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

Earlier tonight on PTI, Troy Aikman stated Dallas made a bad decision signing Tank and that teams win with character as much as talent. Aikman said he also thinks it sends the wrong message to children.

TincoSkin wrote:the real issue here is that dallas sees the skins with two O line injuries and ggoes out to aquire someone that can exploit it. now that we are the only two NFC east teams that are any good it is a huge step forward for their organiszation.

what can we do to exploit problems on there team?

sorry but I disagree - the real issue is that ttiT will put someone on their team regardless of how he will help the team but because they hope he will regardless of the "cost" to the team framework and most teams in the NFL will not risk that same team framework unless they are very sure about what they are "adding" - I do not want guys like this on my team and I think Joe feels the same way - Danny might have made this deal but Joe will not

See, Tank isn't going in as an overpaid player though, he signed without a signing bonus, and for the league minimum for a vet for two years. So if he screws up, he's gone. Last time I heard he isn't a locker room problem, just has problems off the field. Now Mike Vick is a diffrent story in that regard.

So you get a top notch player for a bargain basement price. Unless he is galactically stupid he knows that this is the very last chance to make it in the NFL, so he'll make every effort to keep out of trouble and to get a better contract in two years and that very may will be with the Cowboys, hence the reason Jerry signed him for two years.

forskins wrote:Dwayne Goodrich -- not recent history.

That's convenient.

2003 is definitely recent history to some of us... especially those of us not trying to deny an undeniable truth.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:We need a pass rush plain and simple and who said I feel they should replace the young guys? Maybe I feel he could be the replacement for Griffin? Since I didn't specify any of that, you'd have to be assuming on your part. Why would anyone need to be replaced? Gregg has no starters, Tank would just be inserted in along with the rest of them.

Assuming? You don't just pick guys up and leave your roster the way it is... you have to drop a player to make room anyway, so it's usually AT the position your replacing.

Sounds like you're just back-pedaling to me.

Cut Griffin to get Tank? So you're saying maybe that's what you meant... but maybe not too... I get it... unlimited butter.


No matter WHO we dumped to make room, there's a pretty good chance that a young, fringe player would be the one that found themselves unemployed to make room for Tank. Personally, I see no value in it and I'm glad that the front office didn't share the trigger finger... normally you would too but I guess at 2-0, it's tougher to find good stuff to gripe about.

BossHog wrote:

forskins wrote:Dwayne Goodrich -- not recent history.

That's convenient.

2003 is definitely recent history to some of us... especially those of us not trying to deny an undeniable truth.

Did he play for the Parcells Tenure? That's recent enough for me.

Hey man, we're forced to deal with the "buying a Super Bowl" label each season as if that the Redskins signed Bruce Smith yesterday. It's all relative.

forskins wrote:See, Tank isn't going in as an overpaid player though, he signed without a signing bonus, and for the league minimum for a vet for two years. So if he screws up, he's gone. Last time I heard he isn't a locker room problem, just has problems off the field. Now Mike Vick is a diffrent story in that regard.

So you get a top notch player for a bargain basement price. Unless he is galactically stupid he knows that this is the very last chance to make it in the NFL, so he'll make every effort to keep out of trouble and to get a better contract in two years and that very may will be with the Cowboys, hence the reason Jerry signed him for two years.

LOL. Isn't that exactly what the Bears said to him? Screw up and yer gone - well, guess what? He DOES screw up. Over and over. Galctically stupid? He's proven that time and time again.

As for being a top notch player. Nope. Honestly, if he hadn't had the off-field problems and gained some notoriety that way then there is a pretty good chance that nobody would consider Tank anything other than Just Another DT. At best, he's a team's 3rd tackle.

BossHog wrote:Assuming? You don't just pick guys up and leave your roster the way it is... you have to drop a player to make room anyway, so it's usually AT the position your replacing.

Unless you've got an unbalanced roster, like the Redskins do. Only having 8 OL means there's expendable bodies elsewhere. The easiest cut would probably be Omar Stoutmire, but there could be others.

Cut Griffin to get Tank? So you're saying maybe that's what you meant... but maybe not too... I get it... unlimited butter.

Or you look at Griffin's career. He's 30, and hasn't played 16 games n how many years? I'm absolutely not saying he should be cut--he's far and away the Skins' best lineman. But it's that gap that's the problem. There isn't anybody who can step in and take his place. Just a lot of Salavea types who eat up space and are great against the run, but don't command double-teams and can't get to the QB.

It's a moot point, obv., and this really isn't my fight, but the condescension in your replies is really off-putting. The Redskins look like a good team so far--better than they did in 2005, and what's most encouraging is that the problems so far (especially on offense) are the sort of things that will correct with repetition. Moss isn't going to have the dropsies all year, and ey's not going to stay invisible. IMO, the Skins this year, if a few things break the right way, are absolutely good enough to get blown out in the Super Bowl (as much as I hate to admit it, I don't think anybody who saw the Pats on Sunday night thinks there's a team in the NFL that can hang with them right now). But I don't understand this idea that the team can afford to stand pat--to reject the idea of adding talent and experienced depth where there really isn't any.

SkinsJock wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:the real issue here is that dallas sees the skins with two O line injuries and ggoes out to aquire someone that can exploit it. now that we are the only two NFC east teams that are any good it is a huge step forward for their organiszation.

what can we do to exploit problems on there team?

sorry but I disagree - the real issue is that ttiT will put someone on their team regardless of how he will help the team but because they hope he will regardless of the "cost" to the team framework and most teams in the NFL will not risk that same team framework unless they are very sure about what they are "adding" - I do not want guys like this on my team and I think Joe feels the same way - Danny might have made this deal but Joe will not

i hear your argument about team chem and i agree, i would not want this guy either but they did make a move that has the potential to hurt us when we play them. i think regardless of his history or possible detriment to dallas unity on the field he can hurt us because our line is depleated.

now what can we do to offset that? we just got that guy from the lions. thats good. now can we do other things that might give us an advantage over dallas? i dont know. but knowing that the girls and the skins are the two real teams in the division we should focus energy there.

Just another ex offender to join the boys.

TincoSkin wrote:the real issue here is that dallas sees the skins with two O line injuries and ggoes out to aquire someone that can exploit it. now that we are the only two NFC east teams that are any good it is a huge step forward for their organiszation.

what can we do to exploit problems on there team?

easy...throw the ball

LOSTHOG wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:the real issue here is that dallas sees the skins with two O line injuries and ggoes out to aquire someone that can exploit it. now that we are the only two NFC east teams that are any good it is a huge step forward for their organiszation.

what can we do to exploit problems on there team?

easy...throw the ball

your in depth analysis truley has disected the dallas D. I dont know what wed do with out you

BearSkins wrote:
LOL. Isn't that exactly what the Bears said to him? Screw up and yer gone - well, guess what? He DOES screw up. Over and over. Galctically stupid? He's proven that time and time again.

As for being a top notch player. Nope. Honestly, if he hadn't had the off-field problems and gained some notoriety that way then there is a pretty good chance that nobody would consider Tank anything other than Just Another DT. At best, he's a team's 3rd tackle.

Now the question do the Cowboys put up with a troublesome player that continues to struggle with off the field problems. Quincy Carter anyone? He was gone even before the NFL chose to do anything about it. He has not Bonus so he's basically getting paid on a game to game basis. So financially there is no risk at all for the guy and a steal for the talent at that price.


I've heard the same talk before about him supposedly being only better due to Tommie Harriss. Guess what, Tommie Harris isnt as effective without him now it seems.

TincoSkin wrote: knowing that the girls and the skins are the two real teams in the division we should focus energy there.

Well, that debate was solved this weekend. The Boys and the Packers (if you believe that hype) are the only real teams now in the NFC.

Why is it Hype for the Packers and not hype for ttiT?

Boy, the more things change...


FYI, just throwing it out there, but Dwayne Goodrich isn't just "not recent history"

He's not history at all. He wasn't part of the Dallas Cowboys when he pulled that crap. He was already out of his contract.


But let the jealousy ring true, guys. In your case, it always seems to

Primetime42 wrote:Boy, the more things change...

yeah no doubt... because...

Primetime42 wrote:FYI, just throwing it out there, but Dwayne Goodrich isn't just "not recent history"

He's not history at all. He wasn't part of the Dallas Cowboys when he pulled that crap. He was already out of his contract.

... is just total fabrication.

The accident happened on January 24th, the Cowboys released him on February 20th.

Having conviction doesn't make you right.

Ex-Dallas Cowboys cornerback Dwayne Goodrich was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday.

Goodrich, 24, was charged with two counts of manslaughter, three counts of failure to stop and render aid as well as aggravated assault following a hit-and-run accident on Jan. 24.

Goodrich, released by the Cowboys on Feb. 20, is free on $65,000 US bond.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2003/03/ ... 30311.html

Transaction reports from February 21st, 2003 -
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/21/Sport ... h_ex.shtml

If you don't like those sources, then I presume CBS Sportsline will do...

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6201510

The accident was on Jan. 24, he wasn't indicted until March 11th. He was released on Feb. 20th. You don't think you would weigh all the evidence before releasing a player? Vick was still considered part of the team (and still is) up until training camp.

So back to subject here.

The guy is basically collecting a paycheck from week to week as he signed w/o a bonus and if he presents ANY kind of problem, will be gone. So again, what's the risk here? Team Chemistry? Lovie Smith and the rest of the Bears spoke and still speak highly of the guy.

More than that, JPM, who said

the Cowboys would pull people out of jail

Jerry Jones owns the jails. Private enterprise. He uses them as a screening mechanism.





(OK, I made that up...but it fits.)

By the way, welcome back PT42. Haven't seen your posts in a while.