Nerm Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Dallas has worked to pay their O lineman and keep them. I get the comp pick drill and I like it to an extent. But as one pundit pointed out about the Redskins you can't let all your guys go after the first contract -- in part because players will start to think this isn't the franchise to build a career-long term chemistry, etc. You need to keep some core guys IMO. This is one of the the issues that I think has had a negative impact on the team culture for the Redskins that is hard to measure. It really seems like the Redskins play hardball with their own players, but don't blink on giving players from other teams, like Norman and Collins, top of the market deals. It just really seems like it sends the wrong message to all of the players that you are trying to develop. Dallas has taken the opposite approach, and sometimes pays too much to retain their players. I think a side effect of the Dallas approach is that players on rookie contracts, or short "prove it" deals see that they are going to get rewarded for extra effort. With Dallas trying to extend so many of their young players, they are able to make the case that they are trying to keep the team together, rather than trying to low ball players. The players in Dallas know that every extra dollar they get in a contract is one less dollar for one of their teammates. For the Redskins, it seems like any dollars they give up in a contract will be spent to replace one of their teammates. I think that approach is bad for the team culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 52 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: 14 million a year for a RG that hasn't made an All Pro team feels high, but not egregiously so. If 14 got a deal done, I'd pay it. So would I, but it won't is my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Nerm said: This is one of the the issues that I think has had a negative impact on the team culture for the Redskins that is hard to measure. It really seems like the Redskins play hardball with their own players, but don't blink on giving players from other teams, like Norman and Collins, top of the market deals. It just really seems like it sends the wrong message to all of the players that you are trying to develop. Dallas has taken the opposite approach, and sometimes pays too much to retain their players. I think a side effect of the Dallas approach is that players on rookie contracts, or short "prove it" deals see that they are going to get rewarded for extra effort. With Dallas trying to extend so many of their young players, they are able to make the case that they are trying to keep the team together, rather than trying to low ball players. The players in Dallas know that every extra dollar they get in a contract is one less dollar for one of their teammates. For the Redskins, it seems like any dollars they give up in a contract will be spent to replace one of their teammates. I think that approach is bad for the team culture. They are extending players that have been renounced as top of their class while they are young... We did the same with Samuels, Trent, and Jansen. Our line has been trash at protecting the qb for years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 51 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: So for me to get behind Bruce on this, at least make a competitive offer first. It would be like buying a house on the market that we think is worth $450,000 but the asking price is $500,000. We offer $300,000, and then bemoan that the $500,000 asking price is too high. The seller wouldn't take you too seriously. If you think $450,000 is the market price then make a real offer that's at least close to that target price. But anyway, that's the impression I get based on what's being said (by Finlay and Sheehan) thus far on the Scherff negotiation. Dallas has worked to pay their O lineman and keep them. I get the comp pick drill and I like it to an extent. But as one pundit pointed out about the Redskins you can't let all your guys go after the first contract -- in part because players will start to think this isn't the franchise to build a career-long term chemistry, etc. You need to keep some core guys IMO. For me this goes back to the entire culture thing Lombardi discussed. When you are building a team you select the guys that fit your identity - your culture. You pay them. It at least appears to me that with Bruce and of course Dan is that it's all individual moving pieces. There is no sense of team. I think there are certainly players - probably most - that try to create and foster that feeling. But they cannot do it alone. You need it to come from the top. That leadership to create a team identity and culture is not there - or at least not allowed to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said: They are extending players that have been renounced as top of their class while they are young... We did the same with Samuels, Trent, and Jansen. Our line has been trash at protecting the qb for years now. I agree that you still have to be smart about who you chose to pay top dollar to. I think a guy like Scherff is exactly that kind of player. I also think that the Cousins /Alex Smith transition was another example. Both Cousins and Fuller were known for spending a lot of time and effort studying and preparing for games. I understand the decision of the Redskins to let Cousins go instead of paying what he was asking for. But, then are so quick to give a very large extension to the next guy, and throw in the hard working, very good young player too, I think it does take away from the team culture. If they replaced Cousins with a less expensive QB, like Keenum this year, it would have been a better look in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Andrew Thomas - Tyler Biadasz - Ross Pierschbacher - Brandon Scherff - Sam Cosmi That is the OL I want to see. To get Cosmi and Thomas, we'd likely need a high pick for Trent since I doubt Cosmi falls to the third. Fingers crossed. But am all in on hitting the O line hard in this draft. 52 minutes ago, goskins10 said: For me this goes back to the entire culture thing Lombardi discussed. When you are building a team you select the guys that fit your identity - your culture. You pay them. It at least appears to me that with Bruce and of course Dan is that it's all individual moving pieces. There is no sense of team. I think there are certainly players - probably most - that try to create and foster that feeling. But they cannot do it alone. You need it to come from the top. That leadership to create a team identity and culture is not there - or at least not allowed to grow. Agree. I know he takes his fair share of shots by some but I liked Scot's push for culture when he was here. Granted he had some misses on that front but at least he had an overriding philosophy. When I met Scot eons back at Redskins Park for the auction I won, as we were walking down a hall there where they had large photos of Redskins players on the wall and he stopped by Scherff's photo and told me something to the effect that this dude is a stud and the type of player he wants because he is a culture setter because of his style of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, Nerm said: If they replaced Cousins with a less expensive QB, like Keenum this year, it would have been a better look in my opinion. Maybe. But I’m not sure. Alex Smith has a track record or success. More success than Kirk. I was an advocate of signing Kirk in the 2016 off season or letting him walk then. The 2 franchise tags was just stupid on steroids. I think if they went from Kirk in 2017 to Keenum in 2018, ok, but Denver paid A LOT for Keenum coming off of his year in Minny. If they had tried to sell Fitzpatrick Bruce would have both looked like and been a fool. Alex Smith was the best available. However, and this is important, he wasn’t a great fit for Gruden. You could argue both sides of this: Gruden should have adapted more to what Smith did well or Bruce should never have tried to force the marriage because it was never going to work. Its probably some of both. Smith having a career ending injury 9 games into a long term contract was just bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, Nerm said: I agree that you still have to be smart about who you chose to pay top dollar to. I think a guy like Scherff is exactly that kind of player. I also think that the Cousins /Alex Smith transition was another example. Both Cousins and Fuller were known for spending a lot of time and effort studying and preparing for games. I understand the decision of the Redskins to let Cousins go instead of paying what he was asking for. But, then are so quick to give a very large extension to the next guy, and throw in the hard working, very good young player too, I think it does take away from the team culture. If they replaced Cousins with a less expensive QB, like Keenum this year, it would have been a better look in my opinion. Scherff is not worth a #3 guard contract in the league, and that is where this is headed. Unless we secure multiple high picks in the 2020 draft, I would wait before I give out a huge contract. Similar to how Kirk wasnt worth what Minnesota gave him. However, you can afford to give guys like these huge contacts if you have everything else set up. We have huge holes at both tackle spots, question marks at LG and C, and a gigantic vacancy at TE. Fortunately we have our QB of the future, possibly a #1 WR, and a stable of rbs. We need to be planning for the 2020 draft. Haskins with the right line and weapons is going to tear this league up for years. Keenum was only less expensive because Denver wanted him gone and were willing to pay his contract to make it happen. Smith came in and did his job, got injured, and will return to the sideline next year to play clipboard coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 20 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said: Scherff is not worth a #3 guard contract in the league, and that is where this is headed. Unless we secure multiple high picks in the 2020 draft, I would wait before I give out a huge contract. Similar to how Kirk wasnt worth what Minnesota gave him. Similar to Kirk, it was misplayed to get this far where we are talking top of the market prices as if that's how these things have to roll. They could have avoided this. But it is what it is. The franchise tag was 14 million in 2019 for the position. Wouldn't it be prudent to bite the bullet and see if they can work out a contract for that versus play the tag game all over again, rent Scherff for a season, let the tag rise higher and then either pay him a larger contract per year then they would now or let him go? The Eagles and Cowboys have killer O lines and have worked to keep them. The Giants are working on building their own version of it. If we go back to square one, it won't be fun and games for Haskins in 2020. It's not easy to in essence upgrade three positions on the O line in one off season -- let alone its a position that thrives more than most on chemistry between players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Similar to Kirk, it was misplayed to get this far where we are talking top of the market prices as if that's how these things have to roll. They could have avoided this. Im not so sure about that. Top players do not sign long term contracts with losing franchises unless they feel it is going in a positive trajectory. Would you say that you would sign a long term extension with the Skins last year or the year before if you were Sherff? They only way you keep those players when you suck is to throw out the money bags. Which, is self destructive down the line. Players go to winning franchises for less. They go to losing franchises for more. Sometimes its that simple. And sometimes players leverage their situation to convince another franchise to offer more than what they are worth. They only shot we have at keeping Sherff here at a reasonable contract is to draft quality OL, and have Haskins prove hes the real deal at the end of this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said: Im not so sure about that. Top players do not sign long term contracts with losing franchises unless they feel it is going in a positive trajectory. Would you say that you would sign a long term extension with the Skins last year or the year before if you were Sherff? They only way you keep those players when you suck is to throw out the money bags. Which, is self destructive down the line. Players go to winning franchises for less. They go to losing franchises for more. Sometimes its that simple. And sometimes players leverage their situation to convince another franchise to offer more than what they are worth. They only shot we have at keeping Sherff here at a reasonable contract is to draft quality OL, and have Haskins prove hes the real deal at the end of this season. They have signed young players for long term contracts before even when they were losers. See Kerrigan among others. I just have a hard time debating what Scherff wants if its true that he's been low balled thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSSkinz Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 6 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: To be fair, AZ may have a fairly similar view on Trent. Per the rules, "Players remain in Stage Two for a minimum of one year and in Stage Three for a minimum of two years. " This is just for marijuana as it has its own set of rules and they are more lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartyPosse Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: To get Cosmi and Thomas, we'd likely need a high pick for Trent since I doubt Cosmi falls to the third. Fingers crossed. But am all in on hitting the O line hard in this draft. Same. Load up early, bring in some wildcard FA to fill in the other most needy position - CB. Guys like Jason Verrett or Trae Waynes. Hell maybe even see if we can bring back Fuller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 17 hours ago, carex said: I kind of agree with the no players dictating to the team. I mean that was what Haynesworth was trying to do to the team too and fans hated it then. And the Redskins don't actually have to know what they're turning down because they actually don't have to let the conversation get to that point Right, 2 firsts for Trent isn't enough because LALALALALA let's pretend that nothing is going on. TW is easily worth what Tunsil got and I'm sure that the Redskins were offered similar first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 6 hours ago, SkinsFTW said: Right, 2 firsts for Trent isn't enough because LALALALALA let's pretend that nothing is going on. TW is easily worth what Tunsil got and I'm sure that the Redskins were offered similar first. what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 I doubt they can get two 1's for Trent. But everyone and their grandmother just about who has asked around in the NFL have said a first rounder worst case and more likely a first and change. Schefter, Laconfora, Garafalo, Rapoport, Casserly. I think we got two competing narratives and I hope the answer is A not B. A. They are just leveraging the market to the hilt right until the trading dead line with the hope that more injuries would amp the trading market. B. Get the last laugh on Trent money wise by eventually forcing him (not literally but they know Trent doesn't want to lose a full season) to come back in time for him to be vested for the season. They waive no fines and Trent loses for the hold out. Maybe there is a C but doesn't sound like it -- that would be they waive the fines and pay Trent and try to make nice and make bygones bygones. Some beat guys (I agree with them) think B is a major lose lose because forgetting the opportunity cost of losing a chance to pick up a high pick or two -- they also bring back a disgruntled Trent back to the locker room who might do the same song and dance next year. That's D. Hall's narrative too from after talking to Trent. 16 hours ago, goskins10 said: For me this goes back to the entire culture thing Lombardi discussed. When you are building a team you select the guys that fit your identity - your culture. You pay them. It at least appears to me that with Bruce and of course Dan is that it's all individual moving pieces. There is no sense of team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmania123 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Seriously? While it is true the "Redskins do not equal culture and winning football" But a variation of this deciphered coming out of the mouth of Clinton-Dix? It is a joke. He exemplified the play of a losing team. He did not do one thing to elevate our secondary. Guy couldn't cover my grandmother; He missed tackles, he missed assignments. Were we actually thinking of bringing him back? Look I do not disagree with the statement but when it comes from guys like this? I think we all learned rather quickly and unfortunately why the Packers let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 How well Clinton Dix played for the Redskins really has nothing to do with what he’s saying though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: How well Clinton Dix played for the Redskins really has nothing to do with what he’s saying though. Yeah exactly. But even if I played along with Clinton-Dix stinking is a key point then we were the dummies that traded a 4th rounder for the dude. What trade has Vinny or Bruce won in the mix of all their deals? I'd go for Vinny -- Moss for Coles. for Bruce is getting low draft picks in return for their failing veterans, that's about it. Clinton-Dix according to a Bears reporter has played well for them. But I agree he was mediocre here. Landon Collins is one of his best friends yet he decided to sign with the Bears even though Collins was in the fold here first. My point with that post is it would be nice one day to hear a player wants to play here because they are winners and have a winning culture and to that point I was parlaying off of @goskins10 post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmania123 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 54 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: How well Clinton Dix played for the Redskins really has nothing to do with what he’s saying though. Okay...... once again I did not say what he said was wrong. What I am saying, and let me be clear, he is hardly a player that I think can talk about a winning or losing culture because he adds nothing to a winning culture. Period. In fact you could easily say he added onto the continued losing culture that is part of the Redskins. He was horrible in our secondary. He missed tackles, dropped easy INT's, missed assignments, etc. That is my point NOT that the culture of Redskins is healthy. It is well established at least from my perspective that our FO is a **** show. A guy like our rookie Terry McLaurin, however comes in, shuts his mouth and plays very focused and never says anything except I just want to play better to make things easier for Case. Now you could easily say, when you have multiple players like this the culture changes. Of course if you go quantum physics here maybe that is not going work after all...lol! but I believe players can help change the culture of a team. How about those Patriots who are known to use up players at a phenomenal rate? They have a system that they place players into. Not the other way around. If the player bucks the system, if they draw unnecessary attention, resist coaching, if they complain or they want too much money, they simply move on from them. Now if the Patriots were a losing franchise they would be completely torn apart by the media, every move would be criticized by their fans, and how they use players in their "system." They would be discussed right along side the Skins as a losing franchise. But that is not the case because everyone stays in their lane. Kraft when necessary steps into football operations, and discusses personnel decision with Belichick like letting go of Brown. But other then that, he is out of it. He leaves the GM/coaching decisions to Belichick. We all know the problem with the Skins, but winning changes everything doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 HaHa declined a long term contract only because he thought the offer was lower than what he is actually worth. He took a 1-year deal with Chicago as a bet on himself to prove that he is worth more. Chicago should be 0-2 if not for the refs giving them the game against Denver. Nothing he says has any merit here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 3 hours ago, carex said: what? He's just pointing out the front front offices continuing ineptitude for blowing the opportunity that the Texans presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhans76 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 HaHa left besides having college friends on this team. That was his choice, he is just talking up his current team. Over analysis paralysis is a real thing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 22 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: Not sure what else he has to prove? He's their highest rated O lineman via PFF, he's become a perennial pro bowler. He's not as good as Q. Nelson or Zach Martin but he's not a mile behind. If we are going to lose both Trent and Scherff then we basically become the 2016-2017 Giants, a joke of an O line. In my view, when you have good young players, you have to pay at least some of them. The Eagles are good at preempting their younger stars hitting FA and reupping before the market gets out of whack -- save Wentz. Here IMO at least make him a competitive offer. So far I've just heard low ball offers. He is a good player. But he is a holding penalty waiting to happen. He needs to clean up his game quite a bit. Plus he has already lost the better part of a season to injury. Not saying the guy is injury prone like Trent is. But you add up a season ender and the holding calls and he isnt a 14 Mill per year guard IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.