Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Because it hurts people that have nothing to do with this, like Haskins.  Does it help my cause, yes, but at a cost and in the sphere of a bigger picture.

 

The FO isn't an innocent victim in this.  They had many decision points where they could've ended this, rather easily. 

 

The fact that most holdouts don't turn into this is a credit to how most teams go through great lengths to avoid them.  

 

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

If he had come out and said this is what I want, this is why I'm doing this, himself, this would be a different conversation.  This is not by the book, he has not said what he wants other then he doesnt want to be here and even that is through other people.  This is not by the book, what book are you going from?

 

He did.  So even though, he communicated his intentions to the team before the minicamp he didn't show for (early June), you wanted him to hold a press conference or something? 

 

Out of respect he kept it under the radar, and gave the Redskins every opportunity to maximize his value before people started noticing him missing from mandatory events.  No one knows the exact date Trent communicated his intentions to the team.  But we know the media picked up on it when he wasn't at the mandatory minicamps.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PartyPosse said:

Maybe. I couldn’t care less about either of em. Sounds like you’re angrier than most.

 

Chill was kind of silly so I ignored it. But Angry? Lol  You are trying real hard to make this personal. Hardly angry. Just get tired of seeing all the childish whining in here about how bad a guy Trent is and then go off on tangents not relevant to try and make some ridiculous point when they should be holding the team accountable. 

 

Done here, it's clear we have reached the end. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mrcaniac said:

 

Except this is a contract/money issue. Those always go to arbitration.

 

Much like if Trent felt that he was treated poorly by the medical staff, or that they denied him treatment, then he should have filed a grievance with the union.


If he is suspended for conduct then the ensuing weeks he is not on the roster are related to the conduct ruling. He would not have a grievance other than appealing the suspension for conduct. Which is also heard by an arbitrator then appealed to the commissioner. If his suspension is held, he would not have enough weeks to accrue a year. 
 

You don’t get to report and not perform. Jaguars were idiots for letting Jalen Ramsey open that Pandora’s box but it needs to be slammed shut. 

Edited by SoCalSkins
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoCalSkins said:

You don’t get to report and not perform. Jaguars were idiots for letting Jalen Ramsey open that Pandora’s box but it needs to be slammed shut. 

 

I'll bet they're miserable thinking about those two 1sts and 4th rounder they have from trading him. 

 

But they should've taken a stand, and risked that, to 'show him who's boss'.    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

The FO isn't an innocent victim in this.  They had many decision points where they could've ended this, rather easily. 

 

The fact that most holdouts don't turn into this is a credit to how most teams go through great lengths to avoid them.  

 

I never said the front office was innocent, we cant have this conversation if its assumed I'm defending them, I'm getting tired of correcting yall in that.  That it's gotten this far isnt a testament to the Redskins it failures, we dont know if hes really going to try and not play intentionally and still get a full year, that's a rumor. Has anyone ever tried to do that?  If he was serious about never playing again for us, he wouldnt of reported.

 

7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

He did.  So even though, he communicated his intentions to the team before the minicamp he didn't show for (early June), you wanted him to hold a press conference or something? 

 

Out of respect he kept it under the radar, and gave the Redskins every opportunity to maximize his value before people started noticing him missing from mandatory events.  No one knows the exact date Trent communicated his intentions to the team.  But we know the media picked up on it when he wasn't at the mandatory minicamps.  

 

He didnt keep this low key by letting everyone speculate for him and not clarifying any of it or his intentions to clear his own name.  If this was clearly about the medical staff he should've come out and flat out said that and he would've gotten a different type of support, now some people think it might be about his contract, you said it yourself he was one of the highest paid players at his position, I'm suppose for support this over money and hes one of the highest paid players on the team? I'll pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just catching up with some posts.

 

My 2 cents is that I would not give Trent more money or an extension and I do think money is a key operative drill for him.

 

But I also believe that there might be something about him not caring for Bruce and the FO and how they operate as part of the soup, too.

 

In my view both points can be true.  And it doesn’t have to be just one thing and not the other.  And there are things that Trent has done which to me shows evidence of both things.  But granted we don’t know for sure.

 

I am not mad at all at Trent. I am mad at the FO for not trading him.  I wouldn’t kowtow to Trent financially.  Heck I would even want to beat him on the whole 1 year versus 2 year vested drill but that’s not out of spite on my end but purely about trade value.

 

There is too much noise about Trent not liking the FO (granted that’s 2nd hand) and he’s already given up too much money for me to think for sure that there is nothing personal in that mix for Trent.

 

But for me this whole time I’ve never really cared about the personal side of this for either side. But if Trent wants to get out of this zoo I hold no grudge towards him. It makes sense to me. We are just fans. He has been part of that zoo for a long time. If he wants out, I get it. If he just wants more money, I am opposed.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of this board is just Carex and Party Posse tripping over themselves to defend the team against...no one.  Everyone else will be long gone.  And eventually PP will drop out and it'll just be Carex shaking his own hand because PP will one day pass on to the next realm and Carex won't, because I'm not positive he isn't an AI bot constructed by Snyder himself.

 

Hit the lights when your battery powered defense mechanisms finally fail buddy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I'll bet they're miserable thinking about those two 1sts and 4th rounder they have from trading him. 

 

But they should've taken a stand, and risked that, to 'show him who's boss'.    


At least in his case it came to a mutual exit that was win win. But the tactic is unacceptable. Feigning injury is fraud. It’s not acceptable for players to defraud their employers. This is a multi-billion dollar business and this has no place in it. No arbitrator is going to side with the players on that one. You don’t want to show up, don’t and suffer the consequences but you don’t get to come in then pretend you’re hurt.
 

 

Edited by SoCalSkins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Chill was kind of silly so I ignored it. But Angry? Lol  You are trying real hard to make this personal. Hardly angry. Just get tired of seeing all the childish whining in here about how bad a guy Trent is and then go off on tangents not relevant to try and make some ridiculous point when they should be holding the team accountable. 

 

Done here, it's clear we have reached the end. 

 

 

I think everyone involved should be held accountable. Not pining one side against the other. No one played this correctly. If you want to side with Trent, fine. Just keep in mind he was STILL under contract for two more years and collected his guarantee when he signed his contract contingent on him fulfilling his end of the contract. He chose not to. If that’s the kind of precedent you want players to continue to set then great. You’re just making it easier for players to bail on a team if they just decide they don’t want to play for them. It’s only a matter of time then that the nfl becomes the nba and the same 6 or 7 teams will consistently be competing.

 

Bruce ****ed this up badly. He’s a dolt. No question. But I will never condone a player refusing to play while under contract. You have an issue? Ask for a trade, and in the meantime play like you’re being paid handsomely to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I never said the front office was innocent, we cant have this conversation if its assumed I'm defending them, I'm getting tired of correcting yall in that.  That it's gotten this far isnt a testament to the Redskins it failures, we dont know if hes really going to try and not play intentionally and still get a full year, that's a rumor. Has anyone ever tried to do that?  If he was serious about never playing again for us, he wouldnt of reported.

 

He's not going to play, and if the Redskins have any sense, they won't try to make him.  The beauty of this whole situation, is that in the scramble to move him, everyone has forgotten how banged up he routinely got in season.  I'm sure the idea of a guy needing offseason rehab, possibly surgery wouldn't be the kind of thing a new team wants to inherit.  

 

Quote

 

He didnt keep this low key by letting everyone speculate for him and not clarifying any of it or his intentions to clear his own name.  If this was clearly about the medical staff he should've come out and flat out said that and he would've gotten a different type of support, now some people think it might be about his contract, you said it yourself he was one of the highest paid players at his position, I'm suppose for support this over money and hes one of the highest paid players on the team? I'll pass.

 

He would've instantly been the villian...and given the team the ammunition to impose punitive punishments.  And you know they would've.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I'll bet they're miserable thinking about those two 1sts and 4th rounder they have from trading him. 

 

But they should've taken a stand, and risked that, to 'show him who's boss'.    

They didn’t have a choice. He was a free agent at the end of the year. If they would have said we’re not trading you then I bet he would have played out the rest of the year. 
 

No one player is above the team and unfortunately we’re starting to see that’s not true. There’s a reason NE is a consistent threat. Rarely do they allow a player to even think that.

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


At least in his case it came to a mutual exit that was win win. But the tactic is unacceptable. Feigning injury is fraud. It’s not acceptable for players to defraud their employers. This is a multi-billion dollar business and this has no place in it. No arbitrator is going to side with the players on that one. You don’t want to show up, don’t and suffer the consequences but you don’t get to come in then pretend your hurt.

 

It's not fraud if both parties are complicit.  The Jags didn't want to play him, and he didn't want to play for them.  

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

 

He's not going to play, and if the Redskins have any sense, they won't try to make him.  The beauty of this whole situation, is that in the scramble to move him, everyone has forgotten how banged up he routinely got in season.  I'm sure the idea of a guy needing offseason rehab, possibly surgery wouldn't be the kind of thing a new team wants to inherit.  

 

I dont see any good from this, we coulda had 2 first rounders if we got our head out our ass and he made crystal clear hed never play for us again, not take this to possible legal decision.

 

1 minute ago, megared said:

 

He would've instantly been the villian...and given the team the ammunition to impose punitive punishments.  And you know they would've.  

 

If he officially said this was about the medical staff and there was no way hed ever play again for us himself, I'd be more likely to support him and would've brought the attention this medical staff needs, like a overhaul.

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

 

It's not fraud if both parties are complicit.  The Jags didn't want to play him, and he didn't want to play for them.  


Not true. Shahid Khan met with him and he said he would play then faked the back injury again. That’s when they traded him.
 

Faking injuries has no place in this sport. This isn’t soccer. 

Edited by SoCalSkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PartyPosse said:

They didn’t have a choice. He was a free agent at the end of the year. If they would have said we’re not trading you then I bet he would have played out the rest of the year. 
 

 

They had plenty of options.  They could've tagged him at the end of the season.  

 

Just now, PartyPosse said:

No one player is above the team and unfortunately we’re starting to see that’s not true. There’s a reason NE is a consistent threat. Rarely do they allow a player to even think that.

 

New England would've moved on from Trent in 2016 and flipped him for assets.  They would've never made him one of the highest paid LTs, because they don't need that to be successful.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK changed the title to !!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up
17 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:


You don’t want to show up, don’t and suffer the consequences but you don’t get to come in then pretend you’re hurt.
 

 

 

Waah! Waah! Waah! Whatever bro.

 

Dan has been pretending to be building championship teams for TWO ****ing Decades!

 

Trent can play dead in the locker room for all I care.

Edited by SkinsFTW
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I dont see any good from this, we coulda had 2 first rounders if we got our head out our ass and he made crystal clear hed never play for us again, not take this to possible legal decision.

 

We were never getting two 1sts for him.  Bruce couldn't execute something like that.  The story broke that Trent asked to be traded or released June 5th.  The Miami/Houston trade wasn't until August 31st.  How did Trent's timing prevent a deal from occurring?  

 

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

If he officially said this was about the medical staff and there was no way hed ever play again for us himself, I'd be more likely to support him and would've brought the attention this medical staff needs, like a overhaul.

 

The guy gave this team 9 years of damn good football.  Played through a bunch of injuries and developed into an undisputed leader, and captain.  What more does he owe the Redskins?  

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

 

We were never getting two 1sts for him.  Bruce couldn't execute something like that.  The story broke that Trent asked to be traded or released June 5th.  The Miami/Houston trade wasn't until August 31st.  How did Trent's timing prevent a deal from occurring?  

 

This makes no sense Houston was desperate and we didnt even listen to their desperate offer which they gave for a far lesser player. All they had to done as hear them out, wouldnt even do that.

 

2 minutes ago, megared said:

 

The guy gave this team 9 years of damn good football.  Played through a bunch of injuries and developed into an undisputed leader, and captain.  What more does he owe the Redskins?  

 

It's a contract.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This makes no sense Houston was desperate and we didnt even listen to their desperate offer which they gave for a far lesser player. All they had to done as hear them out, wouldnt even do that.

 

The fact that blockbuster trades happen around all around us, but never to our benefit, is as much a credit to the other teams' abilities to negotiate, as it is an indictment on Bruce's ability to wheel & deal.  Do you think Houston called up Miami and instantly offered them the world?  Nothing in Bruce's resume here indicates that he would've been able to close the deal on a haul that significant.  He hasn't in almost 10 years (unless you count being on the losing side).  

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It's a contract.

 

Which is only binding if both parties agree to it.  They probably could've avoided this entire situation if they never let him hit the nonguaranteed years on his contract.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:


If he is suspended for conduct then the ensuing weeks he is not on the roster are related to the conduct ruling. He would not have a grievance other than appealing the suspension for conduct. Which is also heard by an arbitrator then appealed to the commissioner. If his suspension is held, he would not have enough weeks to accrue a year. 
 

You don’t get to report and not perform. Jaguars were idiots for letting Jalen Ramsey open that Pandora’s box but it needs to be slammed shut. 

 

 

It's the other way around, the suspension is heard by the commissioner, and then it is appealed to an arbiter.

 

The Commissioner represents the teams/owners ("the League"), the NFLPA represents the players, the independent arbiter is the what the CBA uses to settle contract/financial/medical differences between the League and the NFLPA. The team/league can suspend Trent all they want, but the NFLPA/Trent will take the contract rollover to the Arbiter for him/her to decide. Once the Arbiter decides on that, then the team/league and NFLPA/Trent must accept the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, megared said:

 

We were never getting two 1sts for him.  Bruce couldn't execute something like that.  The story broke that Trent asked to be traded or released June 5th.  The Miami/Houston trade wasn't until August 31st.  How did Trent's timing prevent a deal from occurring?  

 

 

The guy gave this team 9 years of damn good football.  Played through a bunch of injuries and developed into an undisputed leader, and captain.  What more does he owe the Redskins?  

 

fulfilling it, that's what he owes, especially since he's supposedly a leader of the team.  The timing of Trent's asking for his trade prevented the Skins looking at  LT as an area of need this offseason, not acquiring compensation for him, that's why people were unhappy about it

Edited by carex
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, megared said:

 

 

Which is only binding if both parties agree to it.  They probably could've avoided this entire situation if they never let him hit the nonguaranteed years on his contract.  

 

I believe this is what is frosting Trent's ass. His contract for this season and next season aren't guaranteed. The Redskins could wait until final cuts and release him, and he gets nothing, and since it happens right before the first game, most teams won't have any cap space to sign him, and if he does sign, it's probably for one year. Plus, teams will wait until after the first game to sign him making the contract pretty much a game to game contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, megared said:

 

The fact that blockbuster trades happen around all around us, but never to our benefit, is as much a credit to the other teams' abilities to negotiate, as it is an indictment on Bruce's ability to wheel & deal.  Do you think Houston called up Miami and instantly offered them the world?  Nothing in Bruce's resume here indicates that he would've been able to close the deal on a haul that significant.  He hasn't in almost 10 years (unless you count being on the losing side).  

 

Yes, my understanding is that's what was reported

 

12 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Which is only binding if both parties agree to it.  They probably could've avoided this entire situation if they never let him hit the nonguaranteed years on his contract.  

 

That's not how contracts work, especially sports contracts.  You agree to it before you sign it, and the team has the power to break it, not the player.  They can jus cause hell to get out of it, like a release, or sue saying the team violated it, which Trent hasnt done yet.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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...