Is the Redskins FO too loyal to players?

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:14 pm

I was thinking about this for awhile, and it really hit me when I saw the Ravens just cut Chris McAlister yesterday.

The Redskins have players who they sign, and like to keep...and keep extending their contracts. While other teams cut players with big cap numbers who are beginning to decline in production, we seem unwilling to cut guys that have been long-term Redskins who are good soldiers and solid teammates.

Other teams don't have such compunctions, and will cut players, treating it as a business decision (evaluating return on investment). It appears that the teams that are consistent winners act in such a fashion (Eagles, notably).

It's almost as if this FO is overly loyal, which ends up burdening the team with aging players with big contracts. (This may be a vestige of Joe Gibbs' loyalty to vets?)

Note, I recognize that there are salcap implications as to why we extend certain contracts, but those implications aren't present for every contract.

skins2357 · Post by **skins2357** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:34 pm

I dont know if its loyallty, or spupidity. It seems to me that other teams are able to cut the players without a harsh cap number. We give out these crazy contracts which makes it impossible to cut these players and get under the cap number. So I dont think its we are to loyal, just that we are unable to cut them because of their contracts, and since we are always over the cap in the beginning of the yr....we need to cut money. The only way to do that is to restructure current players.....we cant cut them or we wont get under the cap for that yr

dad23hogjrs · Post by **dad23hogjrs** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:00 pm

This is not everyone, but its the main guys, did not include young guys still on rookie contracts as this would not apply to them

QB
Collins - Signed as solid game managing back up

HB
Portis - we are using the hell out of him, and the bottom will fall out, but production is still there, for now
Betts - signed to a new deal as an insurance policy after he had that great run when clinton was out
Rock - inexpesnive - special teams captain, kick returner

FB
Sellers - inexpensive and worth every penny

TE
Cool

ey - top five production, not even top ten this year, in pay
Yoder - inexpensive FA - specials teams player, blocking specialist

WR
Moss - if his hammy is good, he is good, thats been proven to be his deal over the past few years
ARE - we just re-worked for cap reasons, and its felxible on our side I believe
Thrash - might have a point here, but not very expensive

OT
Samuels - Maybe has a year left, problem is we extended him until he's 90
Jansen - Last year was the year we were going to find out if he still had it coming back from inj...he didn't, not as a tackle anyway. Again the issue is he has been extended for cap reasons and we cant cut him because of cap situations

OG
Thomas - has reworked a couple of times, on the decline, may have a point here, but cant do anything about it due to cap
Kendall - if we resign, you have a point here

Center
Rabach - ***** see below

DE
Daniels - *****
Taylor - *****
Carter - same as ARE, just re-worked for cap and we have an out

DT
Griffin - *****

LB
Fletch - we get out moneys worth
Washington - *****

CB
Springs - *****
************************************************

We have gotten our selves into holes with a couple of the guys (jansen, thomas, samuels in a year/two years) and have set up a way to get out of the hole with ARE and Carter

***** if we do not release the guys with the stars, than you are dead on

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:36 pm

This is an interesting and valid topic.

As a preface for my subsequent thoughts, I don't have an understanding to the advantages of the way the Skins structure their contracts. They've done things that way for a while, so they must have a theory, I just don't recognize it. They did let AA go pretty quick and Taylor may be gone as well.

As far as loyalty is concerned, I think the coaches have just as much influence on that, if not more, than the FO... and especially the old-school coaches. Having watched several episodes of "America's Game" on the NFLN, listening to the former players talk about this supports the theory regarding the coaches.

A recent article on Redskins.com even eluded to this...

In the 1980s, it was Russ Grimm, Joe Jacoby, Jeff Bostic, Mark May and George Starke, among others. In the 2000s, it was Chris Samuels, Jon Jansen, Casey Rabach, Randy Thomas and Pete Kendall, among others.

No matter the era, Joe Bugel remains loyal to his “guys.”

And as the Redskins re-evaluate the offensive line heading into free agency and the NFL Draft, loyalty remains part of the equation for Bugel.

“When you have been around guys for a long time, you see their ups and you see their downs,” Bugel told Larry Michael on a recent broadcast of “Redskins Nation” on Comcast SportsNet. “You see how they prepare and play through injuries. You have to truly respect guys who don’t miss a lot of practice.

“So you can get close to your players. They’re family. We want this to be a family atmosphere. I enjoy being around the players. I listen to them, they listen to me. I’m concerned about their families just like they’re concerned about my family.”

Bugel accepts that he is open to criticism for loyalty to his core group of linemen.

Coaches ban be loyal to their players, in most cases. Spurrier brought Danny and Rob and Saunders brought Todd. However, at some point, the FO needs to step in and curb some of that, and this is an avenue where an experienced GM can help.

Zorn is new and is not married to these players, so hopefully he'll have the stones to make changes when it's appropriate. He let Alexander and Plackemeier go, so maybe he's not the old-school loyalist in that regard. And I'll add that I think our FO has done a better job in the past couple of years but still has a ways to go.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:20 pm

I think its simply the FO going from one extreme to another. They never latched onto "core" guys in the past and got blasted for it. Now they're too clingly to "core" guys and won't cut dead weight.

BnGhog · Post by **BnGhog** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:15 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I think its simply the FO going from one extreme to another. They never latched onto "core" guys in the past and got blasted for it. Now they're too clingly to "core" guys and won't cut dead weight.

Exactly!

Sometimes its not about being too loyal. Sometimes there is nothing they can do.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:57 pm

I am not sure if they are too loyal.

Remember the Lavar situation?

One thing for sure is that the front office likes to overpay players. Especially overaged players.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:55 am

HEROHAMO wrote:I am not sure if they are too loyal.

Remember the Lavar situation?

One thing for sure is that the front office likes to overpay players. Especially overaged players.

Heh I knew you'd bring up LaVar. That's why I specifically said:

we seem unwilling to cut guys that have been long-term Redskins who are good soldiers and solid teammates.

Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:34 pm

Other than the Lavar situation yeah they are too loyal.

I agree we keep extending contracts to mediocre players. Not to disrespect the good ones like Portis, Cool

ey, Samuels etc.. But we do seem to keep holding on to overage players.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:48 pm

HEROHAMO wrote:Other than the Lavar situation yeah they are too loyal.

I agree we keep extending contracts to mediocre players. Not to disrespect the good ones like Portis, ey, Samuels etc.. But we do seem to keep holding on to overage players.

LaVar's last contract was perfect example of over-valuing a player because he was a Redskin. He was a top-third linebacker being paid like a top 3 linebacker, which he never was.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:18 pm

Fios wrote:
HEROHAMO wrote:Other than the Lavar situation yeah they are too loyal.

I agree we keep extending contracts to mediocre players. Not to disrespect the good ones like Portis, ey, Samuels etc.. But we do seem to keep holding on to overage players.

LaVar's last contract was perfect example of over-valuing a player because he was a Redskin. He was a top-third linebacker being paid like a top 3 linebacker, which he never was.

Yes he was getting a huge contract. Oh and he deserved every penny. In fact he deserved more. Heck Snyder should still be paying him honorary true Redskin pay.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:26 pm

Oh yeah one guy that should have been cut a long time ago! Jason Fabini!

This guy is an absolute stinking bum of a player. He sucks. We was cut from the Cowboys as a third string tight end. Then the Skins sign him thinking he can play tackle or guard? For the life of me I still do not understand why he is on this team.

Oh and please people do not say he is there for depth. It is not depth if you come into the game and cannot block the person in front of you. In the Seattle playoff game a couple years back he was responsible for two sacks all in one quarter. :shock:

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:06 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:51 pm

chiefhog44 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

If you haven't followed the Redskins at all for the past 4 seasons and are incapable of understanding what Portis has meant to the team, yes.

NJ-SKINS-FAN · Post by **NJ-SKINS-FAN** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:32 am

way to loyal......needed to cut bait with some guys over the past couple of years...

better to get rid of a guy a year to early than a year to late

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:46 am

skins2357 wrote:I dont know if its loyallty, or spupidity.

Me, neither.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:53 am

Fios wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

If you haven't followed the Redskins at all for the past 4 seasons and are incapable of understanding what Portis has meant to the team, yes.

Plus, Clinton is BFF with Dan Snyder...

ICEMAN · Post by **ICEMAN** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:11 pm

Hey guys! What is wrong with "Long-term" Redskins??? Players that are true Redskins...are just that. Players, identifies your Team. Example the Steelers of the 70's will go down as one of the greatest teams of all times because of the their stellar and recognizable players. Their longevity with their team gave them Hall of Fame status as well...making their team beloved.

Henceforth, our much beloved SKINS...are much beloved because we have had a plethora of incredible REDSKIN players that have donned the Burgundy and Gold historically! Whether it is Sammy Baugh, Charlie Taylor, Sam Huff, Chris Hanburger, The Hogs, Larry Brown, Ken Houston, Art Monk, D. Green, to the players we have now...is what makes this team so cherished and loved...also we are historically Champions!!!! If we kept dumping players every 3 or 4 years we would never have continuity and never get back to a Super Bowl. Some of you all mentioned Joe Gibbs...well, he is the architect of 3 World Championships, 4 Super Bowl appearances, numerous playoff victories and conference championships.

Now with that said...the Honorable Coach Gibbs used his core guys that were veterans! Including Coach George Allen's philosophy. I recall the "BLOW IT UP" segment of this site a few weeks ago...which is absurd!!! I am tired of seasons of bad football. At least we have teams that are still exciting and more inclined to root for. We at least produced 4 pro-bowl calibur players that represented our Beloved Skins. I am not sure about you all, but I grew up watching and rooting for various players that made up our Washington Redskins. If we got rid of players everytime a year goes by...we wouldn't know which player played at what position without a Program. When Lavar was here...he was a beast! Nobody complained about him then...and we loved him because he was our "Star player". Now hind-sight later...he was a bust (Totally Unfair). Come on people, some players may need to go...but if they can still contribute and fit into our scheme and cap...then what's the problem? We didn't cut Monte Coleman because of age...because he still had a role. We should have never parted wtih Art Monk for those two seasons...because he is a Redskin and should always be remembered for just that...

NJ-SKINS-FAN · Post by **NJ-SKINS-FAN** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:26 pm

ICEMAN wrote:Hey guys! What is wrong with "Long-term" Redskins??? Players that are true Redskins...are just that. Players, identifies your Team. Example the Steelers of the 70's will go down as one of the greatest teams of all times because of the their stellar and recognizable players. Their longevity with their team gave them Hall of Fame status as well...making their team beloved.

Henceforth, our much beloved SKINS...are much beloved because we have had a plethora of incredible REDSKIN players that have donned the Burgundy and Gold historically! Whether it is Sammy Baugh, Charlie Taylor, Sam Huff, Chris Hanburger, The Hogs, Larry Brown, Ken Houston, Art Monk, D. Green, to the players we have now...is what makes this team so cherished and loved...also we are historically Champions!!!! If we kept dumping players every 3 or 4 years we would never have continuity and never get back to a Super Bowl. Some of you all mentioned Joe Gibbs...well, he is the architect of 3 World Championships, 4 Super Bowl appearances, numerous playoff victories and conference championships.

Now with that said...the Honorable Coach Gibbs used his core guys that were veterans! Including Coach George Allen's philosophy. I recall the "BLOW IT UP" segment of this site a few weeks ago...which is absurd!!! I am tired of seasons of bad football. At least we have teams that are still exciting and more inclined to root for. We at least produced 4 pro-bowl calibur players that represented our Beloved Skins. I am not sure about you all, but I grew up watching and rooting for various players that made up our Washington Redskins. If we got rid of players everytime a year goes by...we wouldn't know which player played at what position without a Program. When Lavar was here...he was a beast! Nobody complained about him then...and we loved him because he was our "Star player". Now hind-sight later...he was a bust (Totally Unfair). Come on people, some players may need to go...but if they can still contribute and fit into our scheme and cap...then what's the problem? We didn't cut Monte Coleman because of age...because he still had a role. We should have never parted wtih Art Monk for those two seasons...because he is a Redskin and should always be remembered for just that...

times are different, sal cap, free agency, ect....
you talk about pitts in the 70's, yes than it was a thing that can be done, but that same team from pitts won this year with only 25 guys that were on that team just 3 years ago......change of the times my friend

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:02 am

PulpExposure wrote:
Fios wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

If you haven't followed the Redskins at all for the past 4 seasons and are incapable of understanding what Portis has meant to the team, yes.

Plus, Clinton is BFF with Dan Snyder...

And Gibbs loved him too

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:15 pm

Fios wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

If you haven't followed the Redskins at all for the past 4 seasons and are incapable of understanding what Portis has meant to the team, yes.

Sure he's meant everything to this team, but he isn't the team. Just because a guy means a ton to the team, doesn't allow him to undermine the coach does it? I'm confused how this view isn't the correct stance. Can you imagine this kind of behavior happening on championship teams? You'll have to imagine it, because it doesn't happen.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:25 am

chiefhog44 wrote:Can you imagine this kind of behavior happening on championship teams? You'll have to imagine it, because it doesn't happen.

Yes, because Clinton's attitude is the missing key to our championship dreams...

Clintons attitude is the reason why ARE is still at punt return.
Clintons attitude is the reason why JC develops has been hindered.
Clintons attitude is the reason why the teams feels depressed and can't score more than 13 points.

lololol

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:34 am

chiefhog44 wrote:
Fios wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Good soldiers. LaVar thought he was bigger than Joe Gibbs. He was not a good soldier.

Can't the same be said about Clinton???

If you haven't followed the Redskins at all for the past 4 seasons and are incapable of understanding what Portis has meant to the team, yes.

Sure he's meant everything to this team, but he isn't the team. Just because a guy means a ton to the team, doesn't allow him to undermine the coach does it? I'm confused how this view isn't the correct stance. Can you imagine this kind of behavior happening on championship teams? You'll have to imagine it, because it doesn't happen.

CP is the least of our worries. His attitude has nothing to do with us not being a champiosnhip caliber team.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:30 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:Can you imagine this kind of behavior happening on championship teams? You'll have to imagine it, because it doesn't happen.

Yes, because Clinton's attitude is the missing key to our championship dreams...

Clintons attitude is the reason why ARE is still at punt return.
Clintons attitude is the reason why JC develops has been hindered.
Clintons attitude is the reason why the teams feels depressed and can't score more than 13 points.

lololol

Ok Ok, sorry for getting on him for publicly abusing his line and coach. I can now realize that his behavior is actually helping the team succeed.