see above), but I do appreciate the guys who are still keeping us up to date with info from different sources and sharing their own perspectives.  Indeed, it's a frustrating time to be a skins fan, and will continue to be until we have a reason for hope that things are turning around and we are on the right track.  Trading even one of our pieces would make me feel a lot better that the FO is starting to recognize we are a bottom feeder, not a playoff team.  Trading Trent and/or multiple players would be huge in my opinion.  Until then, I'll just continue feeling hopeless as long as Bruce is here.

[Skinsinparadise]

49 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Im failing to remember any teams rebuilding through trading their veteran players. Unless trading one or two players qualifies as rebuilding. 

 

 

 I've gone over examples but don't feel like repeating.  Yeah this isn't baseball where you get a zillion trades.  but look at the NY Giants for example, 2 trades in season, and another big one before the 2019 draft.  And now they are supposedly poised to make more.   So we are taking 3 trades which are about to turn to 4-5 trades in about a year span? 

 

Looks like Denver is kicking in and looks like the Jets, too where their seasons haven't gone well.  Atlanta just made a move.  That's what rebuilding teams often do.  Dude, I am not asking for much, I am just saying trade one freaking one dude.  🤨  They don't have to go crazy but for once in Dan's miserable tenure trade a veteran for a top round pick (top 3 rounds). 

 

49 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Personally, I believe you’re overlapping norms of other sports while not appreciating that the NFL and how trades have been done have not been a situation of being sellers or buyers like in baseball or basketball. Trades in 5-10 years ago were predominantly done because a player wanted out or there were some kind of issues. 
 

 

I get your point.  But as confused as you think I am about conflating the other sports -- I think you the one who is confused.   So let's agree to disagree and we can both think the other one doesn't get the differences/nuances of the sports trade markets. 

 

49 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

It seems you’re choosing this narrative as rebuilding and being the better way, due to it aligning with your beliefs. Not right or wrong, but you can become a winner without bottoming out and becoming a “seller” (whatever that means in NFL terms). 

 

 

I've made my point clear a ton of times including directly to you.   Rebuilding IMO is a multi variable exercise.   The Redskins have engaged in some of those narratives.  But they are doing it half way.  As for the draft pick aspect of it.  In my book it's about them not being sellers AND them being buyers.  If they purely just weren't sellers then I'd see your point.  But we got both cooking and I am not talking just about recently but that's how Dan has rolled for his WHOLE tenure.

 

I am not on some strange journey on an island.  Just about every dude who covers the NFL, ex-players like Cooley on and on talk about building draft capital and trading veterans when you rebuilding. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Not a right or wrong, but philosophically I never want the Skins to have the youngest roster, as I like having a mixture youth and vets, especially around the eventual young starting QB. T

 

 If you like how they are building their roster.  Then cool.   Dan hasn't built a sustainable winner ever.  I am not sold.  And if you think his lack of success has nothing to do with him buying veterans for high draft picks and never selling them for high picks -- and you like how he rolls on that front, then cool.  I'll agree that its far from the only reason why he's failed.  But for me it speaks into his thinking which is that he's always close. 

 

49 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I’ll pass on trading Kerrigan for a 4th round pick. I say 4th as I don’t believe any team will give more than that (I know nothing). 

 

 

I get it but its a strawman point.   My point isn't selling veterans for peanuts. I think they can get get more than that for Kerrigan but I don't feel like debating it because it would throw this off topic.   It would be like me taking on your point by saying you can build on all the Donald Penns you want but eventually they will wear down over a season.  

[KillBill26]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27919597/why-nfl-trades-increased-four-reasons-deadline-no-longer-dud%3fplatform=amp

 

@wit33, @Skinsinparadise

 

Interesting article regarding trades.  As the article states and you guys know, the NFL trade deadline has been pretty irrelevant as compared to there sports.  So even though some teams may recognize they aren't close and they should trade some of their aging players for draft picks , finding another team to agree to a deal can be difficult.  Which means a team making multiple trades of their aging players has been virtually impossible.  However, our problem isn't that we can't find another team to work a trade, it's that we are foolish enough to not pursue trading our assets due to self-preservation, poor evaluation of our competitive status, etc. With the changes highlighted in the article, we may see some teams be sellers at the deadline much like you would see in mlb, and getting multiple picks could help these teams turn it around, but unfortunately the Redskins don't have enough common sense to be one of them.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27919597/why-nfl-trades-increased-four-reasons-deadline-no-longer-dud%3fplatform=amp

 

@wit33, @Skinsinparadise

 

Interesting article regarding trades.  As the article states and you guys know, the NFL trade deadline has been pretty irrelevant as compared to there sports.  So even though some teams may recognize they aren't close and they should trade some of their aging players for draft picks , finding another team to agree to a deal can be difficult.  Which means a team making multiple trades of their aging players has been virtually impossible.  However, our problem isn't that we can't find another team to work a trade, it's that we are foolish enough to not pursue trading our assets due to self-preservation, poor evaluation of our competitive status, etc. With the changes highlighted in the article, we may see some teams be sellers at the deadline much like you would see in mlb, and getting multiple picks could help these teams turn it around, but unfortunately the Redskins don't have enough common sense to be one of them.

 

NFL will likely never be like other sports as for trades but its been picking up.  1-2 trades in the NFL are likely the equivalent of 4-5 MLB trades as an example.  My point relating to the Redskins is i am not even looking for them to go nuts with trades.  But how about one for a change?  I am not talking about their occasional lets dump our failing players like McNabb for a 6th round pick.  I am talking selling an asset on a high like teams like NE does.   How about just once in Dan's 20 years.  He certainly isn't shy about giving up high picks every few years or so, how about the reverse?

 

www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27919597/why-nfl-trades-increased-four-reasons-deadline-no-longer-dud

 

Why have NFL trades increased? Four reasons the deadline is no longer a dud

 

The NFL trade deadline is red-hot and it's not even here yet. Last week, the Rams made three trades in one day. This week, the Patriots made a trade less than eight hours after beating the Jets 33-0, then made another one two days later. The 49ers, the league's other undefeated team, followed New England's deal on Tuesday with one of their own.

There have been 17 trades since the season began Sept. 5, and the consensus opinion in front offices across the league is that there are plenty more to come ahead of Tuesday's 4 p.m. ET deadline.

How did this happen? The NFL trade deadline used to be a perennial dud -- nothing like its MLB, NBA or NHL counterparts for activity. General managers used to hoard draft picks and believe the juice of a midseason acquisition wouldn't be worth the squeeze, so difficult is it to school players in new offensive and defensive schemes on the fly.

But now it's more trades for higher prices and ideas that would have been laughed off half a decade ago. Two first-round picks from the Rams to the Jaguars for Jalen Ramsey? A second-round pick from the Patriots to the Falcons for Mohamed Sanu? A first-rounder this time last year from Dallas to Oakland for Amari Cooper?

This is the new way of the NFL trade-deadline world, and it's actually pretty cool. Keeps things interesting. Gives fans a fresh way of staying engaged. We're here for it.

As for why it's happening, based on conversations with front-office executives around the league, there are a few reasons:

 

A fresh perspective on the concept of trading

As a new, younger generation of general managers has pervaded the league, front offices just look at trading from an entirely different point of view than their predecessors. They see how players move around in the NBA, they see how short NFL players' careers are, they realize they're not going to have these players forever and they're more willing to think outside the box in terms of ways to improve their teams for the immediate future.

"Somewhere along the line, people started asking different questions," one personnel director said. "It's like, 'We'd sign a free agent off the street because he could help us right now, what's the difference between that and bringing in someone from another organization?' So once you start turning over old ways of looking at things, a lot of new stuff comes into play."

 

Trading offers other advantages over free agency as a player-acquisition method. In some cases, it offers cost certainty. The Patriots have Sanu for this year and next, if they want him, and they know he's scheduled to make $6.5 million. If he plays well and they want to keep him, that's a better solution than going out on the market next March and having to outbid another team for a similar player who might get $8 million or $9 million a year. Still another advantage is that trading for a player doesn't cost teams anything in the compensatory draft pick formula, whereas signing a free agent does.

"A lot of these deals," Rams GM Les Snead said in a phone interview a few days after acquiring Ramsey, "are done with the long term in mind. That's an important thing to remember."

 

[SoCalSkins]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Why on earth would Snyder want to hang on to a guy pissed off enough to sit out like Trent?  Especially when the team is so poor it is in their interest to trade away aging Pro Bowl players for high draft picks.  It's not clear that time is not on the side of the Redskins either because Trent could be hanging out at his house eating his way to 400 lbs.  

 

You make an example out of him so no one dares hold out in the future while under contract. No negotiations with terrorists. Plus it make them more popular at the owners meetings when they discuss who’s super yacht is better...

[KillBill26]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My point relating to the Redskins is i am not even looking for them to go nuts with trades.  But how about one for a change?  I am not talking about their occasional lets dump our failing players like McNabb for a 6th round pick.  I am talking selling an asset on a high like teams like NE does.   How about just once in Dan's 20 years.  He certainly isn't shy about giving up high picks every few years or so, how about the reverse?

I agree, I would be happy with a single trade, but for me, I don't care even if the return wasn't all that high, for guys like p rich, Norman etc. Of course I would prefer to get the best haul you can get for TW.  But just trading an aging player for a pick would signal they have come to their senses and are actually looking at roster building with a long-term vision, recognizing that we are years away from a potential contender, when those aging vets won't be here anyway.  In my opinion its common sense, but I'm at the point where if the Redskins can show they get that, it is huge progress.  Even if it's a Josh Norman for a 6th type trade.  Not that I think that 6th round pick is going to put us over the hump into a title team, I recognize he probably won't pan out, but we have absolutely nothing to lose, so why not. 

 

The only player I wouldn't just dump is kerrigan out of respect for everything he has done for this franchise, but if offered a 4th for him, I think taking a chance on a 4th round prospect is better value than what kerrigan has left in the tank, especially considering the team around him won't be very special the next couple years.

 

Please brucey boy, show me some semblance of awareness of where our team currently stands.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

I agree, I would be happy with a single trade, but for me, I don't care even if the return wasn't all that high, for guys like p rich, Norman etc. Of course I would prefer to get the best haul you can get for TW.  But just trading an aging player for a pick would signal they have come to their senses and are actually looking at roster building with a long-term vision, recognizing that we are years away from a potential contender, when those aging vets won't be here anyway.  In my opinion its common sense, but I'm at the point where if the Redskins can show they get that, it is huge progress.  Even if it's a Josh Norman for a 6th type trade.  Not that I think that 6th round pick is going to put us over the hump into a title team, I recognize he probably won't pan out, but we have absolutely nothing to lose, so why not. 

 

The only player I wouldn't just dump is kerrigan out of respect for everything he has done for this franchise, but if offered a 4th for him, I think taking a chance on a 4th round prospect is better value than what kerrigan has left in the tank, especially considering the team around him won't be very special the next couple years.

 

Please brucey boy, show me some semblance of awareness of where our team currently stands.

 

Agree with this.  I like Kerrigan.  If the Pats can get a 2nd rounder for Sanu and Denver 2 picks for Sanders -- we should be able to get a 2nd rounder IMO for Kerrigan.   Pass rushers are a much bigger premium position than WR.  Kerrigan is getting up there in age but he's still durable.  There was an article not long ago (I think from JLC but I might be mis-recalling) that said there would be demand for Kerrigan if they put him on the trade market. 

 

Not sure if they can even unload Norman but heck I'd do it for even a 7th rounder.  He's gone next year anyway.    Trent I believe they should be able to get a first and change.     If they don't think they can keep Scherff then I'd trade him but I'd much rather keep him but I don't want to lose him for a mere comp pick. 

 

I love Peterson but I'd move him for the right deal especially with Guice being close to being able to return. 

 

But heck I am not that hard on them on this front, just freaking trade Trent and do nothing else and I'd be satisfied.  Beggars can't be choosers. 

[Veryoldschool]

28 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

You make an example out of him so no one dares hold out in the future while under contract. No negotiations with terrorists. Plus it make them more popular at the owners meetings when they discuss who’s super yacht is better...

 

Ouch, but this could be it.

[Rufus T Firefly]

51 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I get it but its a strawman point.   My point isn't selling veterans for peanuts. I think they can get get more than that for Kerrigan but I don't feel like debating it because it would throw this off topic.   It would be like me taking on your point by saying you can build on all the Donald Penns you want but eventually they will wear down over a season.  

I think Kerrigan would fetch more than a 4th, but it's obviously not knowable.

 

But, even at that, it's easy to make the argument that such a trade benefits the team. Kerrigan's best days are clearly behind him. There's no way he'll be a contributor when the team has a chance to be a contender again. The 4th round pick has more of a chance to help the team compete for anything meaningful. He's only signed for one more year at about 12 mil, which he's probably not worth anymore. Trading him now would save the team about $5 mil this year, which can be rolled over. And, honestly, making the team a little bit worse for the rest of this season is really a positive for the future.

[KillBill26]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree with this.  I like Kerrigan.  If the Pats can get a 2nd rounder for Sanu and Denver 2 picks for Sanders -- we should be able to get a 2nd rounder IMO for Kerrigan.   Pass rushers are a much bigger premium position than WR.  Kerrigan is getting up there in age but he's still durable.  There was an article not long ago (I think from JLC but I might be mis-recalling) that said there would be demand for Kerrigan if they put him on the trade market. 

 

Not sure if they can even unload Norman but heck I'd do it for even a 7th rounder.  He's gone next year anyway.    Trent I believe they should be able to get a first and change.     If they don't think they can keep Scherff then I'd trade him but I'd much rather keep him but I don't want to lose him for a mere comp pick. 

 

I love Peterson but I'd move him for the right deal especially with Guice being close to being able to return. 

If we could get a 2nd or even a 3rd for kerrigan, it's a no brainer for me (removing sentimentality, moving on from kerrigan in general will be very difficult too see , especially if it's us trading him away).  A second day pick is an offer we can't refuse.

 

As for TW, it seems many agree with a 1st and change in return, which I was surprised to hear it at first, and would still be pleasantly surprised with that considering injury history, drug suspensions, and the fact that he would rather eat glass than play for the Redskins.  If we are offered that type of package, it's a no brainer for me.

 

Scherff is the most complex situation to me.  He will soon be 28, has had some injuries, hasn't been playing at an elite level lately, and plays guard.  However, considering we shouldn't be buyers at this point (we should be collecting comp picks and building through the draft) we should have the cap space even if overpaying a bit.  He is a player in his prime who has proven himself in this league and can help protect the next franchise QB.  The difficult part of the scenario is we don't know how those talks have gone behind closed doors, and nobody knows what scherffs true intentions are.  Maybe he just wants out of DC.  Maybe he is only going to the highest bidder.  The question becomes are we willing to tag him if he doesn't agree, and what could we get for him now.  For me, if we can get a 2nd, done deal.  If not, I'd be ok with tagging him the next two years, then getting a comp pick (probably a 3rd), upon his exit.  

 

As for AP, I love his approach.  He works his tail off, he wants to win, he provides a great model for the younger players, and he is on an affordable contract.  If we get offered a 5th or higher, sure, sold.  If not, I'd like to hang onto him for those reasons.

 

Norman and Vernon, I'd be calling all 32 teams and selling to the highest bidder, even if it's a 7th.

 

Ryan Anderson, P rich and Moses, give me a 5th for any of them, sold.  Might do a lesser pick as well, considering we are probably lucky to get anything for them.

 

But these calls should be made, and shedding salaries for extra draft picks would be a step in the right direction.

[RWJ]

The Allen situation is being treated the same way that the McCloughan situation was.  Allen must be the winner.  Whether that means TW reports and we give him his millions of dollars of salary this year and he doesn't play a down because he says he hurt (i.e., Jalen Ramsey).  It's not about the team it's about Allen or shall I say, SnyderAllen.  That is your F.O. and ownership Skin fans.

[JSSkinz]

Giving up that 2nd for Sweat is going to hurt if we don't move somebody, it's like giving up a low 1st rounder based on the way this season is trending and that would be fine is Sweat was playing above average but he's not.

 

This seems to be a stockpiled draft and its gonna be so disappointing if we don't load up picks.  I still don't buy the BS that Dan and Bruce don't know, they would have to be cut off from all human contact to not know where we are as a franchise. 

 

I think its just pettiness at this point and thats even more frustrating.

 

 

[Idaho fan]

It is pettiness mixed with Dan/Bruce thinking they know best.  Its just plain silly that they are so full of confidence based on the performance of "their creation" but it appears they are.  They actually believe they are close and have a great culture.  

 

They believe that top coaches will want to be here.  They believe that players want to play here.  They believe that the Redskins are still relevant when the rest of the league shake their heads. cluelessness and lack of self awareness is at the root of the problem.  Add in some arrogance and pettiness for the Trent situation and thats where we are.

 

Tis why most believe nothing will change until Bruce is gone and possibly until Dan sells the team in 30 years.  Things are as bleak as ever and I hate them for it.