Montgomery signs

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:24 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:I don't want to steer the conversation too far away from Monty... so:

Not sure how I feel about this. Montgomery has been gaining some respect around the league as a solid, if unspectacular, center... I was hoping we'd upgrade at the position this offseason though. Wonder how much his contract is for.
Well, I think this is where the coaches have the advantage over our perceptions. The coaches can break the film down and know what Will is responsible for. Considering the injuries to the line, the rookie RB's, the crappy QB play and WR's who can't beat press coverage, it's going to be hard for us to know who is at fault for any given bad play. The coaches will know cus they know what's supposed to occur on the play.

In addition, did the Colts offensive line magically start sucking? No. They had bad QB play and the plays took longer. If we get a capable QB, he could possibly make our offensive line better, or at least appear to be.

Do we spend big bucks on o-line when we could spend money/upgrade elsewhere and get the same result, while improving another position?

Good points CLL...

However, you could argue (and I'm not, I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here) that Grossman could be great for us next year and should be given another chance if we strengthend elsewhere because;

1. The OL fell apart after game 4
2. The running game ground to a halt putting all the pressure on the passing game.
3. The receiving corp was generally poor
4. We were chasing the game most of the time

All of which would make life difficult for the most gifted of QBs...

But instinct and experience tells us that Grossman still sucked.

The point is you can make a case for almost anything or anyone if you really look. And that goes for the coaches also.

We may still upgrade at center. Monty is verstatile and dependable and well worth keeping, although he may not be a starter depending on who we're targeting.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:29 pm

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:However, you could argue (and I'm not, I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here) that Grossman could be great for us next year and should be given another chance if we strengthend elsewhere because;

Grossman plays the same no matter what... ie. The Chicago Bears. His play had little to do with what was around him.

A good QB is more likely to elevate our existing team than it is for improved talent to improve Grossman...

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:53 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
SouthLondonRedskin wrote:However, you could argue (and I'm not, I'm merely playing Devils Advocate here) that Grossman could be great for us next year and should be given another chance if we strengthend elsewhere because;
Grossman plays the same no matter what... ie. The Chicago Bears. His play had little to do with what was around him.

A good QB is more likely to elevate our existing team than it is for improved talent to improve Grossman...

No, I agree, we know he's no good. But if that was his rookie year, and those points were made in his defense you'd have to give him another chance, wouldn't you..?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:54 pm

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:No, I agree, we know he's no good. But if that was his rookie year, and those points were made in his defense you'd have to give him another chance, wouldn't you..?

It would be a valid point.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Fact is it's not his rookie year and even after losing his job to Beck because of the INTs he still made bad decisions when he got back on the field

Grossman doesn't intentionally throw INTs and make bad decisions = THAT is who he is

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:10 pm

100%

If he never throws another pass in a Redskins uniform I'd be happy.

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that there are a lot of theories and points being made on here and everywhere else and most are backed up by evidence of sorts. But nobody knows anything for sure, including the coaches sometimes.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:22 pm

Did you see Monty's deal was 4yeats 12M, but no guaranteed money. A disposable deal if I ever saw one.

mastdark81 · Post by **mastdark81** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:20 am

For the amount they gave him, it tells me they are not looking to upgrade which is a negative to me.

Will Montgomery is probably not a top 15 center. I would have just gave him a one year deal with the intentions on signing someone else who is better and keeping him for depth. Yes I know the money isn't the biggest problem I just don't like the fact that they think he's a starter.

At least have him and Kory L battle at center, then sign a stud Guard.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:37 am

mastdark81 wrote:For the amount they gave him, it tells me they are not looking to upgrade which is a negative to me.

Completely disagree. Look at what skinsfan33 just wrote before you. 4 years, no guaranteed money? That's a contract for a guy who doesn't have a ton of job security.

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:55 am

riggofan wrote:
mastdark81 wrote:For the amount they gave him, it tells me they are not looking to upgrade which is a negative to me.
Completely disagree. Look at what skinsfan33 just wrote before you. 4 years, no guaranteed money? That's a contract for a guy who doesn't have a ton of job security.

Agreed. Monty is serviceable; that's about all. This contract provides the Skins with all the flexibility they need.

mastdark81 · Post by **mastdark81** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:15 am

GoSkins wrote:
riggofan wrote:
mastdark81 wrote:For the amount they gave him, it tells me they are not looking to upgrade which is a negative to me.
Completely disagree. Look at what skinsfan33 just wrote before you. 4 years, no guaranteed money? That's a contract for a guy who doesn't have a ton of job security.
Agreed. Monty is serviceable; that's about all. This contract provides the Skins with all the flexibility they need.

Is that backup money? No it isn't. Every NFL contract is just about expendable this isn't the NBA. They signed him for starter money, which makes me believe they think he's the. And he is not! Same with Kory L...I have no clue how our coaching staff evaluate our OLINE but that middle needs upgrading. Makes no sense how they pencil in these guys as starters.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:56 am

mastdark81 wrote:
GoSkins wrote:
riggofan wrote: Completely disagree. Look at what skinsfan33 just wrote before you. 4 years, no guaranteed money? That's a contract for a guy who doesn't have a ton of job security.
Agreed. Monty is serviceable; that's about all. This contract provides the Skins with all the flexibility they need.
Is that backup money? No it isn't. Every NFL contract is just about expendable this isn't the NBA. They signed him for starter money, which makes me believe they think he's the . And he is not! Same with Kory L...I have no clue how our coaching staff evaluate our OLINE but that middle needs upgrading. Makes no sense how they pencil in these guys as starters.

No, most NFL contacts have guaranteed money and if it is a lot the contract is not disposable.

Monty got no guaranteed money. If they draft a guy or sign a FA and don't think they need Monty they just cut him. No money owed, no dead cap space, just gone. Virtually no starters in the NFL have a contract that is that easy to get rid of.

Monty's contact is fairly low for a starting OL. They could cut him before the season starts and they owe him nothing. They could cut him before the 2013 season starts and they owe him nothing more and they same for the 2014 season. Monty has zero job security. This contract is lopsidedly in the Skins favor. Sure they might part him more than he is worth, but they might not pay him anything. And that is totally up to them.