KDawg Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Art, Although for the most part I agreed with your points, there was one small detail that bothered me... Your assumption that we all believe the trade for Moss was a bad move... Salary cap wise, releasing or trading Coles would have been devastating, coupling that with Moss' contract and I could see where you were coming from... However, from a playing point of view I disagree with you... Moss is a player... Is he Coles? No, but he sure as hell could fit into our system here in Washington... Not to say that I'm not wrong, that's a very good possibility, but since this thread was labeled as "controversial" I thought I'd chime in with my somewhat off topic thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I agree that Snyder is a great owner. What impresses me is you can see him learning more and more each year. There is no doubt that he wants to win. He wouldn't invest the money he has and does, if there wasn't a commitment on his part. He made some mistakes early on, we most do. He is smart enough to learn from them. Snyder is very smart and I have confidence in him. He just gets a bad rap from the media. Why, it's called jealousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspkikn Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I'd argue that if its true the football people made this decision, then they don't understand the cap. It seems to me that 5 or so mil in cap space is more valuable than the loss of it and the addition of santana moss. but I like to argue ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCb37 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Its a bad move. Period. I know Gibbs proabably said, he doesnt want to be here so lets get rid of him. But this is the salary cap era and if we shipped off every unhappy player we would be in big trouble. A 9 Million cap hit because Coles complained. I mean you signed the contract, honor it. Snyder is usually criticized because of overspending etc and not listning to the coaching staff etc. However in this case he should be criticized for lisning too much. There is a balance between on the field play and salary cap implications. If we cant sign Smoot because of this trade and we got a worse WR for Coles then this team just got worse overall. There is no doubt about it. All this says to me is GET A GM. Get someone with some football knowledge that can determine a players worth and manage the cap. I am amazed that people can defend this move. The only argument you can make us that because Coles wants out he would play like crap and mail it in during the season. Which is speculation and certainly doesnt seem to fit with the attitude and play he has shown in the past. We are handcuffed now in free agency because we dont have GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 This is the type of stupidity surrounding Snyder I'm talking about. Art, What else would you expect from someone who thought Dallas landed those free agents last week on the cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by KDawg Art, Although for the most part I agreed with your points, there was one small detail that bothered me... Your assumption that we all believe the trade for Moss was a bad move... Salary cap wise, releasing or trading Coles would have been devastating, coupling that with Moss' contract and I could see where you were coming from... However, from a playing point of view I disagree with you... Moss is a player... Is he Coles? No, but he sure as hell could fit into our system here in Washington... Not to say that I'm not wrong, that's a very good possibility, but since this thread was labeled as "controversial" I thought I'd chime in with my somewhat off topic thoughts. KDawg, I don't actually mind what we've done in this deal and, like you, I feel Moss might have a nice year in this system. However, we're being intellectually dishonest of us not to recognize that reasonable thought allows us to recognize this was a BAD move. Was it a move to cut off our nose to spite our face? No. I don't think it was. But, it WAS a move to make the best of a bad situation. It wasn't a move to make the best of a good situation. When a team eats $6 million more than it had planned to trade one receiver for another who hasn't been as productive, it RARELY can be seen as a good move on paper. At the end of this year would I be surprised to discover Moss outperforms Coles? Not at all. But, today, no one can reasonably state this was a good trade. You CAN reasonably state, as you have, that you have high hopes for the outcome of the trade. I do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 But, it WAS a move to make the best of a bad situation Bingo! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by aspkikn I'd argue that if its true the football people made this decision, then they don't understand the cap. It seems to me that 5 or so mil in cap space is more valuable than the loss of it and the addition of santana moss. but I like to argue ... Liking to argue is great. But, you need to better understand what you're debating before you question the knowledge of others. Our KNOWN choices in this situation with Coles were the following two items. 1. Release Coles and take a $9.5 million cap hit, receiving NOTHING in return. 2. Trade Coles and take a $9.5 million cap hit, receiving SOMETHING in return. Those are the ONLY two things we know to be at play here. So, the thing that seems to you to be off, only seems so, because you've allowed your imagination to presume it was actually in play. It wasn't. Coles COULD have offered to give back the money. But, there's NO evidence this would have come off our cap if he had or that the NFLPA would have allowed him to do so had he wished. But, HAD he tried to do that and HAD the team released him, hoping it would have worked out, the third option then comes into play. 3. Release Coles as Coles promises to give back the last bonus payment. Hope the league and NFLPA approve, and take MONTHS to adjudicate the matter through arbitration before it's finalized, leaving the team in limbo until it's done. It seems to me option 3 kind of sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I'm wondering if anyone... anyone at all... has changed their opinion of Dan Snyder since reading Extremeskins... for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I agree with Art Snyder let's his football people make the decisions. Problem is it's Snyder's choice to have Bug Eyes and not have a real GM. Thus he is NOT a great owner because of his continued belief in not having a real GM despite years of BAD moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Art Little of what we've done the last few years qualify as fantasy football signings. This is the type of stupidity surrounding Snyder I'm talking about. The last three years Snyder has allowed his football people to craft a plan to fill areas of need for two different coaching staffs. This is the fourth year of such. Signing a player who fills an area of weakness isn't a fantasy football I thought I made it clear that I was referring to what Snyder did when he first bought the team (first few years). Guess not...or you read it too fast and thought it said something it didn't. I liked the rest of your post. I will say that it still remains to be seen as far as next year goes. Everyone has always predicted that we will be in salary cap hell, and year after year it doesn't happen. But some serious renegotiating will have to happen next year, or else we could be looking like the Titans. The great hope is that Brunell will step up and help us out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankRizzo Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Ceratto says so, it must be true! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Destino I agree with Art Snyder let's his football people make the decisions. Problem is that Art has forgotten that it's Snyder's choice to have Bug Eyes and not have a real GM. He is NOT a great owner because of his continued belief in not having a real GM despite years of BAD moves. The reason he is letting the coach finally do his job is because he admires Gibbs as do we. As I said in Past years he would have pulled the coach into his office and told him he needs to do what he has to do to make Coles happy here. Its really a no brainer hardly greatness on his part any ordinary fan would do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by aspkikn I'd argue that if its true the football people made this decision, then they don't understand the cap. It seems to me that 5 or so mil in cap space is more valuable than the loss of it and the addition of santana moss. but I like to argue ... Don't forget the fact that we have likely given ourselves more room in future years under the cap. I throw this question out there for everyone, where else would we have put the money? I am not trying to be argumentative, but rather stimulate conversation. It seems possible from others' cap analyses that we have room to re-sign Smoot. And if not, it seems apparent that Gregg is willing to go with Harris at the starting CB spot. As it relates to linebackers and offensive linemen, as people have pointed out, it doesn't make sense to lock up such a high proportion of your cap space to one position. Had we re-signed Pierce or signed Hartwell/Bell (physical notwithstanding), we would have had three big contracts in our LB corps. We already have three BIG contracts on the offensive line. We could have picked up depth, sure. But it seems to me like the coaching staff feels good about our depth. The obvious areas where we can bulk up are on the d-line and TE positions, and there are bodies to be had for cheap there. I assume that with further June 1 manipulation, we'll be able to do so. There's no doubt we are skirting close to the cap, but in this free agent year, on what other free agents would you rather have spent the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night I thought I made it clear that I was referring to what Snyder did when he first bought the team (first few years). Guess not...or you read it too fast and thought it said something it didn't. I liked the rest of your post. I will say that it still remains to be seen as far as next year goes. Everyone has always predicted that we will be in salary cap hell, and year after year it doesn't happen. But some serious renegotiating will have to happen next year, or else we could be looking like the Titans. The great hope is that Brunell will step up and help us out. We are kind of in Cap hell right now:( Other than the Titans situation it doesnt get much worse than this. Maybe San Fran:whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Art, I believe you could say the sky was blue or the sun rises in the east and people would argue with you. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Art nice read but my biggest issue with all of this is it wasn't done when it should have been, and did the skins freak once the Post reported that they had an agreement with Coles to be released, and then relalized it made them look bad. I am wondering how much did the original story change the plans and make the entire deal worse for us in the end. A lot of the redskin reporters are shocked that this deal would go through and all think that Gibbs is still not aware of all the cap implications. There was a great article also on how we got Morton and how it cost us more then we think because we didn't have the pick we were going to trade, once again shows our management doesn't know all. Now if we can't sign our players, we look bad, and if Moss doesn't get the extension he was promised he leaves next year. Only time will tell who ends up with egg on their face or not. I like the message sent by the FO, however if this cripples us then the fans may not be as forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull We are kind of in Cap hell right now:( Other than the Titans situation it doesnt get much worse than this. Maybe San Fran:whoknows: Don't forget that when Gardner gets traded it will clear more cap space for us (about $2M I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 GREAT owners don't field teams with consistenly losing records. Hopefully Snyder is learning from his mistakes and will be a GREAT owner some day. If Snyder has become a GREAT owner right now, we're in for a lot of winning seasons. That would be a nice change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by China Don't forget that when Gardner gets traded it will clear more cap space for us (about $2M I believe). quick qestion? If Ramsey starts more than 8games this season his cap number increase in 06, right? 4 mill with what, more than 5 rfa and one of the core guys? I like this quiet offseason for a change though:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimreaper36 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 After making some terrible rookie mistakes I think he has improved a great deal. He tried to make us great overnight and it failed. Hey, at least he tried. Most of our recent problems can be tied to trying to find THE coach to take us to the promised land, then having to rebuild in that coaches image. We finally have some coaching stablity and are working our way toward building a team that will last a while. Sure Dan has made mistakes, but he usually learns from them. Sometimes I think his biggest flaw was being more of a fan than a busineesman. I can forgive that. What owner would the complainers rather have? I can think of at least 25 I'd rather not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night I thought I made it clear that I was referring to what Snyder did when he first bought the team (first few years). Guess not...or you read it too fast and thought it said something it didn't. I liked the rest of your post. I will say that it still remains to be seen as far as next year goes. Everyone has always predicted that we will be in salary cap hell, and year after year it doesn't happen. But some serious renegotiating will have to happen next year, or else we could be looking like the Titans. The great hope is that Brunell will step up and help us out. I read your post and my comment was DIRECTLY related to your comment about Snyder and his first few years. Snyder's FIRST year you may have an argument with. You may think all his spending which improved us from No. 30 defensively to No. 4 was just awful. You may be right. After that first year, Snyder has been totally background, deferring to his football people each of the last 5 offseasons. First Marty. Then Cerrato and Spurrier and crew. Now Cerrato and Gibbs and crew. The moves made with Spurrier and Gibbs have been moves to fill holes on the team and nothing has changed over the years. So, that's why I have an issue with your "first few years" comment when the facts are only his first actual offseason could be seen as a problem and only then if you refuse to see the benefits of the moves made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull The reason he is letting the coach finally do his job is because he admires Gibbs as do we. As I said in Past years he would have pulled the coach into his office and told him he needs to do what he has to do to make Coles happy here. Its really a no brainer hardly greatness on his part any ordinary fan would do the same thing. You admire Gibbs as a GM? I don't. I admire Gibbs as a head coach, the position that made him great. Being good at one thing does not make you good at everything, and I see no reason to think Gibbs is a great GM. Snyder has allowed FO screw ups for pretty much his entire time as this teams owner. He also screwed up BIG TIME when he got rid of Marty for Spurrier, that my friends is not a move that can be erased so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Destino I agree with Art Snyder let's his football people make the decisions. Problem is it's Snyder's choice to have Bug Eyes and not have a real GM. Thus he is NOT a great owner because of his continued belief in not having a real GM despite years of BAD moves. And, again, Cerrato has proven to be exceptionally adept at making moves for various systems. Neither Super Bowl team had a GM, so, we know having a GM doesn't create greatness for teams or owners. Cerrato has a pretty successful system going for him in identifying worthwhile free agents to decrease the amount of time necessary to fill obvious holes. Unfortunately he hasn't had the benefit of working under a common system long enough to really finish the job because of the changes we've made with coaches. I know Gibbs is openly pleased with Cerrato and loved what Cerrato did for him last offseason. It's hard to argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I agree. Gibbs is cash-money on the field and all. But we really could of used a Bruce Allen or someone in here to be the GM. Vinny's style doesn't mesh with Gibbs' team style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.