Welcome to the Redskins Chase Young DE Ohio State

[IrepDC]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Which is exactly where they'd be if they hadn't traded them.  They were going to have resign them as FAs or let them walk and draft replacements.

 

Your acting like these two guys are signed to long(er) term contracts.  Which isn't the case.  They likely will have the potential to resign one of both of them at the end of the season if they want, just like they would have if they would have kept them.

If one or both hits FA and the Commanders sign them, that's exceptional planning, and I will give credit to Harris. I doubt it happens. I wouldn't be surprised if one ended up a Packer though. The rest of the league is loading up on edge rushers.

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

If one or both hits FA and the Commanders sign them, that's exceptional planning, and I will give credit to Harris. I doubt it happens. I wouldn't be surprised if one ended up a Packer though. The rest of the league is loading up on edge rushers.

 

Why does one have to end up a Commander?  If some team(s) signs them to bad contracts and the Commanders sing somebody to a reasonable contract and good contract or use the 2nd and/or 3rd picks to get quality a quality edge rusher is that also not good planning?

 

Or if it turns out they already have quality people at that position on the roster and can sue the resources to get players to fill some of their many holes you talked about?  Isn't that also good planning?

Edited November 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[cboatner]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Your logic is flawed. League wide perception of Young among people actually IN the league was pretty low. Remember we tried to trade him around draft time too, and nobody bit. And even after a fairly productive start to the season, he still only garnered a 3rd. This isn't the Texans trading prime Deandre Hopkins for a 2nd. Fans and the media think a lot more highly of Young than those actually in the know.

 

And yes, while our DL is/was a strength, it wasn't enough of a strength to justify paying FOUR guys. You mention the 49ers and Eagles, but the 9ers traded one of their star DTs, replaced him with a 1st round pick, and that pick has turned out to be disappointing. The Eagles watched Hargrave walk away(ironically to those same 9ers)because they couldn't justify paying another DT. If our DL was truly dominating games then I'm sure we would have found a way to pay them all, but they weren't. Neither Young nor Sweat have ever had a double digit sack season. We paid the guys who have performed in Allen and Payne and salvaged some value out of the other two. Now we can allocate those resources to building a more well rounded roster. You also don't saddle the new coach/GM with a couple DEs that he may or may not want and the headache of the franchise tag or letting them walk for nothing. Give them draft picks and more cap space to let them shape the team how they see fit.

https://bitly.ws/Zboe

 

"Washington Commanders coaches 'saw Chase Young as an undisciplined player with bad habits' before trading defensive end to the 49ers"

 

Reminds me of Lavar Arrogance.

[IrepDC]

24 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Bro. You are 2-5 and have lost to Atlanta, the raiders, broncos and beat the Saints by ONE point. Tell me all about that impeccable roster building. We picked a better QB in the 5th round than you have starting right now after trading a 1st ballot HOF QB because he was the answer....Imepccable....🤡

Packers have one bad season and you think our roster is bad. We will snag a top pick if need be and turn them into a star. We have one of 5 youngest rosters in the league. Packers timed Love's development years with the rest of the roster. Packers got 3 2nds and a 1st round pick in our two trades. We got more value for a nearly 30 year old journeymen DB than Commanders got for a 24 year old number 2 overall pick trending up.

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why does one have to end up a Commander?  If some team(s) signs them to bad contracts and the Commanders sing somebody to a reasonable contract and good contract or use the 2nd and/or 3rd picks to get quality a quality edge rusher is that also not good planning?

 

Or if it turns out they already have quality people at that position on the roster and can sue the resources to get players to fill some of their many holes you talked about?  Isn't that also good planning?

None of those things is Washington.

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

None of those things is Washington.

 

I'm not sure what that means.  To me these trades weren't Washington.  When was the last time we traded soon to be FAs during the season?

 

Certainly, over the years they FO hasn't made good decisions, and even things like this draft I don't/didn't think were good.  Not getting an OL in the 1st 2 rounds was a mistake and I said it after the draft.

 

And I'm not sure I would have traded both Sweat and Young, but I think trading at least one made a lot of sense.  And if neither was willing to negotiate a reasonable longer term contract during the season, then I don't really have an issue with this.

 

Could the FO mess this up going forward?  Yes, but it also appears to me there are plenty of out comes where this turns into a good decision.

[PeterMP]

To me, the "Washington" thing to have done would have been not trade them, and then over pay them as FAs to justify not having traded them.

[WilberMarshall]

23 hours ago, Est.1974 said:

Well I’m kinda pleased we’ve moved on. Soured on me over time. Doesn’t come across as a guy driven to be the best. 

BS.

 

He was coming off a major injury on both legs (knees). That is what made his trade value low. Not his play. 

 

The thing you all fail to understand is that this coaching crew are not good at putting their players in the best position to succeed.

Had we drafted Micah Parsons, he would have been asked to do things that are different from his strengths as a player. 

Things that make him a terror to opposing teams. When you watch the Cowboys they move him around to exploit the weakest part of the OL. 

They just task him to make plays.

 

[ntotoro]

24 minutes ago, WilberMarshall said:

He was coming off a major injury on both legs (knees). That is what made his trade value low. Not his play. 

 

His health was an issue, but his play didn't help. Win against bad Tackles, leave lanes open on the end and be out of position to tackle RB's, disappear against good Tackles (where was he against Philly?), get easily chipped by TE's... there isn't a whiff of dominance in his playing. Certainly not something that would get a high pick. Just saying "He just needs to be coached up" won't suddenly make him right.

 

See: Arrington, Lavar.

Edited November 1, 2023 by ntotoro

[Darrell Green Fan]

4 hours ago, IrepDC said:

League GMs say that to Washington because you are naive enough to buy it. SF isn't trading for Toohill. 

 

I have no idea what this even means.  The league has spoken, if Chase Young was worth more than a conditional 3rd it would have been offered. Now Washington is not forced to overpay for an average DE.  Lions recently traded the 3rd pick in the draft for a 5th. I didn't hear much criticism about that trade  and he did not have the same injury history..  

Edited November 1, 2023 by Darrell Green Fan

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, ntotoro said:

 

His health was an issue, but his play didn't help. Win against bad Tackles, leave lanes open on the end and be out of position to tackle RB's, disappear against good Tackles (where was he against Philly?), get easily chipped by TE's... there isn't a whiff of dominance in his playing. Certainly not something that would get a high pick. Just saying "He just needs to be coached up" won't suddenly make him right.

 

See: Arrington, Lavar.

I'm with you there. He needs better technique but what has stood out to me, and we've all been making this comment, is he flat out can't beat his many around the edge. How many great edge rushers have we seen that can't get the edge?  I don't see that changing too much, well until he faces our LT.  

[Darrell Green Fan]

2 hours ago, IrepDC said:

Packers have one bad season and you think our roster is bad. We will snag a top pick if need be and turn them into a star. We have one of 5 youngest rosters in the league. Packers timed Love's development years with the rest of the roster. Packers got 3 2nds and a 1st round pick in our two trades. We got more value for a nearly 30 year old journeymen DB than Commanders got for a 24 year old number 2 overall pick trending up.

None of those things is Washington.

I honestly can't understand who your team is. You kept referring to Washington players as "our players".  

 

If you are a Pack fan and can't see how Rodgers carried your team and just like with NE his replacement is inadequate I don't know what to say. The Packers are not a good team.  And you need to stop referring to Washington as the same old Washington that teams will work.  This is will be an entirely different organization from the top on down.  

[IrepDC]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I have no idea what this even means.  The league has spoken, if Chase Young was worth more than a conditional 3rd it would have been offered. Now Washington is not forced to overpay for an average DE.  Lions recently traded the 3rd pick in the draft for a 5th. I didn't hear much criticism about that trade  and he did not have the same injury history..  

I already gave you a direct quote from NFL Network. You don't know what it means because you've buried your head in the sand. Packers will be picking ahead of your Chase Young pick with a pick we got for Rasul Douglas. You're the league chump.

[petey hodge]

On 12/29/2019 at 10:06 PM, Cooleyfan1993 said:

I’ll laugh so hard if this thread backfired and the giants end up picking him 😂😂😂 

 

with that being said, i do hope he’s the pick. I’d love that so much 

This... didnt age well.

🤣

[Simmsy]

I was hoping for at least a 5th rounder and I wasn't even expecting to get that for Young. We got a good deal and dodged a bullet, if you ask me. No more worrying about Chase, he's not our problem anymore.

[Darrell Green Fan]

13 hours ago, IrepDC said:

I already gave you a direct quote from NFL Network. You don't know what it means because you've buried your head in the sand. Packers will be picking ahead of your Chase Young pick with a pick we got for Rasul Douglas. You're the league chump.

You think I don't know what it means when you said that it was reported on the NFL Network that GMs were surprised they gave Young away for a 3rd?  Now you are just trolling, be better than that.  I understood what was said, the problem I have is why you do not understand what I have been saying.  

 

Again the market determined what Chase Young was worth, it was a 3rd round pick and there is a reason for that. Other teams watch him too, they are well aware of his injury history as well.  So the team's options were:

 

Keep a player the coaches were down on because he does not follow his assignment and continue down the road to nowhere in a lost season and risk losing him in the offseason for nothing depending on the comp pics which will be determined after all the offseason signings..  

 

Trade him for the best deal offered which was a 3rd.  

 

If they retained him after the lost season then what? 

 

Overpay a player who has an injury history, fails to stick to his assignment and is out of position and has 14 sacks in 34 games?  Let me help you with the math, Chase has averaged 7 sacks in an expanded 17 game season. As I have carefully explained had they retained Young and Sweat they would have had a cap hit of over $50 million for 4 players who have proven collectively to just not be that good.  That is far more cap money to the DL than Philly or SF which were your examples. Even if they just retained Chase that's easily $40 M in cap space for 3 DL players who have not been that productive. . Again you can get Chase's numbers from a player on a far less expensive contract who will actually follow his assignment and not leave gaping holes.

 

Franchise him which again would be an overpay and only kicks the problem down the road.

 

Lose him in free agency. We don't even know now if they will get a comp pick depending on the offseason signings, at best it will be the same 3rd round comp a year later which turns that value into the end of the 4rh round. .Given their cap space and number of holes on the roster there's a better chance than not that they receive no comp pick and lose him for nothing 

 

That's it, that's the list. Tell me with your vast football knowledge which option you would choose for the team and why?

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Darrell Green Fan

[Warhead36]

18 hours ago, cboatner said:

https://bitly.ws/Zboe

 

"Washington Commanders coaches 'saw Chase Young as an undisciplined player with bad habits' before trading defensive end to the 49ers"

 

Reminds me of Lavar Arrogance.

He's not even Lavar. At least Lavar had a dominant stretch of 2-3 seasons. He fell off after he got hurt but 2000-2002 Lavar was an absolute stud and he looked to be returning to that form in 2004 under Gregg Williams before he got hurt and then was never the same after that.

[IrepDC]

16 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I have no idea what this even means. 

 

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

You think I don't know what it means when you said that it was reported on the NFL Network that GMs were surprised they gave Young away for a 3rd?  Now you are just trolling, be better than that.  I understood what was said, the problem I have is why you do not understand what I have been saying. 

 

You're trolling yourself. I responded to YOU stating you don't know what it means. Poor Commanders fans talking in circles trying to rationalize getting abused. The league consensus is Commanders were losers on trade deadline day. They don't call you losers when you get market value. All the hypothetical scenarios that you make up to justify creating a huge hole out of a strength is grasping at straws. I understand it's the only way to feel better about getting chumped again.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by IrepDC

[Darrell Green Fan]

16 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

 

You're trolling yourself. I responded to YOU stating you don't know what it means. Poor Commanders fans talking in circles trying to rationalize getting abused. The league consensus is Commanders were losers on trade deadline day. They don't call you losers when you get market value. All the hypothetical scenarios that you make up to justify creating a huge hole out of a strength is grasping at straws. I understand it's the only way to feel better about getting chumped again.

 

 

 

I have taken the time to explain all of their options. I'll ask again, which option should they have taken in your opinion and why do you feel this way?  

 

Save the insults and answer the question.  

[IrepDC]

3 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I have taken the time to explain all of their options. I'll ask again, which option should they have taken in your opinion and why do you feel this way?  

 

Save the insults and answer the question.  

Where did I insult you? I have been responding and gave you evidence from other GMs to back my stance and shut down yours. If you want to believe the Commanders are doing a good job, go right ahead. No one is worried about the Commanders resurgence. 

[IrepDC]

19 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure what that means.  To me these trades weren't Washington.  When was the last time we traded soon to be FAs during the season?

 

Certainly, over the years they FO hasn't made good decisions, and even things like this draft I don't/didn't think were good.  Not getting an OL in the 1st 2 rounds was a mistake and I said it after the draft.

 

And I'm not sure I would have traded both Sweat and Young, but I think trading at least one made a lot of sense.  And if neither was willing to negotiate a reasonable longer term contract during the season, then I don't really have an issue with this.

 

Could the FO mess this up going forward?  Yes, but it also appears to me there are plenty of out comes where this turns into a good decision.

Trading one did make sense. Getting a high 2nd for Sweat was a good deal- although another 4th or 5th would have been nice. But after getting that good value, Harris had to keep making splash moves, trading Young for essentially a 4th. That was moronic and league consensus is that we made a bad deal. The slander campaign starting immediately after was equally as moronic for a team trying to change the culture. I don't have the energy to explain why good organizations don't do that. The FO didn't do this. It was Harris. First sign he is a headlines guy and not a winning team guy.

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

Trading one did make sense. Getting a high 2nd for Sweat was a good deal- although another 4th or 5th would have been nice. But after getting that good value, Harris had to keep making splash moves, trading Young for essentially a 4th. That was moronic and league consensus is that we made a bad deal. The slander campaign starting immediately after was equally as moronic for a team trying to change the culture. I don't have the energy to explain why good organizations don't do that. The FO didn't do this. It was Harris. First sign he is a headlines guy and not a winning team guy.

 

I don't care about the league consensus.  Realistically, you don't know the league consensus.  It isn't like anybody in the actual league is saying too much about what they think.  At best you're getting the talking heads consensus which is meaningless.   

 

How do you know it was Harris?  Especially the trashing the guy (and I agree that was stupid and looks bad).  That isn't something the Sixers have a history of doing.  And the Sixers, while not having won a championship, have won.  He certainly doesn't appear to be a Jerry Jones , a Tom Benson, or a Bill Veeck.

 

At this point in time, you just seem to be making things up to fit your narrative.  

[ntotoro]

19 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

Trading one did make sense. Getting a high 2nd for Sweat was a good deal- although another 4th or 5th would have been nice. But after getting that good value, Harris had to keep making splash moves, trading Young for essentially a 4th. That was moronic and league consensus is that we made a bad deal.

 

I'm still struggling with this "league consensus" bit.

 

There are opinions, anecdotes and stories, but where is this league consensus? What GM's? What teams' officials? I have yet to see or hear any FO employees of any team saying "Yeah... the Commanders got fleeced in that deal and will continue to have problems under this new owner."

 

The team wanted to move on, they'd likely lose him in the postseason, anyway and Chase hasn't been a difference-making player. There is nothing that gives any indication Harris was involved with any bad-mouthing with Chase's departure. It hasn't been his MO. That would likely be holdovers from the previous ownership who know their days are numbered.

Edited November 2, 2023 by ntotoro

[IrepDC]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't care about the league consensus.  Realistically, you don't know the league consensus.  It isn't like anybody in the actual league is saying too much about what they think.  At best you're getting the talking heads consensus which is meaningless.   

 

How do you know it was Harris?  Especially the trashing the guy (and I agree that was stupid and looks bad).  That isn't something the Sixers have a history of doing.  And the Sixers, while not having won a championship, have won.  He certainly doesn't appear to be a Jerry Jones , a Tom Benson, or a Bill Veeck.

 

At this point in time, you just seem to be making things up to fit your narrative.  

 

1 minute ago, ntotoro said:

 

I'm still struggling with this "league consensus" bit.

 

There are opinions, anecdotes and stories, but where is this league consensus? What GM's? What teams' officials? I have yet to see or hear any FO employees of any team saying "Yeah... the Commanders got fleeced in that deal and will continue to have problems under this new owner."

 

The team wanted to move on, they'd likely lose him in the postseason, anyway and Chase hasn't been a difference-making player. There is nothing that gives any indication Harris was involved with any bad-mouthing with Chase's departure. It hasn't been his MO. That would likely be holdovers from the previous ownership who know their days are numbered.

I gave the specific NFL Network show where I heard the league consensus- the Insiders. The commentators specifically said "GMs around the league" so I guess you could say they are making up things to fit my narrative, but why would they lie about that? They also explained these moves came from the ownership so that's why I pinned it to Harris. I guess you believe they are just making up stories on the network dedicated to sharing league insights. That's your free will but don't act like I'm making things up because I pay attention. 

[ntotoro]

Just now, IrepDC said:

 

I gave the specific NFL Network show where I heard the league consensus- the Insiders. The commentators specifically said "GMs around the league" so I guess you could say they are making up things to fit my narrative, but why would they lie about that? They also explained these moves came from the ownership so that's why I pinned it to Harris. I guess you believe they are just making up stories on the network dedicated to sharing league insights. That's your free will but don't act like I'm making things up because I pay attention. 

 

So... unnamed sources. That is not a league consensus, that's not even anyone going on-record. Harris did tell the FO to do something, at the counsel of his new analytics hire. That isn't the same thing as trashing a guy going out the door. 

[IrepDC]

Just now, ntotoro said:

 

So... unnamed sources. That is not a league consensus, that's not even anyone going on-record. Harris did tell the FO to do something, at the counsel of his new analytics hire. That isn't the same thing as trashing a guy going out the door. 

If you think they made up quotes from GMs, that's your prerogative. I don't see what benefits they'd have to lie. They were discussing the entire trade deadline and they don't even have personal ties to Washington. Stepping back and looking at the Commanders objectively, I'm seeing clearly how fans have to bury their head in the sand to rationalize being a league chump. To me this week showed that Washington will continue to be a farm team for real NFL franchises under Harris.