The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

spudstr04 wrote:

"They didn't ask him to take a pay cut, they didn't want to take a nickel off the table, but Jason made a decision to where he just wanted to be with his family," Wichard said. "He has three young kids, and he wants to be around them.

"He is really dedicated to spending time with them at home, and he just felt very strongly about that. He had a conversation with Dan, and he told Dan his feelings about the situation. Jason really respects Dan, but this was very important to Jason."

[url]washingtonpost.com[/url]


If he signs with a team like the Patriots, Eagles, or Green Bay, wouldn't he be further from his family? He makes me sick.

Well yes but I don't think they would add the WO clause

Great move FO!

Now you know why practically every player in the league wants to come to DC and suddenly experiences a notable downgrade in his performance. They are just in it for the money.

Until the FO starts making sound decisions, the team will remain a disjolted group of nonsense.

Almost everyone on this board noticed that Taylor was playing last year in a position unnatural to his body/size. Now we know it was not because the D-coaches thought it was the best way to utilize him, but that he was there because said coaches did not like the signing from the start.

Nice move.

worst trade in the history of the nfl....

NJ-SKINS-FAN wrote:worst trade in the history of the nfl....

I wouldn't go that far necessarily. Definitely one of the worst in Redskins history though. Right up there with the Brandon Lloyd, TJ Ducket, and Mark Brunell trades.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

NJ-SKINS-FAN wrote:worst trade in the history of the nfl....

I wouldn't go that far necessarily. Definitely one of the worst in Redskins history though. Right up there with the Brandon Lloyd, TJ Ducket, and Mark Brunell trades.

You lose some and then you lose some. No big deal.

Agree that hyperbole doesn't win this arguement... The above trades were wasteful, but not tragic. No worse than making the wrong pick in the second or third round...

I just dont see why once school is out he couldnt have his family up here with him. They didnt ask to spend his entire offseason here.

vwoodzpusha wrote:I just dont see why once school is out he couldnt have his family up here with him. They didnt ask to spend his entire offseason here.

Why trip off of something that's already done? The cat is gone, let's look forward. He doesn't want to be here, I'm glad he's gone. Let's get someone in here that's 100% vested in the team.

It's not like we're losing 12 sacks a year from him...
It's not like we're losing consistent QB pressure from him...

What we lost was a horrible 08 campaign and HOPE that 09 would be different. *shrugs shoulders, I won't miss him.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

vwoodzpusha wrote:I just dont see why once school is out he couldnt have his family up here with him. They didnt ask to spend his entire offseason here.

Why trip off of something that's already done? The cat is gone, let's look forward. He doesn't want to be here, I'm glad he's gone. Let's get someone in here that's 100% vested in the team.

It's not like we're losing 12 sacks a year from him...
It's not like we're losing consistent QB pressure from him...

What we lost was a horrible 08 campaign and HOPE that 09 would be different. *shrugs shoulders, I won't miss him.

That's pretty much where I stand on him, too. Doesn't want to be in DC...so go elsewhere. No way he'll get the 8.5 million he was due from another team.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

vwoodzpusha wrote:I just dont see why once school is out he couldnt have his family up here with him. They didnt ask to spend his entire offseason here.

Why trip off of something that's already done? The cat is gone, let's look forward. He doesn't want to be here, I'm glad he's gone. Let's get someone in here that's 100% vested in the team.

It's not like we're losing 12 sacks a year from him...
It's not like we're losing consistent QB pressure from him...

What we lost was a horrible 08 campaign and HOPE that 09 would be different. *shrugs shoulders, I won't miss him.

Thats what I say, good riddance

CanesSkins26 wrote:

NJ-SKINS-FAN wrote:worst trade in the history of the nfl....

I wouldn't go that far necessarily. Definitely one of the worst in Redskins history though. Right up there with the Brandon Lloyd, TJ Ducket, and Mark Brunell trades.

Interesting that the "worst" moves in the Redskins' 80-year history all come from the last few years.

This trade would have looked a lot worse if we kept Taylor at his cap hit and if he had a 2009 that looked like his 2008. The chances of that looked pretty good, in my opinion, so cutting him now was the right thing to do.

That they traded for him was a poor decision, but it's spilt milk now. The only way to make things better was to get rid of Taylor, and for that the FO deserves some modicum of credit.

Countertrey wrote: No worse than making the wrong pick in the second or third round...

In my spare time, I like to relive bad 2nd/3rd Round Skins picks... Let's all play...

Let's all travel back to 2002 when we picked Taylor Jacobs (again). Remember how the Skins FO gloated about how he was widely viewed as a 1st Round Talent? We then followed that pick up with Cliff Russell.

Can I call them busts yet, or should I give them more time to mature? I hear WR's take a little longer to make an impact.

If every team had a crystal ball to go back and make great picks, the Lions, Chiefs, Raiders etc. would be the world's finest teams.

The fact is that at the time Taylor Jacobs was considered first round talent and Cliff Russell was probably the fastest WR in the draft.

Neither one were able to earn playing time, and that's too bad. But it happens to the best teams. The Colts and Pats are probably two of the best teams when if comes to the draft. Not every pick they make is gold, you miss on a couple. It's not an exact science.

Still, given the chance to do it over again, they'd probably still take Jacobs because he was a track star WR who was productive at a major college program.

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

vwoodzpusha wrote:I just dont see why once school is out he couldnt have his family up here with him. They didnt ask to spend his entire offseason here.

Why trip off of something that's already done? The cat is gone, let's look forward. He doesn't want to be here, I'm glad he's gone. Let's get someone in here that's 100% vested in the team.

It's not like we're losing 12 sacks a year from him...
It's not like we're losing consistent QB pressure from him...

What we lost was a horrible 08 campaign and HOPE that 09 would be different. *shrugs shoulders, I won't miss him.

Thats what I say, good riddance

This looks like my train.

Taylor was a chance they had to take when Daniels was lost for the season. It didn't work out due to a freak injury. They wanted to extend his contract, and he seemed to pay lip-service to wanting to stay, but I gotta agree, the guy was injured most of last year, you want to keep a close eye on him, and you can't do that when he's in Florida.

He's obviously made plenty of money to walk away from the table on an offer that I'm sure was worth more than the 8.5mil he had left on his contract.

Trading him wouldn't have done any good either as he's a prima-donna. He stated that last year was going to be his final year because he didn't want to play for the Dolphins any more.

This means that he probably would have refused to go to a team that would've been desperate enough to trade for him (and pay his 8.5mil contract) and no other team would risk spending 8.5mil on a guy who spent most of last year injured and was ineffective when he did play.

Sometimes the only play left is to fold the hand.

I'd have liked to have seen him stay, but I'm not shedding a lot of tears about him leaving.

Reading between the lines, one has to wonder if there was not concern that Taylor was putting adequate effort into rehabing his injured calf muscle. Compartment syndrome can cause serious damage to both muscle and nerve tissue. The team had clearly made a statement that they intended to stay with Taylor and his 8.5 mil salary. Why was this one issue so critical to them?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

That's not what Vinny said...he sited CP as an example of players who contract the Skins have put this clause in. He made it sound like it’s standard to all contract now??

DEHog wrote:

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

That's not what Vinny said...he sited CP as an example of players who contract the Skins have put this clause in. He made it sound like it’s standard to all contract now??

Well, it is hard to argue that it didn't pay off for CP, he had a drastically improved year this past year.

Not that he wasn't good before, but you can't argue that he wasn't better when he worked out with the team.

Taylor was a chance they had to take when Daniels was lost for the season

No they certainly didn't have to take a chance on Jason Taylor. They could have let Demetric Evans, who they want to bring back to be a starter this year, start last season. It was a reckless trade for a team that wasn't a serious contender, but as usual Vinny and Danny took the "1 or 2 pieces away approach" and wasted two draft picks.

Countertrey wrote:Reading between the lines, one has to wonder if there was not concern that Taylor was putting adequate effort into rehabing his injured calf muscle. Compartment syndrome can cause serious damage to both muscle and nerve tissue. The team had clearly made a statement that they intended to stay with Taylor and his 8.5 mil salary. Why was this one issue so critical to them?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

I think you're on the right track. I certainly believe they wanted to watch him more closely, whether it was strictly due to his rehab, or just to improve his on-field performance like they did with CP last year.

Not that he wasn't good before, but you can't argue that he wasn't better when he worked out with the team.

A baseless statement. Statistically, CP's best year as a Redskins was in 2005. He spent that off-season in Miami and did not attend optional team workouts, choosing instead to workout at the University of Miami.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Not that he wasn't good before, but you can't argue that he wasn't better when he worked out with the team.

A baseless statement. Statistically, CP's best year as a Redskins was in 2005. He spent that off-season in Miami and did not attend optional team workouts, choosing instead to workout at the University of Miami.

Clintons performance had nothing to do with being at Aushburn and everything to do with how well everyone around him is performing. 2005 was right before MB became utterly useless and we had a decent passing game to compliment the ground attack.

Bob 0119 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Reading between the lines, one has to wonder if there was not concern that Taylor was putting adequate effort into rehabing his injured calf muscle. Compartment syndrome can cause serious damage to both muscle and nerve tissue. The team had clearly made a statement that they intended to stay with Taylor and his 8.5 mil salary. Why was this one issue so critical to them?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

I think you're on the right track. I certainly believe they wanted to watch him more closely, whether it was strictly due to his rehab, or just to improve his on-field performance like they did with CP last year.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

I've been thinking about this story lately too. Does anybody really believe this nonsense? If the Redskins really wanted Jason Taylor, a 34 year old vet and former probowler, would they seriously have released him for not working out with the team at nonmandatory sessions? That's just such a weak story, we should all be insulted by it. Its like the disgraced politician who resigns to "spend more time with his family".

So my question really is why the silly story? Why not just say this didn't work out, we need the cap space or whatever and release him? Its not like anybody would have been surprised. And I don't see how this goofy OTA story makes either Taylor or the Redskins look any better. It makes Taylor look uncommitted and/or lazy, and it makes the Redskins look stupid and abitrary.

riggofan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Reading between the lines, one has to wonder if there was not concern that Taylor was putting adequate effort into rehabing his injured calf muscle. Compartment syndrome can cause serious damage to both muscle and nerve tissue. The team had clearly made a statement that they intended to stay with Taylor and his 8.5 mil salary. Why was this one issue so critical to them?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

I think you're on the right track. I certainly believe they wanted to watch him more closely, whether it was strictly due to his rehab, or just to improve his on-field performance like they did with CP last year.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

I've been thinking about this story lately too. Does anybody really believe this nonsense? If the Redskins really wanted Jason Taylor, a 34 year old vet and former probowler, would they seriously have released him for not working out with the team at nonmandatory sessions? That's just such a weak story, we should all be insulted by it. Its like the disgraced politician who resigns to "spend more time with his family".

So my question really is why the silly story? Why not just say this didn't work out, we need the cap space or whatever and release him? Its not like anybody would have been surprised. And I don't see how this goofy OTA story makes either Taylor or the Redskins look any better. It makes Taylor look uncommitted and/or lazy, and it makes the Redskins look stupid and abitrary.

Does it make any difference to you that Taylor's reason for not making the deal was that exact same politician's excuse? Like you said, wy not just say it didn't work out or it was a cap issue if that was the real cause? I have to think they are being honest, because he could have just as well said, OK, and then they'd have been screwed. It's a pretty big gamble just to save a little face.

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Reading between the lines, one has to wonder if there was not concern that Taylor was putting adequate effort into rehabing his injured calf muscle. Compartment syndrome can cause serious damage to both muscle and nerve tissue. The team had clearly made a statement that they intended to stay with Taylor and his 8.5 mil salary. Why was this one issue so critical to them?

Had Taylor been dogging it, not putting forth the effort to fully regain strength in that calf? I've not seen them make this an issue for other players. Why this one? Why now?

I think you're on the right track. I certainly believe they wanted to watch him more closely, whether it was strictly due to his rehab, or just to improve his on-field performance like they did with CP last year.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

I've been thinking about this story lately too. Does anybody really believe this nonsense? If the Redskins really wanted Jason Taylor, a 34 year old vet and former probowler, would they seriously have released him for not working out with the team at nonmandatory sessions? That's just such a weak story, we should all be insulted by it. Its like the disgraced politician who resigns to "spend more time with his family".

So my question really is why the silly story? Why not just say this didn't work out, we need the cap space or whatever and release him? Its not like anybody would have been surprised. And I don't see how this goofy OTA story makes either Taylor or the Redskins look any better. It makes Taylor look uncommitted and/or lazy, and it makes the Redskins look stupid and abitrary.

Does it make any difference to you that Taylor's reason for not making the deal was that exact same politician's excuse? Like you said, wy not just say it didn't work out or it was a cap issue if that was the real cause? I have to think they are being honest, because he could have just as well said, OK, and then they'd have been screwed. It's a pretty big gamble just to save a little face.

Have you ever heard of a team releasing a starter for not attending non-mandatory workouts?

I don't see why this can't be both a cap issue and a workout issue. Yes, it makes sense that the Redskins would like to get out from under an $8 million payment and, yes, it also makes sense that they would have a vested interest in monitoring a player who suffered a potentially debilitating issue before they spent that money.

Yeah, I "buy" the story... any alternative motives seem like conspiracy theories.