Owls0325

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Finlay is on the radio right now.  He thinks Bruce saying the "contract he has" is the operative statement.  In other words, he is stressing his current contract as opposed to changing it.  Finlay is in the camp that he thinks its both the medical and the contract in the overall soup.  He hasn't heard that Trent asked to be traded.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


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

Finlay is on the radio right now.  He thinks Bruce saying the "contract he has" is the operative statement.  In other words, he is stressing his current contract as opposed to changing it.  Finlay is in the camp that he thinks its both the medical and the contract in the overall soup.  He hasn't heard that Trent asked to be traded.  

 

I may be in the minority here but I like Bruce's initial comments in this instance.

 

Some mileage to go on this one, interesting to see what comes next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland has a gaping hole at LT. 

They think they are close, may be worth exploring if TW really pushes our limits.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

How many things need to happen before we get rid of the medical staff?

whos to say we haven't many times over? who keeps up with the medical staff? Name some names

 

 

Edited by Gibbit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LightningBuggs said:

Bruce did a lot of deflecting there. And never once said “he’ll be here” or “we’ll get this worked out”. 

 

My feeling now is that this divide is not recoverable. Hope I’m wrong. 

 

He said Kirk would be back.

 

Bruce could tell me the sky is blue and I'd question it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

whos to say we haven't many times over? who keeps up with the medical staff? Name some names

 

 

Robin West, she was appointed in 2016 to the head of the Redskins medical staff. Larry Hess has been the head athletic training for us for a long time. BOOOOM. I am not familiar with the others, but those are the two leaders of health and training staff.

Share this post


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

I believe it was Art that had a thread that kept a running tally of his gaffes, errors, and mistakes, and it was a long, looonnnng list. :)

 

Actually, I think Art's thread was on Nunyo DeMasio - The Nunyo DeMasio Files. Someone (I have forgotten whom) had a sig that said "I wouldn't pee on Nunyo Demasio if he were on fire."

Share this post


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

Robin West, she was appointed in 2016 to the head of the Redskins medical staff. Larry Hess has been the head athletic training for us for a long time. BOOOOM. I am not familiar with the others, but those are the two leaders of health and training staff.

so its been two years of this ****....seems a lot longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gibbit said:

so its been two years of this ****....seems a lot longer

Its likely a coincidence that Robin West started and things went down hill as she is on the medical staff, I assume most of the injury issues should be on the athletic trainers but I could be wrong. Other teams arent having this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

whos to say we haven't many times over? who keeps up with the medical staff? Name some names

 

 

image.jpeg.0f2c037e92a1cf2174f67f1e1af06727.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Its likely a coincidence that Robin West started and things went down hill as she is on the medical staff, I assume most of the injury issues should be on the athletic trainers but I could be wrong. Other teams arent having this problem.

all you can do is compare them to previous staff and their injury records. Have to throw coaches in there too

 

Edited by Gibbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked Football Outsiders and I look to be mistaken. Our adjusted games lost for 2016 and 2015 were also among the 5 worst both years. I dont know how we keep our head trainer after this many years of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

How many things need to happen before we get rid of the medical staff?

 

Without knowing specifics, it is hard to say if the medical staff should be replaced.  But the Inova doctors were brought in when Inova signed a 10 year facility naming rights deal in 2016.  So, I think it is safe to assume that Inova expects to have "bragging rights" saying that they are the ones that the team trusts when it comes to treating the Redskins players until 2026 or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

He said Kirk would be back.

 

Bruce could tell me the sky is blue and I'd question it.

 

Correction. He said Kurt would be back. 😛

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The thing is the "media" and "reports" isn't just one person. And they can be easily exaggerated in retrospect.  For example the Tomusla story had context to it from some reporters -- some said he was leaning towards retirement if Manusky is let go.  Well, Manusky wasn't let go. Some said he "might".  That again doesn't mean for sure.   The Synder taking over the first round, was one reporter saying it, with other reporters saying Dan won't push a trade up but wants Haskins if he lands at their pick.  So it's not like most of these reporters had egg on their face on that one.

 

The locals disputed Russini's report about the draft.  As for the Jay report, that was the Junkies pushing that narrative.  Other reporters including Keim and Hoffman said Jay's input was being weighed in FA, he just doesn't have final say and didn't learn about the Collins signing until it was done.    It depends on what narrative you follow.  

 

As for Trent just about every local beat guy has said they think Trent and the team end up working things out.  It's Laconfora pushing he wants out no matter what but even he in a radio interview said they have time to work things out.  What's the outcome of this?  Who knows.  But if there is nothing to the story then Trent seems so far at least is willing to let it ride anyway because he and his agent aren't commenting on it.  So will see.

 

If you listen to 10 narratives from 10 different reporters, 1-2 are bound to be wrong.  But by osmosis it doesn't make the other 8-9 wrong, too just because their competitors in the business got it wrong.    On every story you mention there were multiple reporters who had the outcome correct or close enough.  So as for Trent, I'd presume the same thing.  We haven't seen anyone yet dispute that part of the soup of Trent's dissatisfaction (Jay himself didn't dispute it) with the medical staff is part of the soup.  There is some disagreement among the ones covering the story about whether the contract is part of the soup.  Some saying yes, some saying no.

 

And if we lumping the media all together in one brush as if they are all the same.  Then if Trent really is insisting on a trade then the media will be proven wrong.  Not the reverse of that.  Considering if anything is far as I can tell the predominant narrative by most is the Redskins aren't trading Trent and Trent will work things out with the team when its all said and done.  The Trent wants out or else narrative is a Laconfora narrative backed by one radio personality.

  

 

 

 

That's why I said "initial reports" and not "all reports"...usually the initial reports are made by one or two national reporters and the local guys all start chiming in afterward, either with their opinions or what their sources are telling them now that the story has become a "thing". And far too many times those initial reports (and the initial responses by the media members covering the team) are little more than sensationalized versions of some far more bland truth. On twitter after the draft, someone was trying to call out the local sports media--Sheehan and Russell by name--for buying in on the idea of Snyder taking over the 1st round. Some other guy on twitter started chastising the first guy and saying that he should try listening to Sheehan instead of ranting because Sheehan made it known that he didn't buy the story. I corrected him and said Sheehan definitely believed it to be true lol...and when I did, Sheehan responded to my tweet and basically said "Yep, I believed it. Still do."

 

Gruden did have a legitimate voice in free agency...Tomsula was not chomping at the bit to be released so that he could escape the "dumpster fire", he wasn't under contract to begin with...Snyder's son and Haskins didn't go to high school together...and I highly doubt Trent Wiliams is asking to be traded due to his dislike/distrust of the Redskins' medical staff. The truth is rarely as bold and out-there as initial reports want us to believe. Same with contract details lol...you'd think we would all learn this by now and just wait around for awhile before reaching any conclusions. We need a version of "Remember Osaka" for twitter rumors lol...

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:
 

 

 

He did lol...

 

 

02prince-1-facebookJumbo.jpg

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 5
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's all about ZERO GUARANTEED $$$$$$for the next 2 seasons, NO way can he or anyone blame it on the medical staff period!

Edited by hailmary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, imagine getting a 1st for Trent. That would be exceptional value at his age. 

 

Also, trade Reed for a team willing to give up a first. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

That's why I said "initial reports" and not "all reports"...usually the initial reports are made by one or two national reporters and the local guys all start chiming in afterward, either with their opinions or what their sources are telling them now that the story has become a "thing". And far too many times those initial reports (and the initial responses by the media members covering the team) are little more than sensationalized versions of some far more bland truth. On twitter after the draft, someone was trying to call out the local sports media--Sheehan and Russell by name--for buying in on the idea of Snyder taking over the 1st round. Some other guy on twitter started chastising the first guy and saying that he should try listening to Sheehan instead of ranting because Sheehan made it known that he didn't buy the story. I corrected him and said Sheehan definitely believed it to be true lol...and when I did, Sheehan responded to my tweet and basically said "Yep, I believed it. Still do."

 

Gruden did have a legitimate voice in free agency...Tomsula was not chomping at the bit to be released so that he could escape the "dumpster fire", he wasn't under contract to begin with...Snyder's son and Haskins didn't go to high school together...and I highly doubt Trent Wiliams is asking to be traded due to his dislike/distrust of the Redskins' medical staff. The truth is rarely as bold and out-there as initial reports want us to believe. Same with contract details lol...you'd think we would all learn this by now and just wait around for awhile before reaching any conclusions. We need a version of "Remember Osaka" for twitter rumors lol...

 

 

The local beat guys from what I've noticed tended to be more likely correct than the national guys.  I said this on another thread, I am in a business where the media is reporting on things that directly pertain to my work. And I'd say give or take the media tends to get about 80% or so right in their story and about 20% of it wrong.  It doesn't mean that the 20% that's off negates the whole story.   Sometimes (but rarely) they'd get the story 100% wrong and sometimes (also rarely) they'd get 100% of the story right.  

 

I notice sometimes people on some threads can come off vindicated when a source they favor weighs in with their take of events.  The problem with that IMO is really there is no such thing as a definitive representation of events (unless it's purely factual like a specific numbers of a contract, etc) because someone's perspective and agenda weigh into it.   And also events evolve and opinions change.  And some people in the building might feel one way and some might feel another.

 

The reason why for example Sheehan (and he could be right about it or wrong) can stick to his story that Dan influenced the Haskins pick is likely something like this. 1.  He trusts his source who has been right about other things, too.  2. Other beat guys came on his show and backed up that same narrative but with a different twist from Russini which is there was a compromise that they wouldn't trade up but would take Haskins if he falls to 15.  3.  He doesn't expect the Redskins to admit it -- they'd be fools to do so and it would put Jay in an uncomfortable position with his likely starting QB so they'd have to create an alternative narrative.   So from his perspective there wouldn't be anything to sway him otherwise.  And please don't quote this section because my point has nothing to do with Haskins and Sheehan -- you brought it up so I ran with that as an example.  I got no clue what happened with Haskins -- I am just using this to make a point.😀

 

Now someone can come up with the opposite narrative on Haskins and totally believe it to be a fact.  And that also could be true or false.  Lets say this person in the FO who is a source says they never saw Dan anywhere near the draft room or ever talk up Haskins.  And maybe they heard other people in the building like Doug talk up Haskins.  So that source will go hey I don't know where all the nonsense is coming from, Dan had zero to do with any of this.  The source goes hey I even asked Doug about it and Doug told me Dan's not involved.  So ha, Sheehan is wrong because hey I talked to someone who works in the FO and they said that theory is nonsense.

 

Both narratives could be true.   Both sources might believe in every word they are saying and believe they have the facts.  It also could be one side manipulating the argument on purpose.  Or it could be just the source is slanting it favorably in their direction and unfavorably in another direction.  I recall Schefter one time talking ironically on Sheehan's show about why he's rarely wrong on stories.  His answer is he tries to get at least three different sources.  And he weighs in someones potential bias.   Rapoport looks like just runs with the first thing he hears and it burns him a lot. 

 

Going back to my example can both arguments have agendas?  Sure.  For example, if Dan is really involved why wouldn't Doug or whomever cover his back on it and play it down because they aren't dumb and they know there would be a crap storm if that gets out.  Also lets say could someone who is saying Dan is involved when he really isn't have an agenda too?  Sure.  They might not like Dan or maybe there is simply a fear that he might be tempted to get involved and leaking a false story will scare him away or whatever. 

 

In my own job, I can give the media my version of events.  But my version isn't the definitive version -- its just how things seem and feel to me.  And if I want to manipulate that somehow -- its very easy to do.   That's my long winded way of saying if the operative point is the press will get somethings wrong.   Yeah of course they do.  But if you get a series of stories from so many places from so many sources over a long period of time -- the general picture that is painted will be somewhat on the money.   The 20% or so they get wrong or the few stories they get all wrong doesn't negate everything else.  

 

I don't know if we got enough info to gauge things on Trent yet.  But I like to look at what do all these stories have in common?  And what we got is Trent is either upset about money or the medical team or both.  And if the story is nonsense then Trent, Jay, and Bruce are oddly doing nothing to make it clear that there is nothing to see here.  So regardless of what reporter ends up the most accurate -- they likely are giving the right vibe to the story even if the details are in question IMO.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

The local beat guys from what I've noticed tended to be more likely correct than the national guys.  I said this on another thread, I am in a business where the media is reporting on things that directly pertain to my work. And I'd say give or take the media tends to get about 80% or so right in their story and about 20% of it wrong.  It doesn't mean that the 20% that's off negates the whole story.   Sometimes (but rarely) they'd get the story 100% wrong and sometimes (also rarely) they'd get 100% of the story right.  

 

I notice sometimes people on some threads can come off vindicated when a source they favor weighs in with their take of events.  The problem with that IMO is really there is no such thing as a definitive representation of events (unless it's purely factual like a specific numbers of a contract, etc) because someone's perspective and agenda weigh into it.   And also events evolve and opinions change.  And some people in the building might feel one way and some might feel another.

 

The reason why for example Sheehan (and he could be right about it or wrong) can stick to his story that Dan influenced the Haskins pick is likely something like this. 1.  He trusts his source who has been right about other things, too.  2. Other beat guys came on his show and backed up that same narrative but with a different twist from Russini which is there was a compromise that they wouldn't trade up but would take Haskins if he falls to 15.  3.  He doesn't expect the Redskins to admit it -- they'd be fools to do so and it would put Jay in an uncomfortable position with his likely stating QB so they'd have to create an alternative narrative.   So from his perspective there wouldn't be anything to sway him otherwise.  And please don't quote this section because my point has nothing to do with Haskins and Sheehan -- you brought it up so I ran with that as an example.  I got no clue what happened with Haskins -- I am just using this to make a point.😀

 

Now someone can come up with the opposite narrative on Haskins and totally believe it to be a fact.  And that also could be true or false.  Lets say this person in the FO who is a source says they never saw Dan anywhere near the draft room or ever talk up Haskins.  And maybe they heard other people in the building like Doug talk up Haskins.  So that source will go hey I don't know where all the nonsense is coming from, Dan had zero to do with any of this.  The source goes hey I even asked Doug about it and Doug told me Dan's not involved.  So ha, Sheehan is wrong because hey I talked to someone who works in the FO and they said that theory is nonsense.

 

Both narratives could be true.   Both sources might believe in every word they are saying and believe they have the facts.  It also could be one side manipulating the argument on purpose.  Or it could be just the source is slanting it favorably in their direction and unfavorably in another direction.  I recall Schefter one time talking ironically on Sheehan's show about why he's rarely wrong on stories.  His answer is he tries to get at least three different sources.  And he weighs in someones potential bias.   Rapoport looks like just runs with the first thing he hears and it burns him a lot. 

 

Going back to my example can both arguments have agendas?  Sure.  For example, if Dan is really involved why wouldn't Doug or whomever cover his back on it and play it down because they aren't dumb and they know there would be a crap storm if that gets out.  Could someone who is saying Dan is involved when he really isn't have an agenda too?  Sure.  They might not like Dan or maybe there is simply a fear that he might be tempted to get involved and leaking a false story will scare him away or whatever. 

 

In my own job, I can give the media my version of events.  But my version isn't the definitive version -- its just how things seem and feel to me.  And if I want to manipulate that somehow -- its very easy to do.   That's my long winded way of saying if the operative point is the press will get somethings wrong.   Yeah of course they do.  But if you get a series of stories from so many places from so many sources over a long period of time -- the general picture that is painted will be somewhat on the money.   The 20% or so they get wrong or the few stories they get all wrong doesn't negate everything else.  

 

I don't know if we got enough info to gauge things on Trent yet.  But I like to look at what does all these stories have in common?  And what we got is Trent is either upset about money or the medical team or both.  And if the story is nonsense then Trent, Jay, and Bruce are oddly doing nothing to make that clear.  So regardless of what reporter ends up the most accurate.  They seem to be on the right vibe to the story even if the details are in question IMO.

Imagine Trent, Jay and Bruce in the "Hangover", which Im thinking is more accurate. Nobody remembers the truth

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 5:12 PM, HTTRDynasty said:

RG3 tweet about the Skins medical staff in 3, 2, 1...

I am all for a new contract for Trent. Make it for more $$$ but if he is hurt or hanging out with Cheech and Chong, he does not get paid at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gibbit said:

Imagine Trent, Jay and Bruce in the "Hangover", which Im thinking is more accurate. Nobody remembers the truth

 

LOL, good analogy.  Bruce after brushing his teeth with Coors Light.  😀

 

giphy.gif

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.