• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Bill Callahan era began here at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. For the first quarter it was really,really bad football being played by both teams. 
      The Redskins were determined to establish the Run game. The First Quarter all they established was that they still couldn’t run. Or pass. Or do much of anything. 
       
      It wasn’t until the 2nd Quarter that Peterson was able to start ripping the worst Run D in the League for chunks of 18 & 24 yards. The Skins managed to score a TD with a 25 yard pass to Scary Terry McLaurin. 
       
      The Dolphins would open the Second Half only managing five plays before the Redskins would get the ball punted back to them. They would run a balanced run/pass attack of six plays for 70 yards in 1:25 ending in McLaurin’s second touchdown of the day. The Defense would then get a turnover allowing the Offense to get to Field Goal range and add another 3 points to make the score 17-3. 
       
      To open the Fourth Quarter, Hopkins would miss a 55 yard Field Goal, leaving the score at 17-3.  After being sacked five times, the Dolphins would pull their own switcharoo at QB and go to Ryan “Neckbeard” Fitzpatrick which resulted in a touchdown drive for them, making it 17-10. They went for & recovered the Onside Kick. They also managed to not score any points after that. The Dolphins would find theirselves with ball at the 2:00 Warning. Fitzpatrick would take them on a 9 play 75 yard touchdown drive with six seconds remaining on the clock. Miami went for the win with the 2 Point Conversion and failed. The Redskins would recover the onside kick by Miami and Keenum took a knee to get the Redskins their first win of the season. 
Owls0325

Prehistoric development with new speculation: Trent Williams wants to be traded/released

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

That would be an awkward situation, but they would have to accept him and keep him on the 53.  They definitely shouldn't cut him just so he goes away, bc you are forfeiting any compensation and you are giving the holdout exactly what he wanted.   I guess he could exaggerate an existing ailment ie knee and claim to be done for the season, that way he gets paid and get his credit for a season.  Then he would be facing off with the medical staff again.   That could get interesting.

I see haynesworth conditioning tests if Trent pulls that....just sayin

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

I dont see how kalil or robinson arent being flown here right this second...christian is a project at best as a back up we need some depth at the tackle position...

 

Kalil's done and not by any means a solution. Robinson is not going anywhere and will be back with the Browns. I would take a look at Jason Spriggs and J'Marcus Webb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

 

The Texans not having a GM might actually explain this story better than anything else. The trade for Clowny was bad and the trade for Tunsil was also bad. Who knows if they even wanted Trent. Sounds like they know what they want to do, but aren't going about it right. That's probably because they don't have a GM. Maybe that's the problem all together. 

 

When  there is a creditable source saying the Skins turned down what was offered to the Dolphins. I'll be just as mad as everyone else, but I have yet to see that yet. 

It was reported literally days ago the Texans wanted Trent and tried to get him from the Redskins, but the Redskins said not interested.  Since they wanted Trent, its pretty reasonable to think they valued him at least as much as a much lesser player they actually pulled the trigger on.

 

Lets also not forget Trent is from Texas, and works out in Houston every offseason.

Edited by Peregrine
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It was reported literally days ago the Texans wanted Trent and tried to get him from the Redskins, but the Redskins said not interested.  Since they wanted Trent, its pretty reasonable to think they valued him at least as much as a much lesser player they actually pulled the trigger on.

 

Lets also not forget Trent is from Texas, and works out in Houston every offseason.

Maybe they wanted Trent because they felt he wouldn’t demand the price Tunsil did.  When the Skins wouldn’t deal or wouldn’t trade Trent for what they were willing to give the fins moved on.  

 

Bottom line is we don’t know.  There are many possibilities we can can speculate on.  Hopefully the actual story will come out and then we can voice opinions on what actually happened.  

 

Better yet maybe a team will pony up a ransom or Trent will decide to be a Skin again - unfortunately likelihood of either happening doesn’t look good. 

Edited by Idaho fan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chump Bailey said:

Robinson is not going anywhere 

Not to sidetrack this thread but this seems to me like something the nfl shouldn't allow. 

Releasing a player with a wink ,wink agreement in place so that they can get another player onto the i.r. and not be subjected to waivers just doesn't seem like something that should be allowed. 

 

Maybe it's just me but seems shady at best, like their violating the "spirit" of the rule or something. 

Maybe mara should step in.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce isn’t going to flinch.  Trent will be sitting at least until the trade deadline.  

 

Unless somebody puts a package together which includes an OL, there’s just no reason for Bruce to trade Trent.  He wants to make the 2019 team better.  Picks make the 2020 team better.

 

If the Skins don’t have to pay Trent, and land trading him doesn’t help now, it won’t happen. 

Share this post


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

Not to sidetrack this thread but this seems to me like something the nfl shouldn't allow. 

Releasing a player with a wink ,wink agreement in place so that they can get another player onto the i.r. and not be subjected to waivers just doesn't seem like something that should be allowed. 

 

Maybe it's just me but seems shady at best, like their violating the "spirit" of the rule or something. 

Maybe mara should step in.

Teams don't control if someone is subject to waivers or not, it's all about how many years in the player has.  If it's 4 or less and the player is cut, they go on waivers.  If its someone with more years, they are a free agent and can sign anywhere.  Unfortunately, I don't see a way around it, bc the team can tell the player they will have an opening soon and want the player back, and from a players perspective, not having to move your family and start over with a new team is very appealing.  I guess they could try to make a rule that if you release a player you can't resign him for a specified period of time, but the nflpa isn't going to let that happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

Teams don't control if someone is subject to waivers or not, it's all about how many years in the player has.  If it's 4 or less and the player is cut, they go on waivers.  If its someone with more years, they are a free agent and can sign anywhere.  Unfortunately, I don't see a way around it, bc the team can tell the player they will have an opening soon and want the player back, and from a players perspective, not having to move your family and start over with a new team is very appealing.  I guess they could try to make a rule that if you release a player you can't resign him for a specified period of time, but the nflpa isn't going to let that happen.  

Or they could say that if you release a player and re sign him within a certain period of time any player you subsequently put on ir that would have been subjected to waivers will now be put on waivers. 

I think its actually an easy fix but it's probably not a common enough thing or apparently a big enough problem for them to care to fix it.

Edited by redskinss

Share this post


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

Or they could say that if you release a player and re sign him within a certain period of time any player you subsequently put on ir that would have been subjected to waivers will no be put on waivers. 

I think its actually an easy fix but it's probably not a common enough thing or apparently a big enough problem for them to care to fix it.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you.  If the player that is going on IR would be subject to waivers, by saying they now won't be subject to waivers first, is a benefit for the team trying to stash him.  Now they aren't subject to losing him.  I remember Jake Ballard, and Tevin Mitchel for us, being claimed when a team was trying to put him on IR.  If you are trying to create a deterrent for a team to make a backroom deal to bring a player they cut right back following the other player going on IR, not subjecting the injured player to waivers would not be a deterrent, but a benefit.  And the rule of players within 4 years of service not being allowed free agency, and thus being subject to waivers, is a whole other ball of wax because you are dealing with the NFLPA and how players have to earn free agency once they reach 4 years.  That system of earning tenure wouldn't be compromised just to prevent a team from pulling that off, because as you alluded to, I don't think anyone sees it as a big enough problem to deal with.  Unless I'm not understanding you correctly.  

 

I'm surprised when Mara got hosed by the Patriots over Ballard, he didn't whine his way into Goodell making it priority number 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

I'm sorry, I'm not following you.  If the player that is going on IR would be subject to waivers, by saying they now won't be subject to waivers first, is a benefit for the team trying to stash him.  Now they aren't subject to losing him.  I remember Jake Ballard, and Tevin Mitchel for us, being claimed when a team was trying to put him on IR.  If you are trying to create a deterrent for a team to make a backroom deal to bring a player they cut right back following the other player going on IR, not subjecting the injured player to waivers would not be a deterrent, but a benefit.  And the rule of players within 4 years of service not being allowed free agency, and thus being subject to waivers, is a whole other ball of wax because you are dealing with the NFLPA and how players have to earn free agency once they reach 4 years.  That system of earning tenure wouldn't be compromised just to prevent a team from pulling that off, because as you alluded to, I don't think anyone sees it as a big enough problem to deal with.  Unless I'm not understanding you correctly.  

 

I'm surprised when Mara got hosed by the Patriots over Ballard, he didn't whine his way into Goodell making it priority number 1.

I'm kinda not following you now.

All I'm saying is that the browns needed drew Forbes on their week one roster in order to designate him eligible to return. 

 

The only way they could do that is to release Robinson so they had room on their roster to do it and then re-sign Robinson once forbes was on the i.r.

 

Realistically since they intended to have Robinson on their roster all along then they should not have been allowed to do that.

 

I guess if a player is willing to do that for their team then why should it matter but it definitely feels like an end around that the nfl would frown upon.

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm kinda not following you now.

All I'm saying is that the browns needed drew Forbes on their week one roster in order to designate him eligible to return. 

 

Ok, you are talking about the two players who a team can designate eligible to return from ir.  You were referring to placing a restriction on Forbes?   I thought you meant placing a restriction on Robinson, the player that didn't go on ir, but the player that was cut for a day or two to make the maneuver work.  So you are saying if you bring a guy like Robinson back within a specified time period, Forbes should be subject to waivers before he can return to the team off IR?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

Ok, you are talking about the two players who a team can designate eligible to return from ir.  You were referring to placing a restriction on Forbes?   I thought you meant placing a restriction on Robinson, the player that didn't go on ir, but the player that was cut for a day or two to make the maneuver work.  So you are saying if you bring a guy like Robinson back within a specified time period, Forbes should be subject to waivers before he can return to the team off IR?

Yes, and that was my possible fix.

Again not sure it's a big enough problem for the nfl to care to fix it but it definitely violates the spirit of the rule and my earlier reference of mara was a joke about our whole salary cap fiasco.

Edited by redskinss

Share this post


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

Yes, and that was my possible fix.

Again not sure it's a big enough problem for the nfl to care to fix it but it definitely violates the spirit of the rule and my earlier reference of mara was a joke about our whole salary cap fiasco.

Ok,I gotcha now, yeah I don't think anyone cares strongly enough to change things to prevent it.

 

I understood the Mara reference to him being behind us getting docked on the cap, and made a joke considering he has gotten the short end of the stick regarding players getting claimed when being put on ir.  It was viewed as a bush league move, similar to what the colts did to us with tevin Mitchel, so I'm surprised he didn't whine about that as well.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in team trade him camp and once again Bruce appears more worried about making a point than setting up the team for a prime run once Haskins matures. I have no doubt we turned a handsome package down from Houston which annoys me.

 

That being said, there are two things that are being lost on many in here. The point Bruce is intent on making is not an unimportant one altogether. There are 53 guys in that locker room who pay attention to how the team operates. Letting the teams best player weasel his way out of town due to some frustration over unfounded medical claims sends a big message to everybody who’s a Washington Redskin can get upset about something, not report, and be traded away. Do we want that with Guice, or Allen, or Payne for example in the future? That’s a dangerous precedent to set. “I’m pissed off about something so either pay me more in guarantees or I’m not showing up.” 

 

Second, the trade window hasn’t closed so let’s pump the breaks on that. Rest assured there will be contending teams who either have OL struggles or their starting LT goes down who will be willing to pay a pretty penny still. The sky isn’t falling. 

 

Now for me, I’d be willing to risk setting the precedent and to smooth it over with the guys still around by talking up the future assets and make it less about Trent but more about positioning ourselves for building a really great team going forward. While also talking up Penn/Christian or whatever BS you need to spin to make the team feel OK about letting one of its best players demand his way out of town. I just wanted to bring it up because it seems that many aren’t thinking that way at all. It’s a very real and dangerous precedent to set, which is why these situations aren’t unique to the Washington Redskins. We’ve seen it with Pittsburgh for example, who make no mistake, is a very well run organization. So even though I disagree and believe the more forward looking approach is to trade him, I have to acknowledge that side of things. 

Edited by HardcoreZorn
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being totally honest here, the Redskins are going to stink with or without Trent Williams.  Might as well have him sit and not pay him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peregrine said:

It was reported literally days ago the Texans wanted Trent and tried to get him from the Redskins, but the Redskins said not interested.  Since they wanted Trent, its pretty reasonable to think they valued him at least as much as a much lesser player they actually pulled the trigger on.

 

Lets also not forget Trent is from Texas, and works out in Houston every offseason.

 

Who was it reported by. There have been a lot of reports about Trent the last month. There have also been a lot of reports that say those reports aren't true. That's why I said a creditable source. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KillBill26 said:

Ok, you are talking about the two players who a team can designate eligible to return from ir. 

 

 

Just to clarify this point a team no longer is required to designate players as eligible to return from IR.  This rule changed 3-4 years ago but I keep seeing it referenced on here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Why waste another year.....he did not show, stated he would not be back in the Redskins facility and is a disgruntled player.  What did Texas offer?  At least make a move to better the team and not just sit there doing nothing!  We are going to suffer without him either way and at least use the 1st rounder trade to move up and take the best OT in next years draft.....Instead we get nothing as Bruce's ego is the primary concern.  Fans are tired of the loser mentality of this President and Allen needs to go...now!   1 step forward and 2 back.   Gruden is "numb" from the constant "dog and pony show" he put on all off season.  Everyone saw this coming, especially Allen and Gruden who spoke with Trent.  No show was nothing new and the Redskins are sitting flat-footed again and getting/doing nothing to improve this situation.  At least we could have looked at multiple 1st round picks next year most likely, instead of ignoring other teams offers. Even with a Trent comeback, how much "effort" will he give....no win situation except a trade and Allen blew that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chump Bailey said:

 

Kalil's done and not by any means a solution. Robinson is not going anywhere and will be back with the Browns. I would take a look at Jason Spriggs and J'Marcus Webb.

Dude our starting left tackle isnt a solution nor is our backup kalil could be done but hes prob if not as ok as penn maybe slightly better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rabidskin said:

Why waste another year.....he did not show, stated he would not be back in the Redskins facility and is a disgruntled player.  What did Texas offer?  At least make a move to better the team and not just sit there doing nothing!  We are going to suffer without him either way and at least use the 1st rounder trade to move up and take the best OT in next years draft.....Instead we get nothing as Bruce's ego is the primary concern.  Fans are tired of the loser mentality of this President and Allen needs to go...now!   1 step forward and 2 back.   Gruden is "numb" from the constant "dog and pony show" he put on all off season.  Everyone saw this coming, especially Allen and Gruden who spoke with Trent.  No show was nothing new and the Redskins are sitting flat-footed again and getting/doing nothing to improve this situation.  At least we could have looked at multiple 1st round picks next year most likely, instead of ignoring other teams offers. Even with a Trent comeback, how much "effort" will he give....no win situation except a trade and Allen blew that!

I don't understand why he blew anything. Teams that wanted/needed him 5 days ago probably still do. Show me the money...say it

Edited by Gibbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breer

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/09/02/ezekiel-elliott-cowboys-contract-josh-doctson-vikings-brian-hoyer-colts?utm_campaign=themmqb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

8. I’d guess the Laremy Tunsil deal cements the Redskins’ position on Trent Williams—that it will take a lot for them to think about moving him. Jay Gruden, for his part, said Monday that he has “no expectations anymore” and that he’s “numb to it.” The team is moving forward with 36-year-old Donald Penn, who was thinking about retiring when Washington called at the end of July.

 

 

 

There are some people at Redskins Park who still hope left tackle Trent Williams returns to the team this week, Washington Post reporter Kareem Copeland told Erin Hawksworth on 106.7 The Fan.

"There is a fingers-crossed hope inside the building that maybe Trent rolls in (Tuesday)," Copeland said on The Fan Monday. "I'm not exactly that optimistic about that, but I know there's one last tiny bit of hope."

Head coach Jay Gruden, who said earlier he felt "very strongly" Williams would not be tradedsaid Monday he has become numb to the Williams situation, before adding he doesn’t have feelings towards it anymore.

Overall, it is highly unlikely Williams returns this week.

"Does a couple extra dollars blow that over for you?" Copeland said of Williams' reported concerns over the Skins medical staff. "If you want those people that misdiagnosed you or the people in this building, some of those medical people gone, I don't think that's realistically going to happen, especially at this point of the season."

Last week, team president Bruce Allen said he expects Williams to play for the Skins again this season.

"Well, I think Trent's gonna play football," Allen told NBC 4 Washington.

When asked if he meant with the Skins, Allen said, "No, it will be with us."

https://thefandc.radio.com/hope-trent-williams-comes-back-redskins

 
Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Dude our starting left tackle isnt a solution nor is our backup kalil could be done but hes prob if not as ok as penn maybe slightly better

Penn was in the Pro bowl two years ago and last year was hurt and movong to a new position. So why can't he be okay this year. He doesn't exactly have a streak of declining play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

“Numb” and “no expectations whatsoever” pretty well sums up my feelings about this organization for the past 15 years.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -JB- said:

Being totally honest here, the Redskins are going to stink with or without Trent Williams.  Might as well have him sit and not pay him.  

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second.

 

If Trent won't play here (or doesn't want to play here) a future draft pick(s) (especially high ones) are very valuable to a team that is rebuilding with a new GM and probably a new coaching staff.  Having him sit and not play doesn't help us now or in the future - picks do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now