Spurrier takes not-so-subtle jab at Skins front office this evening

[Renegade7]

damn. ya'll in da holiday mood alright. what u guys(and girls if any) is some good eggnog and some gift wrap. people its christmas eve! agree to disagree and get off each others neck!!!

----------------------------------------

0-16, 16-0, skins fan till i die!!!

[Art]

Let's try this again.

Originally posted by Even Madder

Jesus... if you ask Art if it's raining outside, he gives you a 3-hour dissertation on weather patterns in the late middle ages.

So are you in or out?[

It would appear despite the lengthy conversation you continue to miss any particular points so perhaps I should increase the time in the hopes you'll actually pay attention, yes?

As for being in, sure, I'm in. We won't lose 8 starters which you've said is possible. We won't lose 9 starters which you've said is possible. We won't lose 11 starters which you've said is possible. Perhaps if you decided on a number we'd address it. If your number is six, no, we won't bet, because as I said, pending what happens with Bailey, I can see six happening. You figure out your numbers and let me know. But, really, pick one and stop saying the others .

OK, let's add it up for math-challenged Art: 22 starters. Minus four UFAs (Flemister, Holsey, Friedman, and Bailey). That's 18 of 22 under contract, like I said. Add one back in, because they're likely to franchise Bailey, and that's 19 of 22. YOu said 21 of 22, right?

Where was I wrong? I typed Flemister twice, but the numbers were right. Need your glasses?

Where you were/are wrong is Bailey is a restricted free agent as he'll be franchised. I asked you not to play dumb. Is it impossible for you to comply, or must you play stupid to your dying breath? We both know the status of Bailey. He's not going to be an unrestricted free agent at all. As we'll franchise him he's limited in his ability to move giving us some control over his future.

Friedman is our starter only because of injury to one of our starters. Moore is still under contract and will be our starter to start next year. As you know Moore exists again, I'll ask is it possible that you'll actually show awareness of the roster before speaking? Holsey wouldn't be our starter if Noble and Haley weren't both out with injury. But granting him and recognizing the change in Flemister's status, we're at 20 or 21 of 22 starter who are under contract or restricted in some way. It's Christmas time. You don't get another chance to be stupid.

Be smart throughout the remainder of your reply. If I can recognize my error with Flemister's status you certainly should be able to acknowledge Moore exists and that Bailey will be franchised. If you can't do that you need not to speak again.

Wait a minute -- you're saying that 20 of 22 starter are under contract/control. Who the hell are these 22 starters? If you're counting Haley and Noble and Moore and Upshaw and Fiore, who are you leaving off? Ramsey and Arrington? By my count, you've got 28 or 30 players in that 22.

Starting players are guys who would be starting if not for injury. Not all that new a concept. We've had a number of guys fill in for injured starters. Some have done a good enough job to potentially continue starting. Dockery as an example.

I refuse to believe you don't know our roster. That you've decided Friedman and apparently Hasselbeck are starters on our team is YOUR issue. Not mine.

But we don't have 20 under contract, we have 18. We have 19 under our "control". And it is disingenous to say that we have 19 under our control because you're painting a picture of continuity when you and I both know that Bruce Smith and Dalton, at very least, are also gone. That's 17 of 22 --- and the bloodletting will be worse than that.

And again, Smith isn't our starter. He was beaten out by the guy who IS our starter. Both he and the guy who beat him out are under contract. Certainly though Smith is probably gone. We hope. Dalton is under contract. I certainly don't know he's gone. I also don't know that he's a starter here for any reason other than he's filling in for one of the guys who is a starter and got hurt. But Dalton has played well enough he may well merit a starting spot. I hope he's not gone. I don't know why you think it's a done deal that he is.

We have 20 of 22 starters either under contract or under our control entering the offseason. It's 21 of 22 if you recognize Holsey is a starter only because of injury. Guys who fill in for the starters who are injured are starting, but they aren't starters. You know this. But if Hasselbeck is suddenly our starter now, then you'll have a difficult argument to make.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! We'll put Moore in at center instead of Friedman in the bet. Out of the frying pan, into the fire, my friend: the Skins aren't gonna keep a backup center making $1.3m a year.

Except he's not our backup. He's our starter. And, you can almost guarantee he'll be around next year whether we bring Friedman back to compete or not.

Huh? You're arguing that Noble, who's never taken a snap as a Redskin, is the starter? Who's starting at DB, Deion Sanders? Holsey and Dalton are the starters. I think Noble is turning into your next Rod Jones -- remember your favorite player who never took a snap as a Redskin?

Holsey was brought in as a backup. He was moved into the starting role because of injury at defensive tackle. Noble was signed to start for us. Haley to play next to him. But, as I said, I've been counting Holsey as a starter all along so, while I realize he's starting because of injury to Noble first and then Haley, I think I've already stated he's one of our starters who's completely unrestricted. Dalton is starting now because Haley is now out. I think Dalton has played well enough to maintain the starting role though.

So the bottom line is that you intend to keep negotiating the terms of this bet until I'm betting that we have 100% turnover of starters and Ramsey is promoted to GM, right?

Actually, no, EM. You have said we will lose eight, nine or 11 starters. Not me. You've been all over the place in your effort to show who's gone. I've said all along I expect a small handful of starters to be replaced with a couple moving into backup positions. I expect four or fewer to come from outside the organization. I can see six happening depending on Bailey.

Chicken, chicken, chicken. Put you money (or at least your avatar) where you mouth is, Mrs Cerrato. You say that we'll have continuity of starters -- only a "handful" of changes. So take the bet! Quit talking and do something, Art.

What I've said is we enter the offseason with the potential to have only a small handful of change to our starters. I HOPE that potential is born out. I hope the change is limited to 4 or less in terms of bringing in guys from outside the organization to start for us. Even with Bailey brought back early on I could see that increasing to six if the team makes massive moves along the defensive line, essentially changing out all four starters.

For the first offseason in years here we enter the offseason with our starting players either under contract or under our control. Even better, we've had a number of players pressed into starting duty who provide legitmate starting ability for us and increase our depth for their emergence.

What we have done in previous offseasons is make a large number of changes. We've had to because of how little continuity we've had the ability to call upon with our starting players. This year we actually resemble a team that has something to build on. Almost all of our starters -- and all of our consequential starters -- are either under contract or under our control entering the offseason. It allows us to improve where we've been weak but it allows us the potential to remain stable which is not what we've had here for some time.

There's no aspect of chicken here, EM. I don't pretend to KNOW that we're going to have little change. I hope we do. We are set up to have little change. We haven't had that potential for years. Whether we benefit from that set up or not is certainly up for debate. I doubt we'll lose eight or nine or 11 starters as you've said depending on when you've posted.

If you think that's possible, I'll make that bet. If you don't think that's possible, then we won't make that bet, obviously.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Hysterical only comes into play when there's an utterly thoughtless position or, more, a position so over the top amusing for it's inherent insanity that no other conclusion is possible. Often the case when you speak. Sometimes when EM speaks. Just not here.

Art you just don't get it do you :doh:

Come on think, real hard and maybe, just maybe you will understand why I said that, I know you can. :laugh:

[Even Madder]

We've got a team that can, should we chose, be largely held together this year.

we are looking at the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters.

That’s what you said to start this game. I replied, in essence, that you’re wrong and the Skins will see 30-50% turnover this year. I offered to bet you that a minimum of 6 of the 22 starters (about 30%) will change next year. You’re ducking, Mrs Cerrato, and you’re ducking because you know I’m right and you’re wrong.

As for being in, sure, I'm in. We won't lose 8 starters which you've said is possible. We won't lose 9 starters which you've said is possible. We won't lose 11 starters which you've said is possible. Perhaps if you decided on a number we'd address it. If your number is six, no, we won't bet, because as I said, pending what happens with Bailey, I can see six happening. You figure out your numbers and let me know. But, really, pick one and stop saying the others

Coward! You're ducking the bet. The bet never changed. You know it, I know it, and anyone reading this thread knows two things: (1) you're demonstrably wrong but have some sort of psychological imparement that prevents you from acknowledging it, and (2) you're too much of a coward to put your avatar on the line for your so-called “facts”. I said from the start that a minimum of 6 starters will change, which you disagreed with, but apparently now see the error of your ways. I did lay out several scenarios where more than 6 change, but you know that had nothing to do with the bet. Stop ducking.

I said (and have never changed):

quote:

Here's the bet: if the Skins change more than 6 starters, you change your avatar to Mrs. Cerrato to reflect your, shall we say, somewhat unnatural love for the pool boy. You can pick anything you like for me if it doesn't happen.

You replied (but are now equivocating):

I might just take this bet but we'd have to agree on what defines changing starters, pointing naturally to Dockery and Fiore, Moore and Friedmann, Royal/Chamberlin and Flemister, Upshaw and Smith, even Russell and Holsey MAYBE.

If you're talking about changes from outside the organization in the form of draft picks or free agents we might have a good bet to make. If we're talking about internal changes then we're tapping the continuity I expect to see us tap and I wouldn't think that's the same thing.

So now you’re getting cold feet? I guess it’s because you agree with me: 6 new starters is the absolute minimum we’ll see this offseason. I told you that 5 of those will be totally new, and the other one will be a radical change, like a Bauman for Bailey, which will certainly not be a “continuity” move. i gifted you all those so-called starters of yours. You’ve gotten everything you want, so now either admit you’re wrong or take the bet, Mrs. Cerrato.

Let’s go back to the start and review:

Offensively all 11 of our starters are under contract. This is a team that is being put together to compete over time. The success we've had in identifying players we want, and then getting them is unmatched in football. It wasn't a mistake to surrender the picks we did for the players we did this offseason.

This is wrong. I've proven it, and you still pretend it's true. Friedman and Flemister are starters, and they’re both UFAs. So that’s 9 of 11, not 11 of 11. Was that a rounding error? Obviously math is not your strong suit. But you can’t even admit you’re wrong about obvious facts – that’s the psychological problem we’ve been talking about.

If you agree that a minimum of 6 of 22 starters will change, then you admit you were wrong. Two choices now: take the bet (and the bet is clear) or admit you’re wrong. No more long boring dissertations: just one of the other. Which will it be?

If you refuse, everyone will know you’re either (a) a coward who talks but won’t back it up, or ( a fool who’s too stubborn to admit when he’s wrong.

[chiefhogskin48]

This certainly is an interesting bet. I've been following the thread and I believe the terms are now pretty clear.

Let the wisest man win.

Though if I were Art, I might change the terms a bit because there could be many changes in the offseason, whether people are under contract or not.

[fuji869]

Does not surprise me one bit what Spurrier said. Mr. Snyder had brought this orgainzation down. :doh:

But some people think he is a great owner.

IMPEACH DANIEL SNYDER!!!!!

[Even Madder]

This certainly is an interesting bet. I've been following the thread and I believe the terms are now pretty clear.

Chief, it's gonna be interesting. This could go either way.

On one hand, the Skins don't have a lot of cap room until they figure out what to do with Champ, which could take a while. Franchising him will eat up $6m or so of cap room. That's gonna limit them in free agency, and they aren't real good at finding starters in the draft.

But they also have obvious holes to fill at every position along the DL, at TE, at RB, and at S.

Art doesn't think the Skins should or will "blow up" the roster. The Skins did blow up the roster last year -- cutting their starting RB, losing both their starting DTs, and finding new stars at WR, OG, K, and KR. Interestingly, from the end of last season to the start of this season, the Skins changed 7 starters (Thomas, Fiore/Dockery, Coles, both DTs, Bowen, Canidate). So the only way I win is if the Skins blow it up again.

Art's betting on continuity. Not exactly the hallmark of this team, but, hell, it's his avatar.

[Even Madder]

Where ya hiding, Mrs. Cerrato?

[Art]

Sorry, EM, having devoted family time sometimes saps my abilities here .

But, let's go ahead and reply because you seem to need it.

The fact is whether we change NO players or whether we change all 22 starters this offseason, in no way does that alter the factual basis under which the statement was made. We enter this offseason with 21 of 22 (if you exclude Holsey and give the nod to Noble or Haley) or 20 of 22 (if you don't) starters either under contract or under our control.

We have the vast potential to FINALLY achieve stability with this team by making only a small number of changes. This is not a potential we've had in years because of the change around this organization. While I predict the number of changes will be small, and I hope we use the potential we have to finally achieve some stability, I've said repeatedly in this thread I can see that number rising DESPITE the potential for it not to.

I don't see the number reaching eight or nine or 11 as you've mentioned at various times in this thread. I agree it could reach six. And while that would be against my prediction of four or fewer from outside the organization, the fact is, it could happen and whether it happens, or whether we swap out eight, nine or 11, that doesn't alter the fact that we enter the offseason with the potential to make only a small number of changes because we have all but one or two (Flemister and Holsey) under contract or control.

So, let's now be clear on the bet.

You wrote:

That’s what you said to start this game. I replied, in essence, that you’re wrong and the Skins will see 30-50% turnover this year. I offered to bet you that a minimum of 6 of the 22 starters (about 30%) will change next year. You’re ducking, Mrs Cerrato, and you’re ducking because you know I’m right and you’re wrong.

Yes, that's exactly what I said at the beginning. And you should recognize that whether we change our 30-50 percent of our starters the statements remain true. We have the potential NOT to which is not a potential we've had in years. So, what I've said is we have the potential due to the number of players under contract or control to have a light offseason of change, I haven't excluded the possibility of a heavy one. I hope it doesn't happen. I even think it won't predicting a light one. You have flatly responded that we WILL change 30 to 50 percent.

You have so flatly said this change WILL occur and you'd like to bet, so you've come up with the number 6 of 22. Of course, that's not 30 percent. It's not between 30 percent and 50 percent. So, you said it will be between 30 and 50 and that you want to bet, but you won't even come up with a number that REPRESENTS 30 to 50 percent change?

Do you see how difficult it is for me to play with you EM?

You are so sure we'll have 30 to 50 percent change among our starters that you want to bet we'll have less than 30 percent, which six of 22 is. And, hell, we can add kicker and punter as well to make it 24 starters (hoping with you that Barker is one of the changes).

While it IS true that you might be right that we'll have roster turnover between 30 and 50 percent among our starters, that doesn't mean I'm wrong that we have the potential, finally, to have very little change due to the contracts and planning we've demonstrated the last two years.

I MIGHT be wrong that we'll only have four or so changes. I can see that number even hitting six. What I can't see is it hitting the 30 percent barrier you've mentioned. I can't see it rising above that barrier and going to 50 percent. I'm MORE than happy to bet that with you, though there's little question you could be correct.

I've predicted four changes or fewer to our starters from outside our organization. You've predicted 30 to 50 percent. So, if we're going to bet, you're going to come up with the number that falls between 30 percent and 50 percent and we'll bet it. Six, however, is not that number.

Seven might be if we're dealing with 22 starters and we don't add in kicker and punter. Eight would be the number if we add in kicker and punter. If you're going to be right, at least BET the thresholds you've set. Don't come in at "about 30%" and wonder at why I don't find you to be all that bright.

You wrote:

Here's the bet: if the Skins change more than 6 starters, you change your avatar to Mrs. Cerrato to reflect your, shall we say, somewhat unnatural love for the pool boy. You can pick anything you like for me if it doesn't happen.

And I've answered repeatedly. I can see six happening. I know we have the potential for fewer given the way we have the contracts laid out. But I could see six happening. What I can't see happening is 30 to 50 percent. I think it'll be LESS than six if we bring Bailey back. Though I could see it being six even if we do now that Arrington has signed especially. I just think it'll be less. And for certain we have the potential for less given how we have the contracts laid out.

As I've said all along, I'm MORE than willing to bet your belief the roster will change between 30 and 50 percent among the starters. I'm NOT willing to bet UNDER 30 percent which is the number you've picked because that seems pretty reasonable about the possibilities here.

I'd even be willing to say if the number is four or less from outside the organization among our starters then I win. If the number is five or six, then neither of us do as five is a big handful and six is less than 30 percent but more than a handful. Seven or more you can win. Because at least seven falls under your belief of 30 to 50 percent.

I'm not confused that you've said six is the bet all along. I agree you have. And you should agree I have said I won't bet six because I can see it happening. What I can't see happening is what you've said is possible. That being 30 to 50 percent roster turnover among the starters. If you want to bet what you said, let me know. If you don't, I'd advise you to stop confusing yourself.

As I've agreed all along in this thread, while we have the potential for a very mild offseason of change -- and where we might even improve AND move a starter to the bench for better depth as well -- six is a very reasonable number to think is possible given the factors surrounding this team.

I HOPE it's not six. I hope it's four or fewer. I predict it will be just that. I know we have the potential this offseason to do JUST that. No matter how much change we realize, that doesn't alter the potential we have.

If we choose to exercise that I think we'll be far better off than a ton of changes. I think you could be right that we might see up to six changes. I think you are wrong that we'll see 30 to 50 percent change. I think I could be right that we'll see four or fewer changes.

I hope I've captured everything.

[codeorama]

My personal feeling is that the majority of changes should occur on defense and they should be adding D line and role player that don't have the ego's that some of our "star" players have.

[Art]

Code,

Where we're picking make make it necessary to seriously consider a tight end with our first-round pick. As terrible a thing as that would be it could be the only thing available to us if Taylor is gone and given this may not prove to be a very good draft for the defensive line.

But, you're right that the majority of what change comes needs to come with the defensive line. I'm not a huge Wistrom fan, but he or Kearse would seem to give us something of a threat from the outside. I think we have to make a move LIKE that with free agency to assure we address the area. We have to get a pretty good player in free agency for the defensive line because we might not have that chance in the draft as we are in a spot where the elite linemen will almost certainly be gone, leaving us the elite safety, tight end or receiver to pick from.

I could find myself happy with this offseason if we got Winslow with our first pick, Kearse in free agency, resigned Bailey, took a defensive tackle with our second rounder, and did little else of consequence. In the end, I think a rookie tight end like Winslow may make a bigger difference in improving this team than Tommie Harris might -- though we HAVE to take Harris if he comes out and is available to us.

Winslow would add a legitimate interior threat that would allow us to create mismatches without having to use formation and motion which Spurrier doesn't use now. Having that option will open things up on the outside, help us keep the ball more, and hide things defensively better than even having the game's BEST defensive lineman.

That said, I'm on the defensive lineman bandwagon to the HIGHEST degree again this offseason. .

[Even Madder]

Sorry, EM, having devoted family time sometimes saps my abilities here

Wasn't that Russell's excuse for missing practice? :cool:

We enter this offseason with 21 of 22 (if you exclude Holsey and give the nod to Noble or Haley) or 20 of 22 (if you don't) starters either under contract or under our control.

Except that we don't. I don't know why you keep saying this. Champ, Holsey, Flemister, and Friedman are all starters, and they're all UFAs. Champ will be franchised, but that still leaves three -- 19 of 22. Bruce is scheduled to make $6 million or so if he doesn't retire, so he sure as hell isn't really "under contract". Saying he is is misleading. He's gone. That's 18 of 22.

Noble and Haley aren't starters, so it's silly to call them that just so your numbers add up. Noble has never played a down as a Redskin and may never return -- he tore 3 ligaments and dislocated his kneecap.

And it gets worse from there. Even Spurrier recognizes the need for a new RB, so that's 17 of 22. They could upgrade one or both safeties, maybe replace Trotter. Surely you recognize that these are more likely potentialities than the potential for minimal change?

We have the vast potential to FINALLY achieve stability with this team by making only a small number of changes... I can see that number rising DESPITE the potential for it not to... I agree it could reach six.

Darn, you see your error. Too bad -- would have been the easiest bet I ever won. I was looking forward to seeing you in that dress. Now are you ready to admit that Rod Jones is a fat tub of ****, and that the DL has something less than "good depth"?

I HOPE it's not six. I hope it's four or fewer. I predict it will be just that. I know we have the potential this offseason to do JUST that. No matter how much change we realize, that doesn't alter the potential we have.

As we used to say in the Army, hope is not a plan. We might have the "potential" for minimal change, but we also have the potential to sign every current Pro Bowler to league-minimum contracts. It's the offseason -- there's "potential" everywhere.

But not likelihood. Most likely many assistant coaches will go, which is disruptive, including the DC, which is very disruptive. Spurrier said today he needs a "big-time" tailback, a TE, and changes along the defensive line. That's at least four right there, maybe 5 or 6.

With potential to change both DTs (and it would be wrist-slashing season in Washington if they don't), at least one DE, a TE, maybe both safeties, maybe a LB to replace Trotter, and a new RB and you've got an equal "potential" for just blowing up the whole damn roster. Last season they blew up the roster -- changing 7 starters -- and I see plenty "potential" for 7 new starters this year.

Can you imagine any scenario where the Skins only change 4 starters? I guess you'd leave the LBs intact and the safeties intact, maybe just promote Royal (gag), and only change one DT, one DE, one TE, and a RB. That still leaves lots of glaring holes. Unfortunately, it's gonna be another rough learning curve for the Skins.

Too bad you got cold feet on the bet -- got any other strongly held opinions I can disabuse you of?

[Even Madder]

I could find myself happy with this offseason if we got Winslow with our first pick, Kearse in free agency, resigned Bailey, took a defensive tackle with our second rounder, and did little else of consequence.

I think that'd be a great start, although I think Ramsey needs a credible rushing threat behind him, and we don't have one on the roster. Spurrier mentioned getting a "big-time" RB today -- someone should point out to him that Stephen Davis is certainly "big-time", and if he'd occasionally given him the ball, he might not be 12-20 as a coach today. But anyway...

I think Winslow would be a great pick for the future. Kearse would be a huge upgrade. Keeping Bailey means you don't have to fill his shoes, but if they can actually get two first-rounders for him from a team like Detroit, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Unfortunately for the Skins, they haven't found a 2nd round pick who can actually play for a couple years now. It would be nice if they struck gold with a 2nd round DT though.

Despite the strong urge to draft for "need" in the first round, with a pick this high you take the best available or you trade down. Reaching with a top 10 pick is always disastrous. Trading down is another interesting option, if they can pick up two late first rounders.

Gonna be another interesting offseason... sigh.