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

Countertrey wrote:The Lions are looking for a specific type of linebacker, and Rocky's not it. They want a monster Mike, with the strength to blow up plays, a Ray Lewis type. If they wanted Rocky, they'd have kept what they had.

Who doesn't want a RayLewis to build yoru defense around?

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Lions are looking for a specific type of linebacker, and Rocky's not it. They want a monster Mike, with the strength to blow up plays, a Ray Lewis type. If they wanted Rocky, they'd have kept what they had.

Who doesn't want a RayLewis to build yoru defense around?

Perhaps I didn't make what I wanted to say clear. It had been suggested that, having traded Ernie Sims, Detroit would be looking for a replacement. My point is, the reason that Detroit traded Sims is that they don't like his style of play... limit and pursue, using angles to get to the ball carrier. Schwartz wants a big, hold your ground type of linebacker.

McIntosh is far more like Sims than the type of player that they are looking for to replace him... so, there's no reason to believe that Detroit would have any interest in him. The point is, Detroit is looking for their rock on defense... and, if they aren't willing to make do with Sims... what would make them interested in Rocky?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cleg wrote:Who is Rocky Macintosh and why does he think he should get big money?

He's a bitter little wench. He decided he was screwed because the collective bargaining agreement is iron clad binding on management but only a suggestion to players to follow if they feel like it, and he doesn't. Screw him. We should just let him sit until he develops some integrity.

How is he not following the collective bargaining agreement? He has done NOTHING to violate either the collective bargaining agreement or his contract.

Careful Kazo, you know Rocky came from da "U".. CS goes ballistic over his players

Thanks for the lookout on that one...

I never had any issue with Rocky before. I just have zero respect for his view that players shouldn't be held to deals they struck with ownership w/o any indication that ownership shouldn't have to honor their deals either.

This, Rocky, is for you and my heartbreak you need to work for minimum wage this year, unable to feed your family. And there are lyrics I wrote as well, "oh wow is Rocky, how sad is his tale..."

I did it again, didn't I?

I don't mean to throw myself headlong in front of your outrage, but I think you skipped a step here.

What's this deal Rocky's struck with ownership that he's not holding himself to?

I never had any issue with Rocky before. I just have zero respect for his view that players shouldn't be held to deals they struck with ownership w/o any indication that ownership shouldn't have to honor their deals either.

So I'm assuming that you also have a problem with teams that cut players that are under contract? Or are you holding players to a different standard?

langleyparkjoe wrote:

PRINCE-ALBERT-92 wrote:They should have shipped him in the Carriker trade and took the Rams 5th rd pick.. We need a LB to replace him so send him to Oakland for Kirk Morrison, he is not happy there, plus Oak will over compensate us with a 3rd pick

I like Kirk Morrison, he's a baller.

Oakland drafted Rolando McClain so Morrison should be on the market. Morrison and the 106th pick for Campbell sounds like something Al would jump all over

Countertrey wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Lions are looking for a specific type of linebacker, and Rocky's not it. They want a monster Mike, with the strength to blow up plays, a Ray Lewis type. If they wanted Rocky, they'd have kept what they had.

Who doesn't want a RayLewis to build yoru defense around?

Perhaps I didn't make what I wanted to say clear. It had been suggested that, having traded Ernie Sims, Detroit would be looking for a replacement. My point is, the reason that Detroit traded Sims is that they don't like his style of play... limit and pursue, using angles to get to the ball carrier. Schwartz wants a big, hold your ground type of linebacker.

McIntosh is far more like Sims than the type of player that they are looking for to replace him... so, there's no reason to believe that Detroit would have any interest in him. The point is, Detroit is looking for their rock on defense... and, if they aren't willing to make do with Sims... what would make them interested in Rocky?

I wasn't trying to be a smartass CT, I really didn't get that from the first time. With your clarification, I comprende...

Paralis wrote:I don't mean to throw myself headlong in front of your outrage, but I think you skipped a step here.

What's this deal Rocky's struck with ownership that he's not holding himself to?

The collective bargaining agreement

CanesSkins26 wrote:

kaz wrote:I never had any issue with Rocky before. I just have zero respect for his view that players shouldn't be held to deals they struck with ownership w/o any indication that ownership shouldn't have to honor their deals either.

So I'm assuming that you also have a problem with teams that cut players that are under contract? Or are you holding players to a different standard?

Owners are cutting players in violation of the system they set up with the collective bargaining agreement they negotiated with players? Can you show me a link for that?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I never had any issue with Rocky before. I just have zero respect for his view that players shouldn't be held to deals they struck with ownership w/o any indication that ownership shouldn't have to honor their deals either.

So I'm assuming that you also have a problem with teams that cut players that are under contract? Or are you holding players to a different standard?

If a team cuts a player under contract, they still have to pay him the money guaranteed by that contract. A player, on the other hand, can whine and complain about being treated unfairly, by being held to the contract they signed, hold out for a better deal, not play to the best of their ability, and any number of ways to try and force the team to renegotiate his current deal or force a trade. If Rocky doesn't like it, play out his contract and enter free agency. That being said, I like Rocky, and think he is an above average LB. I hope they work out a deal to keep him in DC.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Paralis wrote:I don't mean to throw myself headlong in front of your outrage, but I think you skipped a step here.

What's this deal Rocky's struck with ownership that he's not holding himself to?

The collective bargaining agreement

How is Rocky not abiding by the collective bargaining agreement? Has he missed team activities that he's required to attend? No. Is he not fulfilling his contract in some way? No.

A player, on the other hand, can whine and complain about being treated unfairly, by being held to the contract they signed, hold out for a better deal, not play to the best of their ability, and any number of ways to try and force the team to renegotiate his current deal or force a trade.

The owners do the exact same year. Every year you see players get hurt and are essentially put in a position by their teams where they are given the option of renegotiating their deals for less money or being cut. You can't criticize a player for asking for more money after a good season when players are often forced into taking less money after an injury or bad season. It goes both ways.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

A player, on the other hand, can whine and complain about being treated unfairly, by being held to the contract they signed, hold out for a better deal, not play to the best of their ability, and any number of ways to try and force the team to renegotiate his current deal or force a trade.

The owners do the exact same year. Every year you see players get hurt and are essentially put in a position by their teams where they are given the option of renegotiating their deals for less money or being cut. You can't criticize a player for asking for more money after a good season when players are often forced into taking less money after an injury or bad season. It goes both ways.

LOL People don't wanna realize it. It's easier to make the players the antagonist.

CS- I do this everyday in my job. Think of it like this:

The ownership/management are like buyers who are purchasing a home

The player is like a home seller.

The Buyer offers the Seller a price. If the Seller accepts that price, then that's the price. The Buyer then performs an inspection on the home and realizes that what the buyer was expecting when they offered is not exactly what is there. (ie - injuries, production, etc). So at that point, I suggest to my buyers to either walk away from the sale or to ask for a discount on the home due to the findings. Sometimes we ask for an overall lower price or a credit back from the Seller in lieu of repairs to be made to the home.

This is done in many fields and is part of the business world. The player is protected by his contract and the guaranteed money in it so if the player is cut, the guaranteed money is paid on the spot and it allows him to go out and see a contract with another team.

This type of stuff doesn't bother me at all but a lot of it has to do with, like I said above, I do it everyday.

This is done in many fields and is part of the business world. The player is protected by his contract and the guaranteed money in it so if the player is cut, the guaranteed money is paid on the spot and it allows him to go out and see a contract with another team.

Unless you're AH or another big name player signing with the Skins, the guaranteed money in most of these deals isn't very much. Most teams don't front load contracts with guaranteed money the way that the Skins do, so when most players get cut they don't have the guaranteed money to fall back on.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

A player, on the other hand, can whine and complain about being treated unfairly, by being held to the contract they signed, hold out for a better deal, not play to the best of their ability, and any number of ways to try and force the team to renegotiate his current deal or force a trade.

The owners do the exact same year. Every year you see players get hurt and are essentially put in a position by their teams where they are given the option of renegotiating their deals for less money or being cut. You can't criticize a player for asking for more money after a good season when players are often forced into taking less money after an injury or bad season. It goes both ways.

LOL People don't wanna realize it. It's easier to make the players the antagonist.

I just don't understand it. Both sides do the exact same thing but the players are the ones that get criticized, while excuses are made for management. It's sad, really.

No one is making excuses for management.They are forced to uphold their end of the bargain, but the players aren't (see Deion "retiring").

The example Canes gave is ludicrous. First a player who is injured can not be cut without the team first making an injury settlement agreement with said player. That's part of the CBA, and is not relevant in this discussion. If the player plays poorly, and gets cut, he is still going to collect any guaranteed money he was due. The only reason to try and renegotiate a lower deal would be if the player was not playing up to the price of the original contract, which necessarily means that it was a high dollar deal, not the low priced veteran example you gave. This goes to the whole reason the owners let the CBA expire, the players currently have all the leverage.

And Frank, your example only holds water if you are talking about after the closing. The buyer is basically SOL at that point, as the deal has already been done. This would be like the seller coming back a few years later and saying, hey the market's gone up, I want more money from the buyer now to meet market value.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

This is done in many fields and is part of the business world. The player is protected by his contract and the guaranteed money in it so if the player is cut, the guaranteed money is paid on the spot and it allows him to go out and see a contract with another team.

Unless you're AH or another big name player signing with the Skins, the guaranteed money in most of these deals isn't very much. Most teams don't front load contracts with guaranteed money the way that the Skins do, so when most players get cut they don't have the guaranteed money to fall back on.

Sounds like they hired the wrong agent :lol:

honestly though, there are more medicore plays (supply) that get paid less (demand) vs outstanding players (supply) who get paid a ton (demand).

CanesSkins26 wrote:I just don't understand it. Both sides do the exact same thing but the players are the ones that get criticized, while excuses are made for management. It's sad, really.

Because...management was sticking to the deal. You were the only one arguing a side. The player's. I was arguing honoring agreements. Management stuck to it's agreement, that's why I wasn't criticizing them. Rocky was tendered, he's covered for injury, he should have had his lazy, overpaid butt in camp. But he's out specifically to put pressure on the Skins to trade him. But then when I point out the player is the one not honoring the agreement, you say gosh, why is it the player who gets criticized? Why not management? Who complains about anyone taking management's "side?" You do, and you're the one who had already taken a side. You can take a side, it's fine, but others can't take the other side or it's just not right.

I'm not big on the collective bargaining agreement, but the players band together and negotiate as a unit. When contracts are signed, they are subject to the rules of the agreement. What do you come back with? Well, management cuts players under the terms of the agreement and the players know what they were signing when they signed it, you can't agree with that when you criticize players for not wanting to be bound by their own terms. Suuuuurrrrreeeee.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I just don't understand it. Both sides do the exact same thing but the players are the ones that get criticized, while excuses are made for management. It's sad, really.

Because...management was sticking to the deal. You were the only one arguing a side. The player's. I was arguing honoring agreements. Management stuck to it's agreement, that's why I wasn't criticizing them. Rocky was tendered, he's covered for injury, he should have had his lazy, overpaid butt in camp. But he's out specifically to put pressure on the Skins to trade him. But then when I point out the player is the one not honoring the agreement, you say gosh, why is it the player who gets criticized? Why not management? Who complains about anyone taking management's "side?" You do, and you're the one who had already taken a side. You can take a side, it's fine, but others can't take the other side or it's just not right.

I'm not big on the collective bargaining agreement, but the players band together and negotiate as a unit. When contracts are signed, they are subject to the rules of the agreement. What do you come back with? Well, management cuts players under the terms of the agreement and the players know what they were signing when they signed it, you can't agree with that when you criticize players for not wanting to be bound by their own terms. Suuuuurrrrreeeee.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how Rocky has violated the terms of the CBA, which was your contention above.

He hasn't in my book. I think what he's done is not be a team player in terms of the court of public opinion. But, if I were in his shoes, who knows. Honestly, he's not going to fit this scheme either, needs a new deal and more than likely will get traded in the next 24 hours.

It's a pretty good chance of that happening.

I would think neither Rocky or FatAl are in a position to DEMAND anything

The Hogster wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:Wait Hogster - so having a pretty good year doesn't deserve an extension? I'm saying pretty good as I feel he's an above average LB.

Countertrey - I don't think that they're going to find a Ray Lewis type of player this year or next. There's not many out there and most teams are also looking for that guy. Best of luck to them.

Not when the new regime coming in is installing a defense that he may or may not even excel in. I feel for Rocky. But, it was no secret that the CBA would likely not be extended and this year would be uncapped. The players and agents knew what would happen to players like Rocky, Carlos and Campbell. Knowing that, Rocky had to play at a very very high level to ensure that he'd get extended here. That may not be fair, but he didn't perform to that level.

He's a pro and a good player, but I can see why the new staff wants him to prove it on the field this year for them.

He was the second leading tackler on the team, with over ninety tackles. How is that not performing at the proper level. He's a weakside LB to boot-- where tackles don't happen with the frequency they do at Mike. His numbers at his position, in fact, are close to elite, not just above average.
He made dozens more tackles than Orakpo.

...THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!

CanesSkins26 wrote:I'm still waiting for you to explain how Rocky has violated the terms of the CBA, which was your contention above.

Actually "violated" is your word. I said he's not honoring it. He's an RFA, he was tendered, the free agency period for him is over, he's not in camp because he's a bitter little wench. I realize he's from Miami, the most arrogant school in collage football not located in South Bend, the school which says they are THE "U" . But he's not that good. I am against AH not being in camp and he is that good.

This off-season.... I have a new found respect for players and their ability to put up with "fans". Some of the things said and the reasoning behind the statements are just insane.