Rabach

[Deadskins]

since the Samuels/Arrington draft, only ey and Betts have resigned to above minimum deals.

Not true. Lots of players have restructured their deals to help the team get a better cap number. This has to be considered re-signing, since the new deal usually includes more years than the old contract.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Not wanting to restart the discussion about re-signing players, but since the Samuels/Arrington draft, only ey and Betts have resigned to above minimum deals

Don't I remember right that Portis, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, Hall, Collins and Daniels off the top of my head either re-signed or extended their contracts? Wynn, Smoot and Dockery left and came back.

Who did we lose? Dockery got a ridiculous deal there's no way we should have matched. Pierce was a toss up even in hindsight if we should have kept. Clark, sure in hindsight we should have kept him but the guy was No-Big-Deal anyway despite the message board lovin he inexplicably gets. Arrington was done and paid us to leave, whew. Smoot was overpaid by Minnesota, I'm glad we didn't match that too.

I'm not seeing the "issue" still. Other then it's a reason for an unbiased Skins fan named "SnyderSucks" to bash a guy he hates more then he likes anyone since that's how he chooses to be identified. Very Podslike though.

[SnyderSucks]

since the Samuels/Arrington draft, only ey and Betts have resigned to above minimum deals.

Not true. Lots of players have restructured their deals to help the team get a better cap number. This has to be considered re-signing, since the new deal usually includes more years than the old contract.

Of players brought in under rookie/minimum type deals, only ey and Betts have gotten substantial contracts. The players that restructured were on big free agent deals (Portis, Randle El, Thomas, etc.) or from the Samuels draft or earlier and the restructuring was really designed in to the original contract and had to be done for cap relief. The problem isn't that he doesn't give players money (he certainly does lots of that) but that he doesn't resign players brought in and developed by the team. No desire to rehash the entire thing, but players like Bailey, Pierce, and Clark are the biggest names among other less obvious players like Gardner (no I'm not calling him a hall of famer, simply more productive when he was here than any number 2 since), Smoot, and Dockery. Meanwhile, during the same time period, huge dollars have been given to numerous unworthy free agents from other teams, like Lloyd and Archulletta and some worthy ones as well like Washington, Springs, and Fletcher.

There isn't a recent history of retaining their own good young players. If Snyder resigns a few in the next season or two, then I'll change that opinion, but if Campbell, McIntosh, Rabach (big Free Agent), and Rogers are all allowed to walk, then it will re-inforce the notion. It appears that Snyder always sees the defects in his own players, while the grass is greener in other teams pastures.

[VetSkinsFan]

Didn't Collins get paid after his 2007 performance? As I recall, $3M/yr is considerably more than vet minimum.

[SnyderSucks]

Didn't Collins get paid after his 2007 performance? As I recall, $3M/yr is considerably more than vet minimum.

Was Collins drafted/developed by the team? It's not much above the minimum for a veteran QB, not the $25 million contracts given to Lloyd, Randle El, and Archulletta.

I don't know that I would count this contract for or against, it's just kind of there. On the one hand, they let him get to free agency and if anyone had offered the opportunity to start he would have walked as many prior did. On the other, how much should you really play to a mid thirties backup?

[CanesSkins26]

since the Samuels/Arrington draft, only ey and Betts have resigned to above minimum deals.

Not true. Lots of players have restructured their deals to help the team get a better cap number. This has to be considered re-signing, since the new deal usually includes more years than the old contract.

Not really. A re-structuring involves modifying the terms of a contract. A re-signing involves the signing of a new contract.

[Deadskins]

since the Samuels/Arrington draft, only ey and Betts have resigned to above minimum deals.

Not true. Lots of players have restructured their deals to help the team get a better cap number. This has to be considered re-signing, since the new deal usually includes more years than the old contract.

Not really. A re-structuring involves modifying the terms of a contract. A re-signing involves the signing of a new contract.

It's still a new contract that has to be signed by all parties involved.

[SnyderSucks]

[Other then it's a reason for an unbiased Skins fan named "SnyderSucks" to bash a guy he hates more then he likes anyone since that's how he chooses to be identified. Very Podslike though.

I would agree that there isn't anyone on the team good enough to overcome the problems Snyder creates. When, over the course of ten years, you've changed every other piece of the organization and the results are the same, the conclusion that that one part, the owner, is the problem is reasonable.

Can he learn and improve as owner? I hope so, and if he does, I will gladly give him credit. I used to give Snyder lots of credit for trying hard and spending money, but his apparent inability to learn from mistakes has moved me into the other camp. If Snyder starts doing the things that build a consistently good team, I'll change my name to SnyderFan if that makes you happy. I don't get the Podslike reference...

[KazooSkinsFan]

Of players brought in under rookie/minimum type deals, only ey and Betts have gotten substantial contracts

You always were a hoot, Pods. So you said generally we couldn't retain players. When you couldn't support that you narrowed it down to only minimum contracts for players who we signed since ey. ey was drafted 5 years ago, almost every player since then is still on their rookie contract. That means you're down to like a year or two depending on the exact length of their rookie contracts and you're agreeing we actually re-signed two big ones from the narrow window you cut the discussion down to.

So, since you want to cut the window to that brief window, you're going to tell us who meets your criteria who left since we can't count free agents or players we drafted more then 5 years ago and the ones meeting your criteria left are still almost all on their rookie contracts....

[KazooSkinsFan]

When, over the course of ten years, you've changed every other piece of the organization and the results are the same, the conclusion that that one part, the owner, is the problem is reasonable

That starts with the assumption there is a problem, which is an assumption. First like everyone else has to learn, he has to learn to be an owner, so the first 10 years of ownership is not likely to be his best. He made the playoffs 3 times and we've gotten to be pretty mediocre, an improvement. Doesn't qualify him as owner of the decade to be mediocre, but it's not an assumed "problem" either since in the NFL mediocre means average.

So what you say is sort of true, but it's contrived to drive to your agenda of declaring him a failure, it's not really any sort of fair assessment of his record. The one thing you say that isn't true is the "results are the same." We've improved from mostly sucking to being pretty consistently OK.

[SnyderSucks]

Of players brought in under rookie/minimum type deals, only ey and Betts have gotten substantial contracts

You always were a hoot, Pods. So you said generally we couldn't retain players. When you couldn't support that you narrowed it down to only minimum contracts for players who we signed since ey. ey was drafted 5 years ago, almost every player since then is still on their rookie contract. That means you're down to like a year or two depending on the exact length of their rookie contracts and you're agreeing we actually re-signed two big ones from the narrow window you cut the discussion down to.

So, since you want to cut the window to that brief window, you're going to tell us who meets your criteria who left since we can't count free agents or players we drafted more then 5 years ago and the ones meeting your criteria left are still almost all on their rookie contracts....

no idea who Pods is. I never said players since ey. I said players since Arrington/Samuels, which is where I started months ago with this type of thread. That's a ten year period, and there are numerous unsigned players in that period, including a pro bowl middle linebacker who has won a super bowl, a hall of fame Corner, and a starting safety on a two super bowl win team. The team does not have a good record for resigning it's own players, and one contract to ey and contract for a backup RB won't change the fact that Snyder has let numerous starters go...

[SnyderSucks]

When, over the course of ten years, you've changed every other piece of the organization and the results are the same, the conclusion that that one part, the owner, is the problem is reasonable

That starts with the assumption there is a problem, which is an assumption. First like everyone else has to learn, he has to learn to be an owner, so the first 10 years of ownership is not likely to be his best. He made the playoffs 3 times and we've gotten to be pretty mediocre, an improvement. Doesn't qualify him as owner of the decade to be mediocre, but it's not an assumed "problem" either since in the NFL mediocre means average.

So what you say is sort of true, but it's contrived to drive to your agenda of declaring him a failure, it's not really any sort of fair assessment of his record. The one thing you say that isn't true is the "results are the same." We've improved from mostly sucking to being pretty consistently OK.

The team has been consistently mediocre for ten years. If you guessed blind an 8-8 season, they'll be within 2 wins of that every year but one. It's not an assumption that there is a problem, that's the record. The team has not been good. 10-6 in the eighties was the minimum, not the ceiling.

Again, I said I supported him at first, but as he has proven incapable of learning, yes I declare him a failure. The goal is to win, and more than that to win a super bowl. In that he has failed. Trading him for Bob Kraft would do more to improve this team than trading Campbell for Tom Brady, which is saying a lot. Anyone here willing to give Campbell or anyone else on the team 10 years and they still don't know how to do their job well? Pretty sure we'd all be fired before that. Please show me the evidence of his improvement? It's not in the record. The plan followed by the consistently good teams is not a secret, they talk about it all the time. Snyder lacks the primary component in that plan - patience. You act as if I'm condemning him in the face of massive evidence of success and improvement.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I said players since Arrington/Samuels, which is where I started months ago with this type of thread

Yes you did, my bad. Sorry, my attention span is no where near months long.

That's a ten year period, and there are numerous unsigned players in that period

OK, so you brought up:
Pierce, not just personal choice, we were cap constrained and the Giants took advantage of that

Bailey: Sure, but we traded for Portis who's been the mainstay of our running game and as has been discussed ad nauseum he wasn't going to stay and it had nothing to do with Danny

Clark: . And the only reason I'd have liked to kept the mediocrity even though the Steelers overpaid him was it would have prevented us from overpaying AA even more. It also would have prevented the endless message board pining that has gone on since he left.

The team does not have a good record for resigning it's own players, and one contract to ey and contract for a backup RB won't change the fact that Snyder has let numerous starters go...

So I'll try to stay awake long enough to give you the nobody safety just to not be a jerk about it, and we all know I'd never want to do that. But none of the others were examples of Danny not having a good record for signing other players. It's pretty clear we lost Dockery and Smoot to ridiculous offers we should not have matched. Both came back to play for reasonable offers. Pierce clearly was also a cap issue and the Giants specifically structured it knowing our situation to cause that. What a wench he turned out to be anyway, screw him. To say that Bailey was about difficulty signing players is just completely ignoring history.

And I'm not clear why Samuels or Jansen or any of the myriad of free agents and trades we have re-signed don't count either.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The team has been consistently mediocre for ten years. If you guessed blind an 8-8 season, they'll be within 2 wins of that every year but one. It's not an assumption that there is a problem, that's the record. The team has not been good. 10-6 in the eighties was the minimum, not the ceiling

So you're making a strong case that in his first decade as an owner, he is an average NFL owner. Again, how is that a "problem?" You need to spend some time in the real world. Try growing up a Lions fan. The NFL is so competitive it's actually a good case that if he started out as average he could become a good owner.

And no, I am not saying I'm perfectly happy with Danny or that I think he's a great or even so far a good owner. I'm saying he's been an OK owner. At least he's trying, which Ford never did (check out the Lions record last year). That isn't a "problem" other then to spoiled fans of a team that measures success by JKC's heyday.

he has proven incapable of learning, yes I declare him a failure

When I try to get out of pointing out your Pods you bring it up again. Incapable of learning? That's just a clueless statement. After dumping the nice guy never gonna be a successful HC he went to the control freak and the college comedy hour. Now he's got consistency with Gibbs and Zorn. He was signing the over the hill gang, now he's signing younger players to longer contracts. We have a monster D. You have some points, but they are so woven with agenda they end up pointless.

[SnyderSucks]

I said players since Arrington/Samuels, which is where I started months ago with this type of thread

Yes you did, my bad. Sorry, my attention span is no where near months long.

That's a ten year period, and there are numerous unsigned players in that period

OK, so you brought up:
Pierce, not just personal choice, we were cap constrained and the Giants took advantage of that

Bailey: Sure, but we traded for Portis who's been the mainstay of our running game and as has been discussed ad nauseum he wasn't going to stay and it had nothing to do with Danny

Clark: . And the only reason I'd have liked to kept the mediocrity even though the Steelers overpaid him was it would have prevented us from overpaying AA even more. It also would have prevented the endless message board pining that has gone on since he left.

The team does not have a good record for resigning it's own players, and one contract to ey and contract for a backup RB won't change the fact that Snyder has let numerous starters go...

So I'll try to stay awake long enough to give you the nobody safety just to not be a jerk about it, and we all know I'd never want to do that. But none of the others were examples of Danny not having a good record for signing other players. It's pretty clear we lost Dockery and Smoot to ridiculous offers we should not have matched. Both came back to play for reasonable offers. Pierce clearly was also a cap issue and the Giants specifically structured it knowing our situation to cause that. What a wench he turned out to be anyway, screw him. To say that Bailey was about difficulty signing players is just completely ignoring history.

And I'm not clear why Samuels or Jansen or any of the myriad of free agents and trades we have re-signed don't count either.

Ever worked some where that never promotes or gives big raises from within? People from other companies love to come in because they get big salaries and promotions. Meanwhile, the guys who started right out of school are not rewarded in a similar fashion. It creates tension and unhappiness with the rank and file that don't get the big contracts. Good companies recognize the talent they are developing and give their employees raises before they leave. Players like Smoot and Dockery should have been extended before they reached the end of their contracts. My first job after college, I started with a relatively low salary. Nine months in, my employer was happy and they gave me a substantial raise without even waiting for my annual review. They didn't wait for me to come asking for a raise or for them to match an offer from a competitor. Good companies recognize their good performers and reward them early.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Ever worked some where that never promotes or gives big raises from within? People from other companies love to come in because they get big salaries and promotions. Meanwhile, the guys who started right out of school are not rewarded in a similar fashion. It creates tension and unhappiness with the rank and file that don't get the big contracts. Good companies recognize the talent they are developing and give their employees raises before they leave. Players like Smoot and Dockery should have been extended before they reached the end of their contracts. My first job after college, I started with a relatively low salary. Nine months in, my employer was happy and they gave me a substantial raise without even waiting for my annual review. They didn't wait for me to come asking for a raise or for them to match an offer from a competitor. Good companies recognize their good performers and reward them early.

So that's your argument now? We should have extended them before their contract was up? In the NFL it's really hard to do that before contracts are up because the players and their agents want maximum money. They would rather wait then just sign for less. You can't unilaterally do that and it's very difficult without way over paying to do it. Dockery and Smoot weren't the ones you'd want to do that for either. Both were useful but both were replaceable. Every time you hit a wall you just go a new direction and you're going to grasp mode.

Comparing the NFL with entire systems just feeding talent, extremely limited number of jobs, collective bargaining agreements to companies without those limits is very dubious.

But if you want to do it, give me some examples. This is where your argument stumbled last time. Let's have a go again. Tell me teams and players that are successfully extending contracts as a pattern rather then one offs like we have done...

[EasyMoney]

no idea who Pods is. I never said players since ey. I said players since Arrington/Samuels, which is where I started months ago with this type of thread. That's a ten year period, and there are numerous unsigned players in that period, including a pro bowl middle linebacker who has won a super bowl, a hall of fame Corner, and a starting safety on a two super bowl win team. The team does not have a good record for resigning it's own players, and one contract to ey and contract for a backup RB won't change the fact that Snyder has let numerous starters go...

Is this about resigning our own drafted players or players originally acquired by free agency that have been (or had been) on the team for a while? Or is this about the bad drafts from 01-03?

Who doesn't know the Redskins lean towards free agency over the draft? We've acquired some good talent in free agency and our drafts from 04-present have been pretty solid. The majority of those free agents (if they played well) are still here under reworked or second contracts. The rest (other than ey) are still here under their rookie contracts.

The players drafted between '01 and '03 that were worth anything are Smoot 2nd, Pierce UDFA, Ramsey 1st, Betts 2nd, Royal 5th, Cartwright 7th, and Dockery 3rd. The only player on that list that should've been resigned but wasn't is Antonio Pierce. He and Bailey wanted out. Smoot and Dockery (offered bigger contracts to sign elsewhere) came back under new contracts, Betts and Cartwright are still here under second contracts.

Yes, we also should've resigned Clark but he was originally drafted by New York. Sometimes they miss on positions that actually need to be upgraded.

You win some, you lose some.

But I don't follow you on not resigning players, we resigned a lot of players...

[KazooSkinsFan]

Is this about resigning our own drafted players or players originally acquired by free agency that have been (or had been) on the team for a while?

The point depends on how well you're arguing it. The better you're doing the more the point will change...

You win some, you lose some

Not when you're SnyderSucks and the subject is Snyder. Then you ignore wins and obsess on losses and ignore the circumstances

[Deadskins]

Is this about resigning our own drafted players or players originally acquired by free agency that have been (or had been) on the team for a while? Or is this about the bad drafts from 01-03?

Who doesn't know the Redskins lean towards free agency over the draft? We've acquired some good talent in free agency and our drafts from 04-present have been pretty solid. The majority of those free agents (if they played well) are still here under reworked or second contracts. The rest (other than ey) are still here under their rookie contracts.

The players drafted between '01 and '03 that were worth anything are Smoot 2nd, Pierce UDFA, Ramsey 1st, Betts 2nd, Royal 5th, Cartwright 7th, and Dockery 3rd. The only player on that list that should've been resigned but wasn't is Antonio Pierce. He and Bailey wanted out. Smoot and Dockery (offered bigger contracts to sign elsewhere) came back under new contracts, Betts and Cartwright are still here under second contracts.

Yes, we also should've resigned Clark but he was originally drafted by New York. Sometimes they miss on positions that actually need to be upgraded.

You win some, you lose some.

But I don't follow you on not resigning players, we resigned a lot of players...

What's with the small font size? Us old guys don't like to squint.

[EasyMoney]

What's with the small font size? Us old guys don't like to squint.

My fault

[SnyderSucks]

Ever worked some where that never promotes or gives big raises from within? People from other companies love to come in because they get big salaries and promotions. Meanwhile, the guys who started right out of school are not rewarded in a similar fashion. It creates tension and unhappiness with the rank and file that don't get the big contracts. Good companies recognize the talent they are developing and give their employees raises before they leave. Players like Smoot and Dockery should have been extended before they reached the end of their contracts. My first job after college, I started with a relatively low salary. Nine months in, my employer was happy and they gave me a substantial raise without even waiting for my annual review. They didn't wait for me to come asking for a raise or for them to match an offer from a competitor. Good companies recognize their good performers and reward them early.

So that's your argument now? We should have extended them before their contract was up? In the NFL it's really hard to do that before contracts are up because the players and their agents want maximum money. They would rather wait then just sign for less. You can't unilaterally do that and it's very difficult without way over paying to do it. Dockery and Smoot weren't the ones you'd want to do that for either. Both were useful but both were replaceable. Every time you hit a wall you just go a new direction and you're going to grasp mode.

No, that's been the argument all along. I've never argued that the team should have matched the contracts given to Smoot and Dockery. This is the underlying argument about why it's bad to not reward your own players. Dockery was a starter from his rookie season. Smoot was a starter from his first or second season. Do you remember the articles worrying about a holdout from Sean Taylor after the Archuletta contract because Archuletta was making more than twice Taylors average? Good teams (and I've said this before, I'm not making new stuff here) resign their good players before the end of the first contract. The player gets upfront money that is theirs if they get injured, the team gets a lower cost contract than if the player waits all the way to free agency. Philidelphia is probably the best in the league at this, but Pittsburgh and New England are good at it too. Pittsburgh won't give a third contract to a 30+ player, but lots of second contracts. The giants just did it with Eli Manning. Washington should have already done it with McIntosh and Rogers, and probably should have added a couple of years already for Campbell. They should do an extension for Horton either during this season or right after. You're starters should not be playing for minimum salaries. Now they are facing either letting the players walk or giving a massive contract.

[SnyderSucks]

no idea who Pods is. I never said players since ey. I said players since Arrington/Samuels, which is where I started months ago with this type of thread. That's a ten year period, and there are numerous unsigned players in that period, including a pro bowl middle linebacker who has won a super bowl, a hall of fame Corner, and a starting safety on a two super bowl win team. The team does not have a good record for resigning it's own players, and one contract to ey and contract for a backup RB won't change the fact that Snyder has let numerous starters go...

Is this about resigning our own drafted players or players originally acquired by free agency that have been (or had been) on the team for a while? Or is this about the bad drafts from 01-03?

Who doesn't know the Redskins lean towards free agency over the draft? We've acquired some good talent in free agency and our drafts from 04-present have been pretty solid. The majority of those free agents (if they played well) are still here under reworked or second contracts. The rest (other than ey) are still here under their rookie contracts.

The players drafted between '01 and '03 that were worth anything are Smoot 2nd, Pierce UDFA, Ramsey 1st, Betts 2nd, Royal 5th, Cartwright 7th, and Dockery 3rd. The only player on that list that should've been resigned but wasn't is Antonio Pierce. He and Bailey wanted out. Smoot and Dockery (offered bigger contracts to sign elsewhere) came back under new contracts, Betts and Cartwright are still here under second contracts.

Yes, we also should've resigned Clark but he was originally drafted by New York. Sometimes they miss on positions that actually need to be upgraded.

You win some, you lose some.

But I don't follow you on not resigning players, we resigned a lot of players...

To me, Pierce is the one that was acceptable to lose. He wasn't a starter until the final year of his contract, and got offered a big number in free agency. This matches the win some/lose some you say. Really, they lost Pierce because G. Williams told them he was replaceable, if you remember.

Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency. There have been several others and there are currently 3 young starters in the last year of a contract, a fourth in the next to the last year, and a fifth (horton) who should be extended soon if he continues to improve and play well. If they resign several of these players, then they will have rendered this point moot. If they fail to do so, they will re-inforce it. We'll see what happens soon.

[SnyderSucks]

Anyway, the original point of this post wasn't to get back into the Campbell argument or the Snyder argument, but to point out that regardless of what happens this season, next offseason will be a big one with potentially a lot of changes to the starting lineup.

[KazooSkinsFan]

No, that's been the argument all along

The discussion I was in with you was you just generally said Snyder had trouble re-signing players. An assertion you haven't backed up with much by way of example.

So if now we're arguing he should sign specifically before contracts are up, I gave you a pretty good description of why that's difficult. Most players in their rookie contract won't do that unless you sign them to a contract which assumes they will walk on water, otherwise they'd rather try to walk on water. You also lose the rookie pay years, you're paying them more sooner. I'm having a really hard time seeing this big cap savings you're claiming.

But you like to throw out these general statements, so let's go back to my question on examples. You say you can sign players before their contract is up as a policy, I said why you can't. Easy way to resolve it. So, which teams are doing it successfully? Who are you looking to us to emulate and who have they done this with?

[EasyMoney]

[To me, Pierce is the one that was acceptable to lose. He wasn't a starter until the final year of his contract, and got offered a big number in free agency. This matches the win some/lose some you say. Really, they lost Pierce because G. Williams told them he was replaceable, if you remember.

Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency. There have been several others and there are currently 3 young starters in the last year of a contract, a fourth in the next to the last year, and a fifth (horton) who should be extended soon if he continues to improve and play well. If they resign several of these players, then they will have rendered this point moot. If they fail to do so, they will re-inforce it. We'll see what happens soon.

Smoot and Dockery were never the player Pierce was and is. We lost Pierce because he wanted more than Marcus Washington. Washington was coming off a probowl year but I thought Pierce was the cog on that defense. I remember not being happy we let him go. MLB is so much more important than SLB. I'm sure GW's arrogance had something to do with this as well.

Clark was let go because he was told he was replacable. More of GW's arrogance.

They'll get resigned and if they don't they find someone to take their place. It happens on the majority of teams every year. Very few (if any at all) retain all 22 starters.