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

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

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.

You should be used to it now.

It's been frustrating since 1999.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

45 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

You should be used to it now.

It's been frustrating since 1999.

 

I know it's all Snyder's fault and all, but I'd like to point out that it's been frustrating since 1993 when Gibbs left. Even though it's clear that Cooke was 1,000,000x better than Snyder, I think history has confirmed that our Golden Age is due more to Beathard & Gibbs than anything/anyone else. 

 

Cooke became the majority owner in the mid-1970s and basically oversaw mediocrity until Gibbs rolled into town. Once Gibbs left (and Beathard was already gone by then), he and his sons oversaw mediocrity again. 

 

Sorry for the tangent, just saying that our frustration stretches back years before we even knew what a Dan Snyder was. 

[DazedSkinsfan]

7 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I know it's all Snyder's fault and all, but I'd like to point out that it's been frustrating since 1993 when Gibbs left. Even though it's clear that Cooke was 1,000,000x better than Snyder, I think history has confirmed that our Golden Age is due more to Beathard & Gibbs than anything/anyone else. 

 

Cooke became the majority owner in the mid-1970s and basically oversaw mediocrity until Gibbs rolled into town. Once Gibbs left (and Beathard was already gone by then), he and his sons oversaw mediocrity again. 

 

Sorry for the tangent, just saying that our frustration stretches back years before we even knew what a Dan Snyder was. 

I think it all began when we struck out with Heath Schuler.  Who really saw that coming? He was a tremendous QB coming out of Tennessee and personally I just figured we were going to roll in the mid to late 90s with our franchise quarterback.  Unfortunately he bombed out and it set the franchise back.  Dan Snyder buys the team a few years later and the rest is history.  I always have wondered what could have been if Heath have lived up to his potential coming out of college. 

On 10/23/2019 at 2:02 PM, justice98 said:

As far as I'm concerned, everybody not named Mclaurin, Allen, or Payne can be on the block.  Make me an offer.

 

[Mr. Sinister]

7 minutes ago, DazedSkinsfan said:

I think it all began when we struck out with Heath Schuler.  Who really saw that coming? He was a tremendous QB coming out of Tennessee and personally I just figured we were going to roll in the mid to late 90s with our franchise quarterback.  Unfortunately he bombed out and it set the franchise back.  Dan Snyder buys the team a few years later and the rest is history.  I always have wondered what could have been if Heath have lived up to his potential coming out of college. 

 

 

What if we drafted Marino?

 

[DazedSkinsfan]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

What if we drafted Marino?

 

Then we would be saying who the hell is Joe Montana lol 😂😂😐😢

[Redskins Reparations]

This may be the longest reigning top 10 thread in Extreme Skins history.

[Rufus T Firefly]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

What if we drafted Marino?

 

He was drafted one pick before us. We took DG.

[wit33]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 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? 

The Giants signed Golden Tate the very same off season they traded away a younger more talented WR in OBJ. You’re crediting the Giants with rebuilding in way you’d like a team to do it, but it’s just not the reality of how they’re operating or any team for that matter, aside from this years Dolphins. 

 

Quote

 

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).

 

 

There’s an obvious trend in way teams are handling select players that are part of a losing situation, in regards to their willingness to deal a player. No denying that, but I don’t think it’s a right or wrong thing, more case by case type situation and it’s not as widespread as people are making it out to be. 
 

Emanuel Sanders demanded a trade, so that was a huge contributing factor to a deal getting done. 

 

Look, I’m all for getting some value for players, but don’t think deals are as readily available as some would like to to think (my opinion with no basis other than overall low number of deals that take place).

 

Unless the Skins want to unload a Jon Allen or Dunbar type, no great deal that will return real draft assets will be available (my opinion). These kind of moves would support a rebuild, players with great value entering 2nd or 3rd contracts that will cost more money than a 1st or 2nd round pick on a rookie contract. This would be a rebuild type move reshaping your core and setting back the “winning clock” for the team. In baseball the sellers give up legit assets in return for future draft assets or players in the minors. 
 

Giving up older veterans with middle tier value isn’t setting teams up at all for rebuilding. 

 

Quote

 

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. 
 

 

Confusion wouldn’t be way I’d frame it, just different individual expectations and beliefs of the trading spectrum in the NFL. 
 

Quote

 

 

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.
 

 

Im listening. I get what you’re saying and agree overall the Skins are buyers way more than sellers. 

 

Quote

 

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. 
 

 

I think this is the new cliche thing to say these days, but the actual execution and proof value exists in trading older veterans for mid round picks that supports a positive rebuild isn’t real.
 

Once again, a baseball comparable would be the Skins trading real value (Jon Allen, Dunbar, Scherff) to reset the core team clock. The MLB aren’t rebuilding by getting rid of average veterans. 

Quote

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. 

 

I’ve been okay (just okay, not happy) with the last 5 years in how they’ve attempted to construct the roster. 
 

As you know, I’m a big QB changes everything and when they’ve had average QB play, they’ve been average (Kirk and Alex). Hopefully they’ll hit on a great to elite one someday or they’ll have to be amazing in establishing culture, innovation, and draft well, which we know isn’t likely. 

 

Would you agree the defense was rebuilt?
 

 

Quote

 

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.  

What players would you deal and feel have real value?? That’s the real question. 

[Mr. Sinister]

40 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

He was drafted one pick before us. We took DG.

 

Hmm. Didn't know that. 

[Skinsinparadise]

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The Giants signed Golden Tate the very same off season they traded away a younger more talented WR in OBJ. You’re crediting the Giants with rebuilding in way you’d like a team to do it, but it’s just not the reality of how they’re operating or any team for that matter, aside from this years Dolphins. 

 

 

I gather it's not intentional on your end but it is a strawman argument. This point has zero to do with anything I said.   

 

The argument wasn't do teams never sign veteran FA if they are rebuilding or veterans are bad to have on your team.  

 

It was very specific.  Do rebuilding teams both trade for veterans for high assets and also forgo selling veterans for high assets.

 

As for my other thoughts on rebuilding.  It's mainly about accumulating draft picks and drafting well.  I don't give a rats behind about whether a team signs a veteran FA or two in the mix.  Everyone does that just about. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Emanuel Sanders demanded a trade, so that was a huge contributing factor to a deal getting done. 

 

 

Sounds a lot different from Trent?  Maybe they should have held firm and made an example of him?  But seriously they are rumored to being selling other assets, too.  Just because Sanders asked to be traded doesn't mean it doesn't count.  And if it were that easy then this thread wouldn't have existed for all this time.  😀

 

 

Schefter has been around the NFL a long time.  Why should a losing team sell?   

 

https://1043thefan.com/2084223/schefter-broncos-lose-all-ears-trades/?

Schefter: If Broncos lose Sunday, Denver should be ‘all ears’ on trades

 

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Once again, a baseball comparable would be the Skins trading real value (Jon Allen, Dunbar, Scherff) to reset the core team clock. The MLB aren’t rebuilding by getting rid of average veterans. 

 

 

You got plenty of above average veterans in baseball who are traded.  Trent and Kerrigan are above average players.    But I am not even talking about just them.  I am talking Dan's whole tenure.  And I am not just referring to them not being sellers but the combination of that and them being buyers.

 

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

As you know, I’m a big QB changes everything and when they’ve had average QB play, they’ve been average (Kirk)

 

 He's above average.    Not great but certainly good and better than average.  You've varied your comments on him from what I recall but in that mix I can recall you saying  he's a good player.    But I don't want a Kirk debate on this thread, so my point pertains to the point at hand which is trade value.   You among the Kirk critics uniquely embraced that the third round compensation for him was a good get and you doubted they could beat that.  Most Kirk critics even disagree with you on that front and thought Bruce screwed up the compensation side of this.

 

If you are happy with what they got for Kirk, and saying Kerrigan would fetch a 4th --  then I think you are cooking with the idea that we'd get low values for our assets.  What do you think Trent fetches a third?   

 

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

been average (..Alex).

 

Agree.  He's average.  And if you are rebuilding, you don't trade a 3rd rounder and a promising young player for a 34 year old.  You make a trade like that when you think you are close.

 

If they signed him for nothing in FA, that's fine.  You aren't giving up anything for him.  That's why your Golden Tate example is meaningless to me.  Yeah every team has some veterans.  You don't lose assets by signing a FA.   You can screw yourself on the cap if you sign too many or for too high a price but you aren't losing draft assets.    I didn't complain about any veteran FA signing we've done.  I am just about the lead cheerleader on the Peterson thread.

 

48 minutes ago, wit33 said:

What players would you deal and feel have real value?? That’s the real question. 

 

I've talked about it my my posts:  Trent, Kerrigan.  Maybe Peterson if they get some value back.  I'd trade Scherff if they don't think they can lock in a deal.  I didn't want to trade Kirk at the time because I felt a deal would happen.  But if I knew they'd not agree to a deal and it was just a comp pick they'd get in return then I'd have dealt him in a heartbeat.  I feel exactly the same way about Scherff. 

 

[wit33]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I gather it's not intentional on your end but it is a strawman argument. This point has zero to do with anything I said.   

 

The argument wasn't do teams never sign veteran FA if they are rebuilding or veterans are bad to have on your team.  

 

It was very specific.  Do rebuilding teams both trade for veterans for high assets and also forgo selling veterans for high assets.

 

As for my other thoughts on rebuilding.  It's mainly about accumulating draft picks and drafting well.  I don't give a rats behind about whether a team signs a veteran FA or two in the mix.  Everyone does just about. 
 

 

I’ve used the Giants as an example, due to them being a team you use to support how one should/could rebuild.

 

The Giants didn’t trade OBJ for rebuilding purposes is my point. Them signing an older WR to lucrative deal the same off-season doesn’t support a rebuild, right?

 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sounds a lot different from Trent?  Maybe they should have held firm and made an example of him?  But seriously they are rumored to being selling other assets, too.  Just because Sanders asked to be traded doesn't mean it doesn't count.  And if it were that easy then this thread wouldn't have existed for all this time.  😀

 

Okay, making a trade qualifies one as rebuilding? 

 

Have the Redskins rebuilt their defense???
 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Schefter has been around the NFL a long time.  Why should a losing team sell?   

 

https://1043thefan.com/2084223/schefter-broncos-lose-all-ears-trades/?

Schefter: If Broncos lose Sunday, Denver should be ‘all ears’ on trades

 

 

You got plenty of above average veterans in baseball who are traded.  Trent and Kerrigan are above average players.    But I am not even talking about just them.  I am talking Dan's whole tenure.  And I am not just referring to them not being sellers but the combination of that and them being buyers.
 

 

Kerrigan isn’t in the same stratosphere of value as Williams. IMHO 

 

So we’ll have to do one of those agree to disagree... agreements
 

 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 He's above average.    Not great but certainly good and better than average.  You've varied your comments on him from what I recall but in that mix I can recall you saying  he's a good player.    But I don't want a Kirk debate on this thread, so my point pertains to the point at hand which is trade value.   You among the Kirk critics uniquely embraced that the third round compensation for him was a good get and you doubted they could beat that.  Most Kirk critics even disagree with you on that front and thought Bruce screwed up the compensation side of this.
 

You’re right, Kirk is better then average. I agree. 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If you are happy with what they got for Kirk, and saying Kerrigan would fetch a 4th --  then I think you are cooking with the idea that we'd get low values for our assets.  What do you think Trent fetches a third?   
 

 

Trent in my view has much more value than when Kirk was with Skins. A lot of it having to do with Trents contract and being elite at his position. 

 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Agree.  He's average.  And if you are rebuilding, you don't trade a 3rd rounder and a promising young player for a 34 year old.  You make a trade like that when you think you are close.
 

 

I’d love to have a professional at QB this year. I’d be rooting for a team in playoff contention. 

We’re obviously on the opposite ends of the spectrum as I felt last years team had a chance to make playoffs and had zero interest in rebuilding. 
 

This year will serve as a transitional year before getting back to trying to make playoffs. 

 

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've talked about it my my posts:  Trent, Kerrigan.  Maybe Peterson if they get some value back.  I'd trade Scherff if they don't think they can lock in a deal.  I didn't want to trade Kirk at the time because I felt a deal would happen.  But if I knew that's not agree to a deal and it was just a comp pick they'd get in return then I'd have dealt him in a heartbeat.  I feel exactly the same way about Scherff. 

 

 I’m with ya on the forward thinking and if team has no plans to sign a player, then get some value for them. Comp picks must be factored into the equation though. 
 

Does the MLB receive compensatory picks if a veteran signs elsewhere? 

[Est.1974]

7 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

What if we drafted Marino?

 

Well for a start he would never have been in Ace Ventura.

[SkinsFTW]

4 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Well for a start he would never have been in Ace Ventura.

 

And nobody around here would have ever heard of Doug Williams or Mark Rypien.

[KillBill26]

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Does the MLB receive compensatory picks if a veteran signs elsewhere? 

In mlb, the team that loses a player that rejected a qualifying offer doesn't gain anything, but the team that signs the player may lose their first round pick.  It's a flawed system, and mlb is getting a lot of heat for their free agency system as a whole.  It will look different in just a few years I'm sure.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlb.com/amp/news/mlb-qualifying-offer-rules-explained-c259650658.html

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I’ve used the Giants as an example, due to them being a team you use to support how one should/could rebuild.

 

The Giants didn’t trade OBJ for rebuilding purposes is my point. Them signing an older WR to lucrative deal the same off-season doesn’t support a rebuild, right?

 

 

They sold 2 players and now are shopping Jenkins.  Then we got Beckham in addition to that.  You can label it whatever you want.  I'd label getting picks for players as rebuilding moves.   It's not how Dan rolls unless he's discarding failing players cheap.  He buys veterans at a high price (first three rounds) and just about every deal has been a bust.  He doesn't sell them.  I do think it's part of the soup for why he's failed.  

 

I'd like to see for once in Dan's miserable tenure that the Redskins are open for business.  I am not throwing in the towel on that.  It's so obvious that they should be open for business that maybe even Dan finally gets it -- we got some days left before the trading deadline. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/giants-have-traded-2-players-in-last-24-hours-and-eli-could-be-next-2018-10

Jason La Canfora, a CBS Sports NFL insider, said that with six days left until the NFL trade deadline, and with a focus on the future, the Giants are "open for business." 

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

 

Okay, making a trade qualifies one as rebuilding? 

 

 

I've explained the gist of what I consider rebuilding and why in those terms the Redskins don't do it.  If you don't want to believe me than listen to Bruce say a zillion types they are close last off season.  I think they'd even argue with you on the rebuilding issue. They'd say they wouldn't need to rebuild because they got a playoff roster and don't have to reset their roster.

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

I’d love to have a professional at QB this year. I’d be rooting for a team in playoff contention. 
 

 

I am maybe the only FO critic on the Bruce thread who agrees with you that we can overcome the dysfunction with Dan if they land a killer QB.  My difference with you on that point might be that I think Dan can't keep his hands off the position and might have the worst instincts in the NFL on player personnel when he does infuse himself.  And boy does he screw up that QB position epically like I've never seen in any team.  So I don't have a ton of faith that Dan will get it right.  But I do agree if finally one day it happens, an Aaron Rodgers type can overcome even Dan.    Will see.  I hope that theory gets tested but I am not counting on it.

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

 

Have the Redskins rebuilt their defense???
 

 

It's part of the halfway effort argument.  They've done it partially.  I've heard now multiple reporters say Jay wanted to move on from Norman (for the last 2 years) and Zach Brown (the season before) and go younger.  In Norman's case especially this year save some cap that they could have carried over.  But the FO disagreed.  Not that this is an egregious version of avoiding rebuilds but when you mix that type of thing with them not being sellers but buyers of veterans -- and Bruce saying they are close, it doesn't feel like a rebuild.  Like I said they have elements of it.  If we are judging the Redskins purely on the Dan Redskins tenure in relative terms its a rebuild but not IMO in real NFL terms.

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

This year will serve as a transitional year before getting back to trying to make playoffs. 

 

At Redskins Park, isn't every non-playoff year a transitional year before getting back to the playoffs next season?    It's the NFL so you never know.  But take a couple steps back to take a few steps forward for a change.  Lets not make the occasional 9-7 the high water mark.  Build a real team that can be a sustainable winner.  

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

 I’m with ya on the forward thinking and if team has no plans to sign a player, then get some value for them. Comp picks must be factored into the equation though. 

 

I am ok with comp picks if that's the height of the players value otherwise I don't.  For a guy like a Scherff for example I think they get more than a third round comp pick.  

 

Keep in mind that comp picks in theory can make you feel a little better than what they truly are.  For starters you don't get the pick until the following draft as opposed to the current one.  In trading terms typically if the compensation is a year later then it's considered cheaper comp.   Shanny talked about this before.  So let's say when he traded Campbell he was offered a 6th rounder for that given year but to that same team (the Raiders) he said what if he did it two years out in the future?  That's what made it a 4th rounder.

 

So let's take Scherrf, a 3rd round comp pick a season later is almost the equivalent of a 5th rounder compared to the market.  Why?  Because that's how the trade market typically operates since you wouldn't be giving up immediate capital.  And the pick is at the end of the round and much closer to the next round.   So you are basically getting the end of the round -- just like we talk about the Patriots picks are less valuable because of how far down the round the picks are.  This is ditto. 

 

That's my long winded way of saying you'd do better getting immediate trade compensation for a good player like Scherff (again if they don't think they can sign him) then you would by waiting for the comp pick.    Also it doesn't limit you in FA.  For example, we lost the comp pick for Preston for the Collins signing.  You wouldn't have to worry about that type of stuff.

 

9 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Does the MLB receive compensatory picks if a veteran signs elsewhere? 

 

Yes but its complicated.  Dependent on certain rules -- qualifying offers, salaries.   You can lose picks, too.  

[Skinsinparadise]

NFL Trade Deadline: Bengals, Redskins frustrating other teams with stubborn no-sell stance

Rival GMs are close to giving up on possible deadline additions such as Trent Williams and A.J. Green

 

With the trade deadline now just days away, Washington and Cincinnati continue to be pursued by a contingent of teams about potential blockbuster trades, and continue to refuse to entertain the possibility despite combining for one victory between them.

As reported last month, Washington and Cincinnati have long been getting repeated calls from a number of teams who would give them multiple high draft picks for an array of players, but to this point ownership has declined to even consider moving forward on them. The development has frustrated general managers around the league, who can find no logic in their position but are becoming resigned to the fact this may remain the case through Tuesday's deadline.

The Browns have been most heavily pursuing Washington's star left tackle Trent Williams, who vowed back in the spring to never play for the team again and has held true to his word, but they are hardly alone. (Sources said Giants left tackle Nate Solder is Cleveland's other top target.) Several teams have real interest in Washington linebacker Ryan Kerrigan as well (Baltimore and Indianapolis among them) but are not getting the sense Washington is looking to move the team leader despite facing what could be a long roster rebuild ahead.

"It's not like you are dealing with a normal team," as one AFC GM put it. "The only sensible thing to do with Trent Williams is to trade him, but they don't even want to listen. It's crazy. And I don't think that's going to change by Tuesday."

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-trade-deadline-bengals-redskins-frustrating-other-teams-with-stubborn-no-sell-stance/

[carex]

well, at least we're not alone

[bakedtater1]

I hate this ****ing...organization...its making me hate the team..and I dont want that...i dont see the folks renewing the ticket next year...i wont get it...my days of consecutively never missing a game could be numbered...just watch what I can watch on my hulu cable I guees..if the skins are on I'll watch.

 

Thanks you piece of **** of an owner Daniel Snyder!!

[tmandoug1]

Been watching them since I knew what a football was.....74' I think. I have only seen three games this year, usually I get pissed when I can't watch. Not so bad this time though, and that sucks .

[Mr. Sinister]

That article just flamebroils the blood in my veins.

 

I hate them.

[bakedtater1]

God we have a handful of players that we could trade away for some great 2nd and 3rd picks in the future draft..that would be great to go into next years draft with a couple 1's a couple 2's a few 3's...especially(cause I understand I confuse some people round here lol)if the next coach gets complete say of what happens

[DazedSkinsfan]

What have we the fans done to deserve this???  It amazes me that this organization still has any fans left.  Just when I thought I couldn't hate Dan and Bruce anymore 😭😭

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

38 minutes ago, carex said:

well, at least we're not alone

When your only company is the 0-7 Bengals, you’re better off alone.

 

A friend of mine is the type that just can’t be alone, as soon as one relationship ends, he’ll court whatever trash heap will pay attention to him.  That’s us.

[Skinsinparadise]

Ironic that it’s the Bengals considering it’s the only other team whose ownership is lampooned to the degree where it almost rivals ours.

[Conn]

**** Bruce Allen, man.