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

Irn-Bru wrote:

Countertrey wrote:^+1...

OTOH... who expected Orakpo to last until 12?

Sure . . . and Aaron Rogers slid to 24 when he could've gone first overall. Of course, it's a little easier for a stud DE to fall than for a QB to fall.

(It's also starting to look like Orakpo might have been overvalued at 12. )

It's not impossible that RG would fall to us. But who in their right mind would plan on that?

That said, I'll be the last person to complain if we sit at six and RG is still on the board. Unless we don't draft him.

Bru... I agree on all points...

Jeremy81 wrote:Its not that far fetched...just need cleveland to fall in love with trent richardson. Hopefully he has a stellar combine

That wouldn't stop the Dolphins or Seahawks, or another team that needs a qb, from trading up to #2 to get RGIII. Someone is going to make a move to get him, he's got too much upside at the premier position in the game to last to #6.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Jeremy81 wrote:Its not that far fetched...just need cleveland to fall in love with trent richardson. Hopefully he has a stellar combine

That wouldn't stop the Dolphins or Seahawks, or another team that needs a qb, from trading up to #2 to get RGIII. Someone is going to make a move to get him, he's got too much upside at the premier position in the game to last to #6.

Not that they owe us anything, but Jones and Barkley really screwed us over this year. Watch one of them land on the Cowboys and continue screwing us for another decade.

Countertrey wrote:]Bru... I agree on all points...

How about you make it a little harder to please a grumpy curmudgeon, though? Just a thought.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Bru... I agree on all points...

How about you make it a little harder to please a grumpy curmudgeon, though? Just a thought.

We form a brotherhood of the misunderstood. Our unwillingness to celebrate the ordinary makes us difficult to appreciate by those who rejoice at a C+, or who make excuses for the mundane. Ask me if I care. Bite me.


Better?

“Do you sell the facilities? You can’t. Do you sell the division? Well, does he really want to butt heads with his brother twice a year? Does he really want that sideshow and all that hype? Probably not. I don’t see it. You can’t sell the roster. The coaching staff, in two years they’ve won one less game than Jim Zorn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

The injury scares me. Mike Bass nearly paralyzed. No, I don't think Peyton should play for any team.

welch wrote:The injury scares me. Mike Bass nearly paralyzed. No, I don't think Peyton should play for any team.

Who's this Mike Bass you speak of?

chiefhog44 wrote:

welch wrote:The injury scares me. Mike Bass nearly paralyzed. No, I don't think Peyton should play for any team.

Who's this Mike Bass you speak of?

Welch will give you the "real" answer but he was a Redskin who happens to be the last man drafted by Vince Lombardi to score a TD in a Super Bowl. #41

1niksder wrote:

Maybe Peyton won't be a option

DarthMonk wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

welch wrote:The injury scares me. Mike Bass nearly paralyzed. No, I don't think Peyton should play for any team.

Who's this Mike Bass you speak of?

Welch will give you the "real" answer but he was a Redskin who happens to be the last man drafted by Vince Lombardi to score a TD in a Super Bowl. #41

I thought you were referring to a Mike Bass of the Miami Huricanes that I knew long ago. He got hurt playing, but I didn't know how. Thought it was the same guy.

1niksder wrote:Maybe Peyton won't be a option

This was the only option Irsay had. Put it on Peyton. If I were Peyton, I wouldn't restructure, unless he wants to be a part of a total rebuild. put it back on Irsay. Make him actually cut you or pay you. The team sucks and it's going too take a few years to replenish the talent.

chiefhog44 wrote:If I were Peyton, I wouldn't restructure, unless he wants to be a part of a total rebuild. put it back on Irsay. Make him actually cut you or pay you. The team sucks and it's going too take a few years to replenish the talent.

I think the bridge is already burned down with the off-season back and forth between them. I can't imagine Peyton staying now for a pay cut. Though I guess no one knows that right now but Peyton.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:If I were Peyton, I wouldn't restructure, unless he wants to be a part of a total rebuild. put it back on Irsay. Make him actually cut you or pay you. The team sucks and it's going too take a few years to replenish the talent.

I think the bridge is already burned down with the off-season back and forth between them. I can't imagine Peyton staying now for a pay cut. Though I guess no one knows that right now but Peyton.

If he can EASILY take a RICH and probably BETTER incentive-loaded contract elsewhere, Why would he take it from Irsay in the strictest BUSINESS sense of the word???

Loyalty? To Irsay?

There is no incentive whatsoever for Peyton to stay in Indy.

Rule #1 in NFL negotiations:

You make the BEST business deal you can get in the best overall situation for YOU to succeed.

This thread continues to be all about speculation and nothing else for as long as new factors and announcements come in.

Going back to my offseason slumber

chiefhog44 wrote:

1niksder wrote:Maybe Peyton won't be a option

This was the only option Irsay had. Put it on Peyton. If I were Peyton, I wouldn't restructure, unless he wants to be a part of a total rebuild. put it back on Irsay. Make him actually cut you or pay you. The team sucks and it's going too take a few years to replenish the talent.

The latest News might have come from Irsay too.

Peyton should not restructure with the Colts. He has a contract with the Colts. If they choose not to honor it, it is more than likely because they intend to move on and draft Luck. It would be the team breaking the contract, not the player--as if often is. Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach.

In that case, the best move for Peyton would be to go elsewhere if he can play. I think the Redskins are a LONG shot, but if (i) he CAN play (ii) wants to play here and (iii) can be had for an incentive laden deal, then it's a no-brainer.

Having him here, would allow the team to draft a guy like Tannenhill, Weeden, or Foles later in the draft, and allow that player to learn from a HOF QB much like A Rodgers did.

But, I will say, I doubt Peyton is here. I also think Flynn is a shoe-in for Miami with his former coach being the Head man in Miami.

That leaves Kyle Orton, RG3Ints, Vince Young et al.

Irn-Bru wrote:

1niksder wrote:

What about this on?

The Hogster wrote:Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach

That's not what breach of contract means. If it were breach, Peyton could sue...and win... He can't because the contract allows the team to not pay him the bonus and cut him.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach

That's not what breach of contract means. If it were breach, Peyton could sue...and win... He can't because the contract allows the team to not pay him the bonus and cut him.

If I worked out a deal that's worth $100M and pays me more than half of it in the first two years, with the other party knowing in advance that I was injuried. I might give them another crack at it. He didn't play a down last years and made $26M, why not let them try to get their money's worth?

I think Peyton knew what was coming when he worked out the deal last season, I don't think he thought he'd lose the whole year but he knew he'd be out for a good portion of the season. Take the $28M due and convert it into per week performance bonuses, that would equal about a million a week over two years, based on practice during the week and dressing for the games. Starting in consecutive games would allow the $16M portion of these per week bonuses that would be due during the 2013 season to be converted into a delayed signing bonus due at the start of the 2013 NFL year (March 2013).

Peyton doesn't lose much if anything, Irsay doesn't give up as much now as he would had to give up and the sooner Manning is ready the more he'll be paid. It wouldn't really impact the Colts cap situation (it's on life support compared to the rest of their conference), other than to help in 2012 and 2013 (when the cash floor kicks in).

The main reason Peyton NEEDS to do this is.....







The FLN can stop running story after story about Peyton to the Skins.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach

That's not what breach of contract means. If it were breach, Peyton could sue...and win... He can't because the contract allows the team to not pay him the bonus and cut him.

What a dimwitted post. An NFL Player Contract is an employment contract governed by Collective Bargaining. So, obviously lawsuits don't result when a party violates the terms of that agreement.

Look up what "breach" means. Then look up what "breach of contract" means. I never said that the Colts were in "breach of contract" which is a legal concept justifying a lawsuit. I said they are the party in breach.
Put simply, they would be the party taking a specific action to avoid abiding by the terms of the contract.

Words matter whether you were ever taught that or not. I'll try this one more time, slowly. The Colts have a contract with Peyton. That contract requires them to pay Peyton a $28M bonus on March 8th. To avoid that obligation, the team can simply terminate the contract prior to that date. Peyton has no obligation to make any concessions for the team because the TERMS of the deal favor him. See also leverage.

Peyton need not push the date back, or renegotiate to let the team off the hook. Just like the Colts need not pay the bonus if they don't want to. But, the Colts in this case would be the party taking action in contravention of the terms of the contract. Duh

Regular employment agreements are generally terminable at will. Generally meaning that the employer can fire you when he wants, and the employee can quit when he wants. NFL Player contracts are not quite terminable at will. A player can't just quit and go play elsewhere. But, a team can just cut you. The rules have been collectively bargained. And, the player doesn't have to do the team any favors, especially when the team is the party trying to avoid its obligations.

The Hogster wrote:What a dimwitted post. An NFL Player Contract is an employment contract governed by Collective Bargaining. So, obviously lawsuits don't result when a party violates the terms of that agreement.

Look up what "breach" means. Then look up what "breach of contract" means. I never said that the Colts were in "breach of contract" which is a legal concept justifying a lawsuit. I said they are the party in breach.
Put simply, they would be the party taking a specific action to avoid abiding by the terms of the contract.

Words matter whether you were ever taught that or not. I'll try this one more time, slowly. The Colts have a contract with Peyton. That contract requires them to pay Peyton a $28M bonus on March 8th. To avoid that obligation, the team can simply terminate the contract prior to that date. Peyton has no obligation to make any concessions for the team because the TERMS of the deal favor him. See also leverage.

Peyton need not push the date back, or renegotiate to let the team off the hook. Just like the Colts need not pay the bonus if they don't want to. But, the Colts in this case would be the party taking action in contravention of the terms of the contract. Duh

Regular employment agreements are generally terminable at will. Generally meaning that the employer can fire you when he wants, and the employee can quit when he wants. NFL Player contracts are not quite terminable at will. A player can't just quit and go play elsewhere. But, a team can just cut you. The rules have been collectively bargained. And, the player doesn't have to do the team any favors, especially when the team is the party trying to avoid its obligations.

Wow, thanks for the validation. That would be check and mate.

1niksder wrote:

If I worked out a deal that's worth $100M and pays me more than half of it in the first two years, with the other party knowing in advance that I was injuried. I might give them another crack at it. He didn't play a down last years and made $26M, why not let them try to get their money's worth?

Why? For the sake of being nice? Or fair? Teams don't play nice or fair, so why should the players? A player who loses his job to a nagging injury like a hamstring, and his younger, cheaper backup comes in and plays like Victor Cruz, that player doesn't get to say "give me a shot next year to win my job back now that my hamstring is good." They usually get released.

In the instances where the player has the upper hand, I don't understand why people expect them to make concessions for the billionaire owners.

If we really want to be honest about it, Peyton Manning has made Jim Irsay wayyyyy more money than he's been paid under contract. Most fans have no idea how (i) merchandising like Jersey sales etc (ii) TV deals, and other revenue makes the owners tons of money. All they know is the contract numbers for players which is high. Maybe folks should stop to think that yes, getting a check for $28M makes you rich. But, WRITING a check for $28M makes you wealthy. I shed no tears for Irsay especially when he's going to get Luck at a bargain contract.

The Hogster wrote:Peyton should not restructure with the Colts. He has a contract with the Colts. If they choose not to honor it, it is more than likely because they intend to move on and draft Luck. It would be the team breaking the contract, not the player--as if often is. Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach.

I thought you were a sports agent lawyer. No team is ever in breach when they cut a player. And the only way a player can be in breach is by holding out or retiring early. In fact, I can't think of a single case of a team ever being in breach of contract. Maybe in the early days when a team folded, but not in the modern era.