Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Trent and his agent played hardball and, as with the Cousins situation, the local media was available and complicit.  And that’s fine...players need to get theirs when they can.

 

But, he’s crapped out.  Time for Trent to look his employers, teammates and fans in the eye, offer a mea culpa and salvage his reputation.  Cause unless Kevin Sheehan, Diana Russini and PamperedFan are gonna start stroking off million dollar game checks...and they most assuredly NOT...then that’s all he has.

 

Make us proud Trent!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

giphy.gif

 

We've hit a new low. One of my favorite all time Redskins is going to fake injuries just so he doesn't have to wear the jersey again. 

 

I said this many pages ago, but I think there's a certain level of brilliance to what Bruce is doing. He's making us so unhappy that the slightest bit of change is welcome. He's lowered the bar so far he can't fail. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Trent and his agent played hardball and, as with the Cousins situation, the local media was available and complicit.  And that’s fine...players need to get theirs when they can.

 

But, he’s crapped out.  Time for Trent to look his employers, teammates and fans in the eye, offer a mea culpa and salvage his reputation.  Cause unless Kevin Sheehan, Diana Russini and PamperedFan are gonna start stroking off million dollar game checks...and they most assuredly NOT...then that’s all he has.

 

Make us proud Trent!

 

Nah man. I'm not seeing it that way. He's been a good soldier for so long I think he's just reached his breaking point where he's not going to move off his stance. The crazy part is that I actually agree with him. He's giving up almost $900K a game just to prove his point. 

 

Do you know how many other holdouts got this far? None. Ramsey was close, but the team realized where things were going and got what they could. It's just toxic. At this point it's about as sad as one person getting to a point where they demand a divorce while the other is oblivious and thinks a couple counselling sessions will do the trick. 

 

Anyway, can't wait until the clown show comes to there senses in 20 years and finally introduces him into the ring of honor. Granted they will probably call him 'Trent Williamson', but at least it will be something. 

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

 

Nah man. I'm not seeing it that way. He's been a good soldier for so long I think he's just reached his breaking point where he's not going to move off his stance. The crazy part is that I actually agree with him. He's giving up almost $900K a game just to prove his point. 

 

Do you know how many other holdouts got this far? None. Ramsey was close, but the team realized where things were going and got what they could. It's just toxic. At this point it's about as sad as one person getting to a point where they demand a divorce while the other is oblivious and thinks a couple counselling sessions will do the trick. 

 

Anyway, can't wait until the clown show comes to there senses in 20 years and finally introduces him into the ring of honor. Granted they will probably call him 'Trent Williamson', but at least it will be something. 

 

Leveon Bell

John Riggins

Melvin Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

 

I doubt this. I think its more likely that he had hoped Trent would back to protect his biggest investment, Haskins.

 

That could be, too.  Anyway you cut it, IMO they miscalculated.  I'd let it go if this was just some off their game type of mistake but to me it typifies how they roll.

 

To go on a little tangent, even if I ran with the narrative of some that Trent is a bad dude and we should be angry at him.  If so what does that say about our supposed "damn good culture"?  Trent is a long time captain.  Many have said he's a leader that players look up to.  Morgan Moses complemented him when he did the hold out saying he's standing up for others.    If Trent is the leader there and he's such a bad guy, it doesn't give a warm and fuzzy feeling about the culture.

 

Personally, I think the locker room culture is fine.  It's the FO-ownership culture which is the issue which are two very different things.  I personally don't think Trent is a bad guy but even if I ran with the narrative about it being purely about money -- I doubt his teammates would think ill of him too in that regard.  Since when would players side with ownership on money issues?

 

If this is a purely about money move, in the FO's shoes I wouldn't budge.  But my take though wouldn't be anything personal against Trent.  If he thinks he deserves a premium for playing for that organization, I don't blame him.  I still wouldn't cater to it from the FO's point of view.  But that's business to me not personal. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, carex said:

 

if he reports but refuses to plays is that really reporting?  Even one of the mods here, MartinC thinks that should result in him remaining on the Did Not Report list

 

https://es.redskins.com/topic/428387-0mgz-trent-williams-finally-showed-up/?page=318&tab=comments#comment-11629423

 

Where does it say he will refuse to play?  He wants credit for a year of service for benefit purposes and free agency purposes.  Reporting and then refusing to play would make no sense...much like your arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the reason that this situation can still be salvaged for both sides is because neither side got in front of a microphone and started spouting malarkey about “gods plan” and “I like 1 year deals”.

 

And that’s because, in this case, neither side is a preening, treacherous snake like Kirk Cousins.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Skins absolutely could have got a first from the Browns weeks ago -- don't doubt that for a second. Same goes for Houston before the Tunsil trade. Both teams were desperate and had playoff aspirations. Bruce waited and ended up with nothing but a player one year closer to FA.

 

My God, Bruce is so bad at his job. It's actually impressive how he keeps finding new ways to screw up.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Unbias said:

Do you know how many other holdouts got this far? None.

 

Actually there are quite a few holdouts that have gone longer over NFL history. Just recently Bell sat out a whole year for example.

 

Just for the Redskins John Riggins sat a whole year and after that Sean Gilbert did the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Csup said:

Where does it say he will refuse to play?  He wants credit for a year of service for benefit purposes and free agency purposes.  Reporting and then refusing to play would make no sense...much like your arguments.

 

there have been many tweets and articles suggesting that despite reporting he does not intend to play.  Obviously if he is on the roster and plays this season will count

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

 

That could be, too.  Anyway you cut it, IMO they miscalculated.  I'd let it go if this was just some off their game type of mistake but to me it typifies how they roll.

 

Its a pretty big drop off in quality to go from Trent Williams and Ty Nseke to a 36 yr old guy on his way out with nothing behind him in the chamberand a converted bust at LG. On top of that, surely the FO is gunshy about throwing a rookie with minimal experience behind a line that has watched two careers end ( RGIII/Smith) and countless others end up on the sidelines ( McCoy, Keenum, Jackson, etc.)

 

I kind of put the situation in the form of a pros and cons:

 

Con:

1. Did not gauge the situation seriously early on

2. Did not move him for a ransom when Houston called

3. Did not field any calls for months

4. Did not name a starting price publicly. JAX said a steep price of two 1sts, and thats what they got. You cant say make me an offer i cant refuse without getting low-balled.

5. Going into trade talks with only Bruce and Dan.

6. Sticking with Manusky going into the season

 

Pro:

1. Sticking to their guns and not trading Trent for lesser value (imo 1st +3rd + player is the minimum)

2. Sticking to the principal of not bowing to a guy who holds the team hostage.

3. Not throwing Haskins out there infront of NE, CHI, and SF with a suspect line and terrible conditions

4. Moving on from Gruden when it was clear that he lost the respect of the locker room leaders

 

The cons outweigh the pros, surely. And I will cheer when Bruce is gone. But that doesnt mean i disagree with all hes done. I more or less strongly disagree with the process and manner in which he goes about his business, and the culture that he is responsible for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Actually there are quite a few holdouts that have gone longer over NFL history. Just recently Bell sat out a whole year for example.

 

Just for the Redskins John Riggins sat a whole year and after that Sean Gilbert did the same.

 

I think Riggo might be why the Skins tried to do things this way

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, carex said:

 

there have been many tweets and articles suggesting that despite reporting he does not intend to play.  Obviously if he is on the roster and plays this season will count

I haven’t seen any article or tweet suggesting this.  Can you provide some links?  What I am curious about is what is the benefit to Trent for showing up and not playing?  Why not just continue to hold out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Actually there are quite a few holdouts that have gone longer over NFL history. Just recently Bell sat out a whole year for example.

 

Just for the Redskins John Riggins sat a whole year and after that Sean Gilbert did the same.

I'd count Riggins but not the other two as they weren't under contract.

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

I'd count Riggins but not the other two as they weren't under contract.


They declined to sign a franchise tag. I guess you could say that technically meant they were not under contract - but their rights still belonged to the teams so they were not free agents either.

 

They were certainly holdouts.

  • Like 1
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...