ESPN Radio: Burress Talking With Philly

[ross3909]

They get burress...we add LaVar. I cannot wait to see LaVar. Taylor, and Washington taking turns killing recievers. Next year is going to be sick. Eagles might win but their recievers are leaving on a streacher!

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

I wouldn't see the point of accusing the eagles of that last year. They had 26 million in cap room, they had to do something with it. Its not as if they were spending the future for today.

If that guy who initially said that wants to form that question, he would have an easier time trying to attack a team like the raiders, instead of the eagles.

Um, the Eagles didn't feel the need to "do something with" all that cap room they had in previous years. Just because the Eagles finally decided to really use their cap space last season, doesn't mean they should get a pass. Both teams paid out big bonuses to bring in key members of their teams.

So how would you define this concept of "trying to buy a Super Bowl"? Again, my point is that this whole argument as applied to football is rather retarded because the existence of a salary cap prevents the outragous differences in team payroll like you see in baseball.

[TenaciousB15]

There are outragious differences in payrolls becuase of teams minipulating the cap. What was the redskins payroll last year? 120 Million? Something like that. I believe the Cowboys and the Bengals had about 65 million.

And yes, your damn right it gives them a pass. If if its not okay for them to be given a pass that year, was it then not okay for them to be called cheap every year before that?

[jpgirth]

THe salary cap can and will be argued from here to the eternity.

You have the spenders and the non spenders and the so so spenders. The only true people that have knowledge of the direction of their respective teams short term and long term is the owners and their front office/coaches.

People have won at different stages of the cap.

Baltimore, when they won the superbowl had the highest payroll in the history of the league at that point, so they did buy the superbowl?

[PapaDRoc]

Originally posted by heyholetsgogrant

ESPN Radio: Burress Talking With Philly. Hmmm interesting, this may may the eagles offense way better.:puke: :eaglesuck

Yeaaaaaaaa I'd actually prefer Burress to go anywhere except Philly. T.O. and Burress... DAMN

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

And yes, your damn right it gives them a pass. If if its not okay for them to be given a pass that year, was it then not okay for them to be called cheap every year before that?

Again, how is what the Redskins did in the 2000 season so different than what the Eagles did last offseason? Both teams paid out big money to bring in players that we main cogs of their team.

So you're arguing that the Eagles get a pass because all their spending was done in one offseason, yet when the Skins spend over the course of one offseason (2000) they should be criticized?

You do realize that the Eagles payroll was 2nd in the league last year right behind ours at $105 million, right? So if this isn't "attempting to buy a Super Bowl", then what is?

If this still isn't clear, take a look at this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44179-2005Jan28.html

And by the way, the outrageous differences in payroll between teams in the NFL and MLB that I was referring too are not even close.

[TenaciousB15]

We'll that is suprising. I'l like to see what Pocono has to say about that. I can only imagine that is becuase the eagles are paying more to the players they have on the roster now, as opposed to later. Rather then a lot of that money being figured into players that are not on the roster. That'd be my guess.

But its not just the 2000 season. That may have started it. But its not like nothing has happened since then to snow ball that. There is a big difference between a front office that makes a couple of high profile moves, then a team thats philosophy is to build a team through free agency.

Do we need to actual figure the number of high profile players each team has brought in? And not in the nice friendly, me help you prove your point. (IE counting the potential players the eagles are RUMORED to bring in, etc.)

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

We'll that is suprising. I'l like to see what Pocono has to say about that. I can only imagine that is becuase the eagles are paying more to the players they have on the roster now, as opposed to later. Rather then a lot of that money being figured into players that are not on the roster. That'd be my guess.

But its not just the 2000 season. That may have started it. But its not like nothing has happened since then to snow ball that. There is a big difference between a front office that makes a couple of high profile moves, then a team thats philosophy is to build a team through free agency.

Do we need to actual figure the number of high profile players each team has brought in? And not in the nice friendly, me help you prove your point. (IE counting the potential players the eagles are RUMORED to bring in, etc.)

Who is Pocono? But regardless, you seem to be missing the point here.

Like it has been mentioned repeatedly: It IS only the Skins 2000 offseason that is relevant here. It was during that offseason that we were accused of "trying to buy a Super Bowl" because of the moves we made during that offseason.

And I have no clue what you're trying to say in that last part. Rumored players the Eagles are bringing in? Where have I mentioned any rumored players? We're talking about what the Eagles did LAST offseason here. :doh:

[da#1skinsfan]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

Maybe they are looking at it in terms of biggest payroll? Don't the redskins still hold that title?

I wouldn't see the point of accusing the eagles of that last year.

Yeah they do hold that title. And guess whos second?

THE EAGLES.

So yes, I would accuse the Eagles of that last year, thanks very much!

Bottom line, everyone hates on the Skins in terms of cap moves. They spend and theyre "overspenders". Theyre frugal and they "arent making moves" to help the team. Its bogus and everyone knows it. The only way to silence the idiots is to win, so they better get crackin on that.

[da#1skinsfan]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

But its not just the 2000 season. That may have started it. But its not like nothing has happened since then to snow ball that. There is a big difference between a front office that makes a couple of high profile moves, then a team thats philosophy is to build a team through free agency.

OK...

But as of 2005...this team obviously is not looking to build through free agency. We stayed away from the highest profile guys in 2004 too. Kearse, Owens, Garcia, Sapp, Lynch, etc. Instead we went after second tier guys and they worked out beautifullt (IE Washington, Griffin, Springs). In 2005 we've made a complete 180.

So why not do we still criticize this franchise for their mistakes in the past? Regardless if it was 2000 or 2003, its the past, because in 2005, they're not going down that road. You talk about managing the cap, well guess what, next year we've got TONS of cap room based on excellent management of the cap this year.

And what good is 26M under the cap every year if you dont use it?

[TenaciousB15]

Originally posted by Danny Montana

Who is Pocono? But regardless, you seem to be missing the point here.

Like it has been mentioned repeatedly: It IS only the Skins 2000 offseason that is relevant here. It was during that offseason that we were accused of "trying to buy a Super Bowl" because of the moves we made during that offseason.

And I have no clue what you're trying to say in that last part. Rumored players the Eagles are bringing in? Where have I mentioned any rumored players? We're talking about what the Eagles did LAST offseason here. :doh:

Well, then thats where we disagree. I think the 2000 season and beyond all goes into the mix. That was not an isolated incident, so everything from that point is relevant. I think it is as simple as that.

And pocono is a guy that knows a lot of about the cap, so he would probably know why those numbers are the way they are, and should be able to give some more incite then just the basic numbers.

OK...

But as of 2005...this team obviously is not looking to build through free agency. We stayed away from the highest profile guys in 2004 too. Kearse, Owens, Garcia, Sapp, Lynch, etc. Instead we went after second tier guys and they worked out beautifullt (IE Washington, Griffin, Springs). In 2005 we've made a complete 180.

So why not do we still criticize this franchise for their mistakes in the past? Regardless if it was 2000 or 2003, its the past, because in 2005, they're not going down that road. You talk about managing the cap, well guess what, next year we've got TONS of cap room based on excellent management of the cap this year.

And what good is 26M under the cap every year if you dont use it?

Wait? So your tossing Owens into this mix? Thats means your not just including free agents. Then why don't you throw Brunell and Portis into that list to, they were all trades right? Yes.

I'm suprised that you would say the redskins would have tons of cap room next year unless/until they do their anual restructure-a-thon. I don't know the numbers, but I would look at it like this. Peirce wasn't getting paid anything last season, so having him gone won't have a significant difference to the cap. Coles numbers, had he stayed, will probably end up being similar to Santana Moss's contract. As for Smoot. I don't think he was getting paid all that much (still on his rookie contract right?) so I doubt having him gone is going to free up that much. Factor in people getting a raise every year, and the redskins might have about 8 million again.

So at the end of the day, all the high profile people that have left the skins this year, it won't even matter as far as cap relief becuase they weren't getting paid too much anyway. So there isn't even a silver lining there. With the exception of coles. And his numbers will probably end up looking like Santana Moss's numbers will. Assuming obviously that they all weren't pushed into one year.

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

Well, then thats where we disagree. I think the 2000 season and beyond all goes into the mix. That was not an isolated incident, so everything from that point is relevant. I think it is as simple as that.

You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. :doh:

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make it a valid position. You can also argue that pigs can fly if you want, but you're not going to look too smart doing so. This is not an issue that is up for debate. It is a matter of fact. The "trying to buy a Super Bowl" criticisms of the Skins were made at the time of the 2000 season. These statements were made in the context of that offseason. So whether YOU want to include seasons following that year does not matter in the context of this discussion. And I KNOW it is as simple as that.

If you STILL fail to grasp this concept, I don't know what else to say, other than to suggest you go back and reread the posts in this thread.

For future reference:

Trying to reason with an Eagles fan = :gus:

[TenaciousB15]

LOL. You do realize what your saying is an opinion as well. I can't help but wonder if you remember how this little debate was started, becuase if you didn't it would explain as to why what your saying doesn't make any sense. Shall I repeat it again?

The initial post that sparked this conversation was some guy who has not come back since, remarking that it was unfair that the redskins are treated as if they are buying a superbowl every year when they make these high profile moves in free agency. As opposed to the eagles having 1 year of doing so. He felt the 5 years of moves, is equal to 1 of the eagles. He could not understand the concept that reputation has and is being built on over these years, that has lead to this. What did you think we were talking about? For your sake, I hope it wasn't that. Becuase if you haven't noticed your the one looking silly here.

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

The initial post that sparked this conversation was some guy who has not come back since, remarking that it was unfair that the redskins are treated as if they are buying a superbowl every year when they make these high profile moves in free agency. As opposed to the eagles having 1 year of doing so. He felt the 5 years of moves, is equal to 1 of the eagles.

The initial post said no such thing, but nice try anyway. If so, post where it says this. You need to brush up on those reading comprehension skills. YOU are the one who started with arguing this "last 5 years" nonsense.

The initial post was questioning why the Eagles never take any heat for "trying to buy a Super Bowl", when if the Skins made the same moves we would be getting torched in the press. It was hinting as to how hypocritical the media is on this issue. And it is a valid question based on the fact that we DID face such criticisms in 2000. We faced these criticisms following an (read one) offseason of spending that was very similar to what the Eagles did last offseason. The article I linked to earlier is quite clear on the spending done by the Eagles last offseason if you failed to realize this.

As for your claim that, "He could not understand the concept that reputation has and is being built on over these years, that has lead to this."

If these criticisms are leveled at us because of, as you claim, our reputation formed over the years, how do you explain that we faced these criticisms following Danny's first real year in charge? Was that a reputation formed over years? By your logic, the media must have been psychic as to what actions we would take in future years, therefore making it OK to rip into us for our moves in 2000.

In other words, if the Skins HAD IN FACT been ripped based multiple years of spending by Danny, and as a result of this "reputation formed over years" as you claim, you would have a valid point to argue. But since this didn't happen, your argument is complete nonsense.

You're the one who is embarrassing yourself here by continuing on with this. For the sake of maintaining whatever credibility you have here, you are best off just letting it go.

[da#1skinsfan]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

Wait? So your tossing Owens into this mix? Thats means your not just including free agents. Then why don't you throw Brunell and Portis into that list to, they were all trades right? Yes.

I'm suprised that you would say the redskins would have tons of cap room next year unless/until they do their anual restructure-a-thon. I don't know the numbers, but I would look at it like this. Peirce wasn't getting paid anything last season, so having him gone won't have a significant difference to the cap. Coles numbers, had he stayed, will probably end up being similar to Santana Moss's contract. As for Smoot. I don't think he was getting paid all that much (still on his rookie contract right?) so I doubt having him gone is going to free up that much. Factor in people getting a raise every year, and the redskins might have about 8 million again.

So at the end of the day, all the high profile people that have left the skins this year, it won't even matter as far as cap relief becuase they weren't getting paid too much anyway. So there isn't even a silver lining there. With the exception of coles. And his numbers will probably end up looking like Santana Moss's numbers will. Assuming obviously that they all weren't pushed into one year.

Umm...hello. Owens was technically being courted as a FREE AGENT until teams became aware of his dumb agent screwing up the paperwork. At that time, we stayed away. We had no interest in him.

Bottom line, youre wrong. You know how youre wrong? Look at the cap numbers next year. You tell me how much we have in cap room, then talk to me about mismanagement. And 2006 was supposed to be our "cap hell" year, and we have more money available than we've had in a long time. And thats INCLUDING Rabach, Patten, etc. Your own argument works against you. Like you say, Smoot doesnt count for 2006, Pierce doesnt either. We added players (IE lowered our available cap) and STILL have lots of room next year. Youre assuming we resign Moss, and youre also assuming that his contract WONT be backloaded, which it most certainly will be.

Theres no question we're in a hole. But why criticize the team for their actions in the past, when RIGHT NOW is the time that theyre making the necessary moves to FIX their admitted mistakes in the past. Talk about beating a dead horse.

[TenaciousB15]

"So why isn't Philly catching a boatload of defecation about going after all the "stars" like we would be catching if we were doing the same thing?

Oh, I know! The media BLOWS! That's why! Silly me...."

I did through in that last 5 years thing at the end. I did not intend for you to think that he said that. It may have looked that way, but that was not intended. However, he mentioned nothing about specifically talking about just the 2000 season. You brought that to the table. To me, that looks like he is talking about recent events if anything. And it did appear as if you intended for me to think that he did bring that up. I come to that conclusion because of you scolding me about what this conversation supposedly was about.

Now, if you want to introduce that as a separate element, then we can continue to that. However, as far as I knew, that had nothing to do with what that person or I was talking about, so I don't know why you expected me to change the point I was making initially.

So in regards to your question…. Perhaps it was because Reid's Eagles were already established for a few years, at that point last off-season. And the Redskins were not when they did their things. It is as simple is that. The media singled out an unknown team, not the precious redskins. Not some personal vendetta. There is a difference. Now as I said from that point, this trend continues, because the redskins have continued with a similar strategy.

Now on to da#1skinsfan. Was Brunell not in the same boat? He was probably going to be released, until the redskins traded for him. You trying your hardest to get around the fact that the redskins did go out on a spending spree last year. Perhaps you are of the ilk that want to believe that the redskins are consciously having an about face approach to free agency. More like the Patriots or Eagles mentality. When in my opinion, the moves they are making are done by being forced to because of their past mishaps as opposed to design. This year in particular, I think the redskins had a nightmare off-season thus far. Everything that could go wrong, went wrong. Coles in particular, which I think this partially Snyder’s fault was just the straw that broke the camels back. Apparently NOW that Coles is gone, its being brought up that Coles had issues with past teams. And he was brought in despite all these problems. The redskins were put into a bind where everything else was halted because of this. The way I look at it, as the redskins own philosophy caught up with them.

As for the redskins having a lot of cap room next year... I don’t know the numbers on that. Will just have to see. But unless something is changed since that last numbers I’ve see, I can’t see how that is possible. Are you accounting for restructures that have not yet happened, to make your thoughts true? Maybe that’s it. If anything, I’d think the numerous restructures from this year, if anything would only hurt the redskins cap room next year, beyond what the last numbers I had seen stated. At the very least, make up for the money that is now freed from Coles departure. Wait. Maybe I should take that all back. Are you thinking 5 million dollars in the black is A LOT of cap room? Maybe that explains your thinking.

[Redsk58417]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

As for the redskins having a lot of cap room next year... I don’t know the numbers on that. Will just have to see. But unless something is changed since that last numbers I’ve see, I can’t see how that is possible. Are you accounting for restructures that have not yet happened, to make your thoughts true? Maybe that’s it. If anything, I’d think the numerous restructures from this year, if anything would only hurt the redskins cap room next year, beyond what the last numbers I had seen stated. At the very least, make up for the money that is now freed from Coles departure. Wait. Maybe I should take that all back. Are you thinking 5 million dollars in the black is A LOT of cap room? Maybe that explains your thinking.

The Skins as of now? Have about $20mil plus in dead $ for '05. However, with hits for Trotter, and Coles, coming off the books in starting in '06? The Skins as it currently stands, have zero dead money $'s allocated to the big "Cap hell" year that the media predicted (wrongly of....'06). Its dead $ that drives teams to cap hell.

[da#1skinsfan]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

Now on to da#1skinsfan. Was Brunell not in the same boat? He was probably going to be released, until the redskins traded for him. You trying your hardest to get around the fact that the redskins did go out on a spending spree last year. Perhaps you are of the ilk that want to believe that the redskins are consciously having an about face approach to free agency. More like the Patriots or Eagles mentality. When in my opinion, the moves they are making are done by being forced to because of their past mishaps as opposed to design. This year in particular, I think the redskins had a nightmare off-season thus far. Everything that could go wrong, went wrong. Coles in particular, which I think this partially Snyder’s fault was just the straw that broke the camels back. Apparently NOW that Coles is gone, its being brought up that Coles had issues with past teams. And he was brought in despite all these problems. The redskins were put into a bind where everything else was halted because of this. The way I look at it, as the redskins own philosophy caught up with them.

As for the redskins having a lot of cap room next year... I don’t know the numbers on that. Will just have to see. But unless something is changed since that last numbers I’ve see, I can’t see how that is possible. Are you accounting for restructures that have not yet happened, to make your thoughts true? Maybe that’s it. If anything, I’d think the numerous restructures from this year, if anything would only hurt the redskins cap room next year, beyond what the last numbers I had seen stated. At the very least, make up for the money that is now freed from Coles departure. Wait. Maybe I should take that all back. Are you thinking 5 million dollars in the black is A LOT of cap room? Maybe that explains your thinking.

If you dont do your homework, why do even discuss it with you?

Youre right, they suck, boo skins, go eagles, they have no cap room, coles was a mistake, yada yada yada.

Like the other guy said, youre clueless. We try to argue based on facts, you just bring up intangibles from THE PAST. Because they made mistakes in the past they are now fixing (the Coles trade was done PRECISELY in order to NOT sustain any more cap hits from him in the FUTURE. Theyve learned their mistakes about dead money), you continue to a)deny they are cleaning up future cap room, and insist they are making bad moves this offseason. What would you suggest? A trade for Randy Moss? Overspend on Antonio Pierce or force Gibbs to budge on his "no me-first players" policy and resign Smoot? CB and LB were our deepest positions on the team, it was a great move to let them walk, a move that will be proven next year. Would you suggest we sign Jerry Porter? Dexter Coakley? Burress? Any other big name free agents? Would that make it a "good" offseason in your eyes? No, because then you'd say we're overspending again. Face it, they cant win with this discussion UNTIL they win in the league. Period. The haters will always hate on them no matter what direction they take.

In this offseason we avoided overpaying players. We rid ourselves of an injured, on the decline, unhappy overpaid receiver. We addressed our biggest need, offensive line. We addressed the depth of our receiving corps. We addressed the need to stretch the field. And now we look to address the pass rush. This offseason has been frugal and focused, and I love it. What were our weak points at the end of last year? O line for Portis, WR for stretching the field, and a DE to get penetration. And what have we addressed so far? Exactly.

When the Redskins have an all around better year than last year, you tell me they did horrible in the offseason. Ill be waiting for your post in 10 months, so mark my words.

And for the record, no Brunell was NOT in the same boat. It wasnt guaranteed he'd be released, whereas with Owens, he wasnt getting released, he was OPTING OUT. Big difference. In one, the team has control over the player departing, in the other, the choice is up to the player. Again, at least know how you obtained your own superstar and do your homework before you bring up issues you cant even compile into an intelligent argument.

[TenaciousB15]

First off. Stop with the elist douch bag attitude.

Next.

And for the record, no Brunell was NOT in the same boat. It wasnt guaranteed he'd be released, whereas with Owens, he wasnt getting released, he was OPTING OUT. Big difference. In one, the team has control over the player departing, in the other, the choice is up to the player. Again, at least know how you obtained your own superstar and do your homework before you bring up issues you cant even compile into an intelligent argument.

Owens wasn't gauranteed to be released at the end of the day either. In both intances, they looked like they were going to happen, but there was no definate descision. The only real difference is one of the players was washed up. But that is really besides the point. It makes no difference whether they were acquired via free-agency, or trade. My original point was that the redskins have not changed their philosophy in building a team with other teams players. Any scenario that involves acquiring said players falls under that umbrella.

As for this offseason. Here is the only reason I could possibly be wrong that I see. From my perspective, I'm expecting more. So I'd be holding my team to higher standards. On the other end of the spectrum, failure is expected. So only screwing up marginally is welcomed. Thus this offseason is declared a success.

Any time a team is incapable of resigning good young players, its unfortunate. You put yourself in a situation where you would not have been able to resign without making things not just bad, but really bad. When I say the redskins offseason has been a failure, I'm referring to all things that lead up to this point that made it happen. Things that could have been avoided but weren't. Things that went wrong that should have been forseen. All of it.

My word of advice to all who read. Look around you. Do you see the teams that are finishing around the redskins in rankings each year? That gives you an indicator or where they are. It really is humorous to see people look at the upcoming years schedual, and comment on how so and so team should be easy to beat. Then when they lose to them, they are confused by what just happened. You'd be doign yourself a favor not to get your hopes up.

To put it bluntly. The redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough?

[Bang]

God, I hope they sign Burress.

Let's see.. discontented in Pittsburgh.. doesn't like being the #2. Feels he's earned a big payday, and feels he is a legit #1.

Put him on a team who will lowball him contract wise, and then put him on an offense that once again puts him in the shadow of an even better receiver than Ward, one who has a MASSIVE ego in his own right, one who commands every reporter's attention, one who commands the ball.

Burress will of course be happy with that. :laugh:

Of course he'll put his ego aside.. you know the one,, the ego that made him skip mini camps and be a general nuisance last offseason (Claiming he was upset of his Gramma passing away over the winter.)

Eagles- flowing like water

Burress- a big fat oil slick

Sign him.

PLEASE. I'd love to watch that train wreck.

~Bang

[NavyDave]

The bottom line is still winning the superbowl and philly's trophy case has only dust bunnies for all of the space under the cap and trips to our version of the final four.

[Redsk58417]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

As for this offseason. Here is the reason I could possibly be wrong. Fromy my perspective, I'm expecting more, so I'd be holding a team to higher standards. On the other end of the spectrum, failure is expected. So only screwing up marginally is welcomed. Thus this offseason a success is declared a success.

So, are you saying its ok, for Philly to be "Marginally" better than previous, but not the Skins? Well Philly has a good 4 or 5 year run, but if you've been a fan of the NFL any length of time, you'd know these things (Good runs & bad) go in cycles. What your team does during their cycle or window is what matters.

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

Any time a team is incapable of resigning good young players, its unfortunate. You put yourself in a situation where you would not have been able to resign without making things not just bad, but really bad. When I say the redskins offseason has been a failure, I'm referring to all things that lead up to this point that made it happen. Things that could have been avoided but weren't. Things that went wrong that should have been forseen. All of it.

Then what would you suggest? Over pay a true #2 CB at #1 CB prices? Or over pay for Pierce? Which side are you arguing? As your argument said. "You dont let your young good players go." Really? How old was Trotter when he 1st left? What was the root of his 1st departure?.....Exactly! Philly can do it, but the Skins cannot?

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

My word of advice to all who read. Look around you. Do you see the teams that are finishing around the redskins in rankings each year? That gives you an indicator or where they are. It really is humorous to see people look at the upcoming years schedual, and comment on how so and so team should be easy to beat. Then when they lose to them, they are confused by what just happened. You'd be doign yourself a favor not to get your hopes up.

What's "Homurous" is people blindly "not" recognizing a change in how things are going in DC *NOW* not in 2000. As baaaad as "YOU" say things are in DC. Your mighty Eagles didn't score more than 50 points between the 2 meetings with the poor Skins. The Eagles struuuuugled to win. Fact! Now, you look at that fact and where do you put the Eagles? No team (Eagles included) scored more than 28 points against the Skins. "IN 16 GAMES!" Not even Philly can say that!

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

To put it bluntly. The redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough?

Keep telling yourself that. The facts aren't backing you there. But its funny to read. You lose credibility when comments like this are typed.:laugh:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by TenaciousB15

To put it bluntly. The redskins were not close last year. If the best you can do is argue that they have improved a little bit, then is that really good enough?

The fact is, no one here is qualified enough to know how "close" the Redskins were last year. That is not something that is easily measured. Were they close to winning a Super Bowl? No. Were they close to getting their franchise turned around? I think so, you don't.

Turning points are always identified AFTER the fact. So if the Skins go out and have a successful season this year, then some might point to events of last year as that turning point.

I am optimistic that some continuity will go a LONG way for the Redskins. It's worked for your Eagles, why wouldn't it work for a team with more talent and a better coach?

:point2sky :eaglesuck :helmet:

[TenaciousB15]

Originally posted by Redsk58417

So, are you saying its ok, for Philly to be "Marginally" better than previous, but not the Skins? Well Philly has a good 4 or 5 year run, but if you've been a fan of the NFL any length of time, you'd know these things (Good runs & bad) go in cycles. What your team does during their cycle or window is what matters.

Exactly. Philadelphia is a lot closer to winning a super bowl. It is not necessary for them to get a lot better. Washington, however will. As for an windows. Philadelphia is not set up to win right now, and right now only. It is not as if the time is going to be gone this year or next year. Major injuries are the only thing that can stop the eagles from being in the mix for at LEAST the next 3 years.

Then what would you suggest? Over pay a true #2 CB at #1 CB prices? Or over pay for Pierce? Which side are you arguing? As your argument said. "You dont let your young good players go." Really? How old was Trotter when he 1st left? What was the root of his 1st departure?.....Exactly! Philly can do it, but the Skins cannot?

What I'm suggesting is that the redskins had no choice but to let them walk. I wasn't making some complex ingenious point. All I'm saying is they would have helped the team, and they are worse for having lost them. They lost two players that not only were good, but weren't making that much money last year, so it won't really helped them in any cap relief in the next years. Its not like a Troy Vincent type of thing, were a good player leaves, but at least he won't be making 5 million dollars next year.

As for Trotter. I think you could come up with a better example then that. May I suggest Corey Dillon? Becuase ultimately, Trotter leaving was a mistake. Granted it helped with cap relief overall, but its not as if his talents being gone were not missed. Which is why he is back, with a new multi-year contract.

What's "Homurous" is people blindly "not" recognizing a change in how things are going in DC *NOW* not in 2000. As baaaad as "YOU" say things are in DC. Your mighty Eagles didn't score more than 50 points between the 2 meetings with the poor Skins. The Eagles struuuuugled to win. Fact! Now, you look at that fact and where do you put the Eagles? No team (Eagles included) scored more than 28 points against the Skins. "IN 16 GAMES!" Not even Philly can say that!

Now surely this one is a joke. You really have out done yourself. The eagle scored a combined 45 points against the redskins. Well, I guess thats no 50. Damn great point... :laugh:

Guess who one of those teams was who scored 28 points, matching the best anyone did against the redskins... And hello. What was the one time someone scored more against the eagles? The last game of the year. 38 points by the bengals. In a game, where it was all back up playing the final game of the year, becuase it ment absolutely nothing. Perhaps even more importantly, in a series of games where there was next to no blitzing. No exotic plays what so ever. I include this just to account for you trying to come back by saying some of the skins players were injured, thus missing in some of the final games. Even then, the offense gave up 7 of those 38 to the bengals. And another drive, which including an impressive 15 drive. Wow.

Keep telling yourself that. The facts aren't backing you there. But its funny to read. You lose credibility when comments like this are typed.:laugh:

I just step down now if I were you.

[The President]

Kepp adding WRs, we'll play pass the whole game