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

^ what he said...

do the math... Fletcher is huge in this defense... plus, his first name is London... which happens to be SouthLondonRedskin's middle... sort of... name.

Pay the man.

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Every day I wake up and check the news hoping to see that London is back on board. And every day nothing....



It would be so Redskins to get RGIII and a revamped offense scoring 30+ points every week next season but we still end up losing BECAUSE THE SODDING DEFENSE HAS FALLEN APART DUE TO LONDON NOT GETTING HIS CONTRACT!!!!!



I don't care that he's 37, he's as good as there is and everything revolves around him in the D. He's been here whilst we've been nothing short of an embarrasment some weeks, through dodgy coaches and ordinary teammates, he's been Mr. Reliable, Mr. Dependable and Mr. Lead by Example.

PAY THE MAN!!!!

Though my boy might be full of bullocks, I agree 1,000,000% with everything he said.

What do you guys not understand about this?

He WILL be a Redskin next year. He will not get that kind of money from anyone else, so he will eventually settle for less to play with us.

Like I have said before, the times of old guys milking the Skins for pension checks are over.

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Every day I wake up and check the news hoping to see that London is back on board. And every day nothing....



It would be so Redskins to get RGIII and a revamped offense scoring 30+ points every week next season but we still end up losing BECAUSE THE SODDING DEFENSE HAS FALLEN APART DUE TO LONDON NOT GETTING HIS CONTRACT!!!!!

I wouldn't get ahead of ourselves in terms of putting up 30+ PPG. We are going to have a rookie QB, a revamped WR corps, and (if nothing else happens) a below average OL. If people think we are going to be putting up 30+ PPG out of the gates, they better be ready for a strong dose of reality come september.

Football is a team sport and people need to learn their offfensive roles and play together in actual games before they can gell -- especially with a rookie QB.

@ LPJ

Bollocks, not bullocks! I'm a cockney not a farmer!

@ ATX

I'm sure you're right, but the longer it takes the more worried I get about the whole situation. I just want it resolved before some other team thinks 'Hang on a minute, he's just what we need in the short term, if they wont pay him we will!'

@ MarkShark

I was exagerating to make a point. Clearly they'll need time to settle, the point was the offense is looking much better than last year (the OL will be improved before the season begins) so lets make sure the defense stays together and continues to move forward, not regress.

And oh yeah, PAY THE MAN!!!!!

Countertrey wrote:^ what he said...

do the math... Fletcher is huge in this defense... plus, his first name is London... which happens to be SouthLondonRedskin's middle... sort of... name.

Pay the man.

And what a great name it is!

I wonder if he sings 'Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner' in the shower...

30+ isn't an exaggeration.. If Cam Newton can do it down there with really just Steve Smith, I'm taking a guess RG3/Luck can do it with even more weapons.

Countertrey wrote:^ what he said...

do the math... Fletcher is huge in this defense... plus, his first name is London... which happens to be SouthLondonRedskin's middle... sort of... name.

Pay the man.

YEAH. Do the math. We can't AFFORD to pay the man.

http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redsk ... ap-penalty

Linebacker Lorenzo Alexander recently spoke with Alex Marvez of Fox Sports. In that conversation, Alexander claimed that the NFL's salary cap penalty has hindered efforts by the Redskins to re-sign fellow linebacker London Fletcher.

The end result in this could be that both players may be off the team in 2013. Both Alexander and Fletcher are highly regarded players on the Redskins. Alexander is the special teams captain and Fletcher has been a leader on the Redskins defense since he was signed in 2007.

One of the reasons why this is such a problem for the Redskins is because Fletcher will probably demand much of his money up front for his deal. The Redskins may have to take a hit on cap space in the future to keep both players on the team.

I've been saying this for a week now. There's more to it than stating the obvious (Fletcher is a key part of our defense) and screaming "Pay the man".

Pay

The

Man.


Was there a reason to pull two fast, similar WR's off the FA list?

Pay the man.

Loosing Alexander next year would suck... but no where near as much as losing Fletcher this year.

Countertrey wrote:Pay

The

Man.


Was there a reason to pull two fast, similar WR's off the FA list?

Pay the man.

Loosing Alexander next year would suck... but no where near as much as losing Fletcher this year.

You're just being an idiot. You can't "pay the man" if you don't have the cap space. End of story.

Your posts are normally intelligent, so I don't understand why you keep posting this inane comment.

Then they have to make some cap space, that's how its done.

Call a taxi for Beck for a start, that's $1.2m right there....

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Then they have to make some cap space, that's how its done.

Call a taxi for Beck for a start, that's $1.2m right there....

Ok you just saved $1.2m. Although you have to sign somebody else to take Beck's place, so how much did you ACTUALLY save? $400K? Keep going though. Who else are we going to get rid of?

I love this BS. Not only do we need to sign our rookies, find an OL-man or two, a safety and a CB, but we're going to start cutting players from our existing thin roster so we can pay our 37 year old LB $9m a year.

For anybody who deals with reality, the problem with Fletcher is that he's at the end of his career. For younger players, the skins have been able to put together a high $ package squeezed in over four or five years. With Fletcher, too much of the money has to fit under the cap in the near term.

Countertrey wrote:Pay

The

Man.

How

much?

What

is

your

limit?

D

a

r

t

h

M

o

n

k

Just a reminder to play nice, folks.

langleyparkjoe wrote:30+ isn't an exaggeration.. If Cam Newton can do it down there with really just Steve Smith, I'm taking a guess RG3/Luck can do it with even more weapons.

Please, it's not that simple.

There were SERIOUS improvements made to that offense from 2010 to 2011 outside of drafting Newton.

OL:
In 2010, Carolina had one of (if no the) worst OLs in football. They started Jordan Gross, Mackenzy Bernadeau, Geoff Schwartz, Ryan Kalil, and Gary Williams. Jordan Gross was also coming off the IR in 2010 after breaking his ankle -- most consider 2010 to be the worst full season in his career.

In 2011, only Gross and Kalil remained as members of the starting lineup -- when Newton came in as starter. They made significant upgrades with Hangartner, Bell, and Wharton -- not to include a new head OL coach and OL assistants. With the exception of Wharton (who is now with Cincy), 4 of the 5 starters from 2011 are expected to retain their positions on the depth chart in 2012.

RB:
Deangelo Williams only played 6 games in 2010 and was ultimately replaced by Goodson (since in the prior year it was Williams and Steward -- who both had 1k rushing seasons in 2009). Williams came back in 2011 to supplement Stewart and Newton --- and had one of his best ypc averages of his career.

TE:
Shockey was a huge upgrade at the TE position in 2011 as well as Olsen. They had nobody at that position in 2010.

WR:
This remained primarily the same with the exception of replacing Gettis with Naanee, which appeared to be an upgrade.

So I don't believe it is as easy as you are making it out. We have made upgrades at WR, but without adequate OL support, we are still in trouble.

Countertrey wrote:Just a reminder to play nice, folks.

Dang it's easy to get emotional. Hope it wasn't me.

DarthMonk

riggofan wrote:

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Then they have to make some cap space, that's how its done.

Call a taxi for Beck for a start, that's $1.2m right there....

Ok you just saved $1.2m. Although you have to sign somebody else to take Beck's place, so how much did you ACTUALLY save? $400K? Keep going though. Who else are we going to get rid of?

I love this BS. Not only do we need to sign our rookies, find an OL-man or two, a safety and a CB, but we're going to start cutting players from our existing thin roster so we can pay our 37 year old LB $9m a year.

For anybody who deals with reality, the problem with Fletcher is that he's at the end of his career. For younger players, the skins have been able to put together a high $ package squeezed in over four or five years. With Fletcher, too much of the money has to fit under the cap in the near term.

C'mon Riggofan, I know we're simplifing things a little here but the truth is if the space needed to be made then it can be made. When we draft a QB we'll have three, we don't need to replace Beck. Restructure Hall's $6m this year for example.

I hear what you're saying, and it makes perfect sense. However on this occasion we need to bend a little because we will be taking backward steps defensively otherwise, at a time when we (and Shanny) can't afford too.

And this guy, unlike so many modern sports stars, deserves it.

riggofan wrote:

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Then they have to make some cap space, that's how its done.

Call a taxi for Beck for a start, that's $1.2m right there....

Ok you just saved $1.2m. Although you have to sign somebody else to take Beck's place, so how much did you ACTUALLY save? $400K? Keep going though. Who else are we going to get rid of?

I love this BS. Not only do we need to sign our rookies, find an OL-man or two, a safety and a CB, but we're going to start cutting players from our existing thin roster so we can pay our 37 year old LB $9m a year.

For anybody who deals with reality, the problem with Fletcher is that he's at the end of his career. For younger players, the skins have been able to put together a high $ package squeezed in over four or five years. With Fletcher, too much of the money has to fit under the cap in the near term.

Why replace beck.. 2 qbs is all we had active last year and crompton or who ever remains on the ps no need to bring.in another back up.. rex signed for.that job.
I think everyone can agree Fletcher is old, but good. His value is far greater then his leading the league in tackles but.more on leading our defense. Holding people accountable, gettin players in the correct position, calling audibles, and of course the off field leadership he brings to.the table. I hope he can retire hos playing career here then join the staff. I agree 9 million per year w our cap penalties is not realistic but I think the.majority of skins nation wants us to try our best to meet in the.middle.
For what its worth he isn't a frail Brett farve he is an ageless beast that hasn't missed a game who lays the wood and knows the position as good as anyone can ever hope to.

riggofan wrote:

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Then they have to make some cap space, that's how its done.

Call a taxi for Beck for a start, that's $1.2m right there....

Ok you just saved $1.2m. Although you have to sign somebody else to take Beck's place, so how much did you ACTUALLY save? $400K? Keep going though. Who else are we going to get rid of?

I love this BS. Not only do we need to sign our rookies, find an OL-man or two, a safety and a CB, but we're going to start cutting players from our existing thin roster so we can pay our 37 year old LB $9m a year.

For anybody who deals with reality, the problem with Fletcher is that he's at the end of his career. For younger players, the skins have been able to put together a high $ package squeezed in over four or five years. With Fletcher, too much of the money has to fit under the cap in the near term.

Can I play?

For starters Beck will save $1.3M so there's another $100K there.
The Redskins would be sitting at $6M under the cap without Beck, with $5.5M set aside for rookies, and $3.4M for PBP.
Re-working Trent Williams will free up another $6.5M minimum or $12.5M with Beck gone.

Here's what they can do...
Five years, $35M with $7.2M signing bonus and $10M fully guaranteed

Signing Bonus and the first two year's base salary are the guaranteed money with (base of $1M in 2012 and $1.8M in 2013).
The deal would include option bonuses of $2.5M in 2014 and 2015 (if not paid the contract voids).

Half million dollar roster bonuses in first two years.

2012 cap it would be $2.94M in 2013 $3.74M

Base salary would be $4.5M in 2014, $6.5M in 2015 and $8M in 2016.
If they void the deal after the 2013 season they will take a cap hit of $4.32M if they don't the cap hit will be around $8M and must be re-worked before the Option bonus is paid.


How'd I do?

This could be done with the room they have now but would leave them with less than $500K in space so they'll have to make a contract move to re-sign Flecther.

For those that don't know Flecth fired his agent right before free agency started.

You're wasted on here 1niksder...

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:You're wasted on here 1niksder...

No kiddin'. That's what we asked for and voila.

DarthMonk

1niksder wrote:Can I play?

For starters Beck will save $1.3M so there's another $100K there.
The Redskins would be sitting at $6M under the cap without Beck, with $5.5M set aside for rookies, and $3.4M for PBP.
Re-working Trent Williams will free up another $6.5M minimum or $12.5M with Beck gone.

Here's what they can do...
Five years, $35M with $7.2M signing bonus and $10M fully guaranteed

Signing Bonus and the first two year's base salary are the guaranteed money with (base of $1M in 2012 and $1.8M in 2013).
The deal would include option bonuses of $2.5M in 2014 and 2015 (if not paid the contract voids).

How'd I do?

I've got a couple issues with what you wrote - but I give you huge credit here for taking a realistic stab at it and also for showing just how tricky this all actually is. I don't mean to snipe at anybody, but this "pay the man" stuff really bugs me. There's also this idea that the Redskins are somehow "wrong" for not giving Fletcher whatever he wants no matter what. Personally, I'm glad we have REAL football people in charge right now who seem to taking a long view of things.

Back to what 1niksder wrote. I had a couple questions:

1) Re: Beck, I thought I read somewhere that if we released him in June that we'd actually save 2.something million. Any truth?

2) Isn't the Trent Williams thing problematic because of the drug issue? I think they would have done that restructuring already otherwise. I want to believe Williams has turned things around, but that is really risky.

3) And lastly, I don't understand all of the intricacies, but I've read a couple places that this five year front loaded deal that the Redskins often use doesn't work for Fletcher. This is what ESPN said about it:

The Redskins were able to sign younger players like Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan to long-term deals because they're able to pay signing bonuses and spread out the cap hit over several years. But Fletcher's deal, since he's about to turn 37, isn't likely to be a very long one. And since Fletcher is still so valuable as a player and otherwise, it's not likely to be a cheap one either. So it's entirely possible the Redskins are stuck with the problem of how to fit a significant portion of a new Fletcher deal under this year's cap, and that such a problem is one they haven't faced with the other contracts they've handed out this offseason.

On the plus side, at least we haven't heard Fletcher is out visiting other teams yet. Hopefully something can get done to keep him here.

Provide the man with proper remuneration.

riggofan wrote:

1niksder wrote:Can I play?

For starters Beck will save $1.3M so there's another $100K there.
The Redskins would be sitting at $6M under the cap without Beck, with $5.5M set aside for rookies, and $3.4M for PBP.
Re-working Trent Williams will free up another $6.5M minimum or $12.5M with Beck gone.

Here's what they can do...
Five years, $35M with $7.2M signing bonus and $10M fully guaranteed

Signing Bonus and the first two year's base salary are the guaranteed money with (base of $1M in 2012 and $1.8M in 2013).
The deal would include option bonuses of $2.5M in 2014 and 2015 (if not paid the contract voids).

How'd I do?

I've got a couple issues with what you wrote - but I give you huge credit here for taking a realistic stab at it and also for showing just how tricky this all actually is. I don't mean to snipe at anybody, but this "pay the man" stuff really bugs me. There's also this idea that the Redskins are somehow "wrong" for not giving Fletcher whatever he wants no matter what. Personally, I'm glad we have REAL football people in charge right now who seem to taking a long view of things.

Back to what 1niksder wrote. I had a couple questions:

1) Re: Beck, I thought I read somewhere that if we released him in June that we'd actually save 2.something million. Any truth?

Beck has a base salary of $1.3M releasing him would add that to the cap space, that's all they can get out of him.

riggofan wrote:2) Isn't the Trent Williams thing problematic because of the drug issue? I think they would have done that restructuring already otherwise. I want to believe Williams has turned things around, but that is really risky.

They would have to add a year or two to the back end of this deal and give him about $10M in cash so thet may not be ready to do it yet, but it's a option.

riggofan wrote:3) And lastly, I don't understand all of the intricacies, but I've read a couple places that this five year front loaded deal that the Redskins often use doesn't work for Fletcher. This is what ESPN said about it:

The Redskins were able to sign younger players like Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan to long-term deals because they're able to pay signing bonuses and spread out the cap hit over several years. But Fletcher's deal, since he's about to turn 37, isn't likely to be a very long one. And since Fletcher is still so valuable as a player and otherwise, it's not likely to be a cheap one either. So it's entirely possible the Redskins are stuck with the problem of how to fit a significant portion of a new Fletcher deal under this year's cap, and that such a problem is one they haven't faced with the other contracts they've handed out this offseason.

On the plus side, at least we haven't heard Fletcher is out visiting other teams yet. Hopefully something can get done to keep him here.

The example I gave is pretty much just like the deal Morgan signed minus the option bonuses in years 3 and 4. Morgan's deal will void after 2 years regardless.

I'm just so pissed off that we haven't re-signed one of the best ILBs in the game!!!