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

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:A fair deal in any sense is a deal that both sides walk away from thinking that they both benefitted - In my opinion, Snyder would prefer to not complete a deal, no matter how profitable or how much sense it makes IF the other side involved thought it was a "fair" deal - just my opinion.

You don't think Haynesworth thought he got a fair deal? How about Deion? AA? In fact, The only person I think who ever thought Snyder might have ripped them off is LaVar. I don't see your argument.

I am not arguing, but I guess I should have qualified the point.

Snyder would rather spend a fortune acquiring a player than spend the same amount acquiring a bunch of players that would greatly improve the chances for his team being better because by making a splash he can continue to look like he's a big spender - in the end it does not matter because the team will most likely not improve but it's wealth and market value will.

I am just upset that we spent so much for so little return especially considering the health record of Fat Albert.

Why should we have all our eggs in the one basket when we could have spread the maoney around for more players - are you of the impression that this team at the end of last year was not far away from being a very competitive team again. are you nuts?

Acquiring 1 player on the defensive line with a bad record for playing a full season is not a good financial deal in my book or greatly increasing our chances for an improved team this next season.

How Snyder treats the fans and people who work for him is how he gets his reputation - "buying" players and friends to sit in his owner's box does not make him a benefactor

I'm the last one to argue that The Danny is a friend to the little guy, but I was taking on that one, narrow point, in your post. I think the people he makes deals with feel they have been treated fairly. As for the recent signings: yes, I do think we have become a markedly better team with those three. I also think that our draft prospects are looking better because of those FA moves. AH will improve the performance of those around him greatly. My big concern is his ability to stay healthy. It does seem we are snake bitten when it comes to the splashy FA signings of the Snyder era (note the word splashy). We do seem to be learning our lesson when it comes to the age of those signings, though (something I don't think the press gives him nearly enough credit for). Plus, although the AH signing is constantly being called a 100 million dollar deal, it is really only a four year, $48 million deal, with some injury outs written into it (another point the press overlooks), so it really is a good deal in my eyes.

OK, so let me put it this way on water. If someone doesn't know that water bottles aren't allowed going into sports stadiums they aren't paying attention.

You're making a generalization that's not factually correct. Take for example the Orioles, located about 30 miles from Fed Ex field. They allow bottled water, soda, peanuts, hot dogs, etc. into Camden Yards.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

OK, so let me put it this way on water. If someone doesn't know that water bottles aren't allowed going into sports stadiums they aren't paying attention.

You're making a generalization that's not factually correct. Take for example the Orioles, located about 30 miles from Fed Ex field. They allow bottled water, soda, peanuts, hot dogs, etc. into Camden Yards.

Lot's of stadiums allow unopened, plastic bottles of non-alcoholic beverages, and coolers of food to be brought in.

Deadskins wrote: .. As for the recent signings: yes, I do think we have become a markedly better team with those three. I also think that our draft prospects are looking better because of those FA moves. AH will improve the performance of those around him greatly. My big concern is his ability to stay healthy. It does seem we are snake bitten when it comes to the splashy FA signings of the Snyder era (note the word splashy). We do seem to be learning our lesson when it comes to the age of those signings, though (something I don't think the press gives him nearly enough credit for). Plus, although the AH signing is constantly being called a 100 million dollar deal, it is really only a four year, $48 million deal, with some injury outs written into it (another point the press overlooks), so it really is a good deal in my eyes.

In essence I like the signings too - I just think that we paid an awful lot for Fat Albert - as you said - 48 million for 4 years and with the injury clauses - Oh! by the way - a guaranteed sum also - just because I know you would have included that little 'gem' but it probably slipped your mind.

I feel we would have been better served if we had acquired more players for the same price is all.

btw - what sort of help is an injury clause in applying pressure on the QB?

We have some concerns with the defense that are somewhat addressed with 1 guy who, despite making us all feel better about the injury clauses, is not a good bet in my opinion - but it is also my feeling that we are a number of young very good players away from having a decent offense and defense than what we have done so far and will get in this draft.

I guess I just do not think the team is being managed well again after all the restraint we have shown recently we are now spending this money on a very questionable player - the Hall and Dockery signings show promise but this 4 year deal for Fat Albert including the injury clauses is just not a good deal.

I wonder why anyone thought the contract needed an injury clause I hope I'm wrong.

tcwest10 wrote:RiC...you're going to have to man up and admit that they did good this year in FA. Nobody over 30 yet.
Danny's "greed" is our gain this year.

Yea I agree with tcwest10, he did do good in FA this year.

And I dont see what was wrong with CT's original comment.

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

tcwest10 wrote:RiC...you're going to have to man up and admit that they did good this year in FA. Nobody over 30 yet.
Danny's "greed" is our gain this year.

Yea I agree with tcwest10, he did do good in FA this year.

And I dont see what was wrong with CT's original comment.

In RIC's defense, his post was not personal... he has multiple, legitimate gripes with where he perceives the Danny to be taking the team, and questions his motives... with plenty of justification.

He was ribbing me because I attributed motivation to the Danny that he (RIC) doesn't believe to be compatible with the evil Danny personna he has come to revile.

The fact is, I misread the intent of his post. There. I said it.

The problem is, I don't think the Danny is adequately complicated to succeed as an impersonator of Machiavelli, as RIC does. I don't go to games, nor buy from the Redskins Store, and have no need for water on FA day... and, as much as I love the 'skins, if the Danny wants to run the team into the ground, well... nahhh... you gotta draw a line somewhere. But, I do think this is more about Danny's ego than greed... he wants to be loved for getting another Lombardi trophy into the case, and he wants acknowledgement that it was HIS wheeling and dealing that got that done.

So, yeah, that means that we are back to Danny, the rich guy playing fantasy football with a real team. Well, yeah... that sucks... unless, of course, he somehow pulls it off... let's see... two players who are only 28... one who is 26... and (GASP) they actually fill needs. That's different from the usual pattern of getting old guys with nothing left in the tank... what's up with that???


Sure hope the Danny's right on this one. Hey, 1nik... will that injury clause save us if he goes down with a fracture in mid September? Or are we totally screwed because we will be up tight against the cap?

I look at it like this. It doesn't matter what you say you think. If you go to the park, pay for parking, ect ect, then in the end, you support the Danny whether you like it or not. Don't wanna support the Danny, you can't support the skins, b/c it's one in the same.
Ratings gives the Danny money. Buying his overpriced beer (like I did when I was there last) supports the Danny. Did I whine about it? Yes, but I did it anyway, so obviously it wasn't THAT big of a deal. Buying his paraphenelia is supporting the Danny. All this self justification is just crap.

Arguing semantics is futile, he's the one with the money and BOUGHT the Redskins franchise. Debating HIS good or bad business tactics is also futile. I can guarantee you that his net worth is more than 99.9% of the members here. Who's the better business man? THE MAN WITH THE MOST MONEY. Everything else is moot. Go ahead and argue theory if ya like. The man's not a millionaire because he's a retard.

Countertrey wrote:The problem is, I don't think the Danny is adequately complicated to succeed as an impersonator of Machiavelli, as RIC does. I don't go to games, nor buy from the Redskins Store, and have no need for water on FA day... and, as much as I love the 'skins, if the Danny wants to run the team into the ground, well... nahhh... you gotta draw a line somewhere. But, I do think this is more about Danny's ego than greed... he wants to be loved for getting another Lombardi trophy into the case, and he wants acknowledgement that it was HIS wheeling and dealing that got that done.

So, yeah, that means that we are back to Danny, the rich guy playing fantasy football with a real team. Well, yeah... that sucks... unless, of course, he somehow pulls it off... let's see... two players who are only 28... one who is 26... and (GASP) they actually fill needs. That's different from the usual pattern of getting old guys with nothing left in the tank... what's up with that???


Sure hope the Danny's right on this one. Hey, 1nik... will that injury clause save us if he goes down with a fracture in mid September? Or are we totally screwed because we will be up tight against the cap?

I can guarantee you that his net worth is more than 99.9% of the members here.

OK... which one of you is in that 1/10% and is my new best friend?

Call me... we'll hang out.


As long as you're going to be in town, I could use a few bucks, too...

Man can the Danny actually be learning from his mistakes? Has Vinny C. actually learned how to manage a team?
I am actually very pleased with how this off season has went so far. Heck we even cut the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation.

Bravo to the front office. So far so good. Oh ooops I forgot we have a draft coming up. So far I give the front office a B plus. If they pull off a good draft then it will be an A plus.

Heck we even cut the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation.

So you're giving the FO credit for trading two picks for" the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation"

DEHog wrote:

Heck we even cut the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation.

So you're giving the FO credit for trading two picks for" the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation"

Really now? Come on? I feel great about us giving away those picks! Yeah right! I feel like kicking Jason Taylor right in the you know what!
Did you know the only reason we released him is because he would not agree to a workout clause? That says it all. He simply wanted to get paid here. Thanks for nothing Jason gravy train Taylor.

I give them credit for at leasting letting him go and not paying him the 8 plus million he was due this season. At least they made the right descisions this off season. Do we really want to revisit the past?

So keywords are this off season. I give them credit for THIS OFF SEASON SO FAR. We still have the draft to go.

HEROHAMO wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Heck we even cut the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation.

So you're giving the FO credit for trading two picks for" the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation"

Really now? Come on? I feel great about us giving away those picks! Yeah right! I feel like kicking Jason Taylor right in the you know what!
Did you know the only reason we released him is because he would not agree to a workout clause? That says it all. He simply wanted to get paid here. Thanks for nothing Jason gravy train Taylor.

I give them credit for at leasting letting him go and not paying him the 8 plus million he was due this season. At least they made the right descisions this off season. Do we really want to revisit the past?

So keywords are this off season. I give them credit for THIS OFF SEASON SO FAR. We still have the draft to go.

Well I have a hard time understanding why our FO would base a personnel decision on where a guy works out??? You my be OK with that but I'm not...If this was a move to create cap space then so be it...but in true DS from it was the player fault...didn't JT have a contract in place that he was willing to fulfill? IMO This is just an example of a player who is not willing to do one of Danny restructurings.

Deadskins wrote:RiC didn't say overcharging, he said overpriced, as in, "they don't perform up to their billing."

Thank you. Yep, it is THIS simple. Not difficult to understand, eh?

VetSkinsFan wrote:I look at it like this. It doesn't matter what you say you think. If you go to the park, pay for parking, ect ect, then in the end, you support the Danny whether you like it or not.

I remember another similar discussion where the now absent BossHog made clear EXACTLY the opposite argument and I agree with him.

Supporting the Skins doe snot mean that I have to like or support the owner. If this was the case, I would not be Skins fan anymore.

There is n elemnt of fatality in Vet's reasoning. We are screwed with the Danny, so we better support it. No, thanks. I will criticise the failure, incompetence and greed of the owner EVERY step of the way.

Read it here people: Championships CANNOT be bought.

Countertrey wrote:He was ribbing me because I attributed motivation to the Danny that he (RIC) doesn't believe to be compatible with the evil Danny personna he has come to revile.

The fact is, I misread the intent of his post. There. I said it.

It takes a man to act like a man. Thanks.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I look at it like this. It doesn't matter what you say you think. If you go to the park, pay for parking, ect ect, then in the end, you support the Danny whether you like it or not.

I remember another similar discussion where the now absent BossHog made clear EXACTLY the opposite argument and I agree with him.

Supporting the Skins doe snot mean that I have to like or support the owner. If this was the case, I would not be Skins fan anymore.

There is n elemnt of fatality in Vet's reasoning. We are screwed with the Danny, so we better support it. No, thanks. I will criticise the failure, incompetence and greed of the owner EVERY step of the way.

Read it here people: Championships CANNOT be bought.

So Vet do people who oppose the war but pay taxes support the war whether they like it or not??

DEHog wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I look at it like this. It doesn't matter what you say you think. If you go to the park, pay for parking, ect ect, then in the end, you support the Danny whether you like it or not.

I remember another similar discussion where the now absent BossHog made clear EXACTLY the opposite argument and I agree with him.

Supporting the Skins doe snot mean that I have to like or support the owner. If this was the case, I would not be Skins fan anymore.

There is n elemnt of fatality in Vet's reasoning. We are screwed with the Danny, so we better support it. No, thanks. I will criticise the failure, incompetence and greed of the owner EVERY step of the way.

Read it here people: Championships CANNOT be bought.

So Vet do people who oppose the war but pay taxes support the war whether they like it or not??

Taxes are mandatory, Redskins tickets are not. Vet didn't assert that being a Redskins fan is inextricably intertwined with supporting Snyder, the two can be exclusive. What Vet is saying is that Snyder is not taking an opinion poll, he's looking at his bottom line and so long as you willingly contribute to that bottom line, you essentially endorse what he does. Danny says "well, ticket sales/jersey sales/etc. are up, ipso facto the people purchasing them support the decisions I have made." You can go to a Redskins game and tell everyone you can't stand Dan Snyder but all Snyder knows is: you bought the ticket.

Fios wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I look at it like this. It doesn't matter what you say you think. If you go to the park, pay for parking, ect ect, then in the end, you support the Danny whether you like it or not.

I remember another similar discussion where the now absent BossHog made clear EXACTLY the opposite argument and I agree with him.

Supporting the Skins doe snot mean that I have to like or support the owner. If this was the case, I would not be Skins fan anymore.

There is n elemnt of fatality in Vet's reasoning. We are screwed with the Danny, so we better support it. No, thanks. I will criticise the failure, incompetence and greed of the owner EVERY step of the way.

Read it here people: Championships CANNOT be bought.

So Vet do people who oppose the war but pay taxes support the war whether they like it or not??

Taxes are mandatory, Redskins tickets are not. Vet didn't assert that being a Redskins fan is inextricably intertwined with supporting Snyder, the two can be exclusive. What Vet is saying is that Snyder is not taking an opinion poll, he's looking at his bottom line and so long as you willingly contribute to that bottom line, you essentially endorse what he does. Danny says "well, ticket sales/jersey sales/etc. are up, ipso facto the people purchasing them support the decisions I have made." You can go to a Redskins game and tell everyone you can't stand Dan Snyder but all Snyder knows is: you bought the ticket.

Point taken Fios..I knew that would be the reply. I'm not one that goes to or doesn't go to a game because of the owner. I go expecting to see a football game because I enjoy football. The Skins are my poision and I have never gone to a game and not supported the team. But I don't think I'm endorsing DS when I do so...I pay to see a game and DS has never stop me from doing so...whether I buy a ticket or not has no baring on how DS runs the team??

DEHog wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Heck we even cut the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation.

So you're giving the FO credit for trading two picks for" the over age defensive end who was getting a major payday for being injured and having a reputation"

Really now? Come on? I feel great about us giving away those picks! Yeah right! I feel like kicking Jason Taylor right in the you know what!
Did you know the only reason we released him is because he would not agree to a workout clause? That says it all. He simply wanted to get paid here. Thanks for nothing Jason gravy train Taylor.

I give them credit for at leasting letting him go and not paying him the 8 plus million he was due this season. At least they made the right descisions this off season. Do we really want to revisit the past?

So keywords are this off season. I give them credit for THIS OFF SEASON SO FAR. We still have the draft to go.

Well I have a hard time understanding why our FO would base a personnel decision on where a guy works out??? You my be OK with that but I'm not...If this was a move to create cap space then so be it...but in true DS from it was the player fault...didn't JT have a contract in place that he was willing to fulfill? IMO This is just an example of a player who is not willing to do one of Danny restructurings.

I agree. There are plenty of players all around the NFL that don't attend off-season workouts. CP hasn't always been around for off-season workouts. Same thing for Sean Taylor. Ed Reed has spent some off-seasons in Miami instead of with the Ravens. The Taylor trade was a mistake but to release a player for not attending non-mandatory workouts makes no sense.

BUT TAYLOR DIDN'T SAY HE WANTED TO "WORK-OUT" IN MIAMI. He said he wanted more time with his family. That ain't working out. And when a player suffers injuries to the extent Taylor did, it's not unreasonable for the team to want him to rehab and work-out with his employers trainers.

SkinsFreak wrote:BUT TAYLOR DIDN'T SAY HE WANTED TO "WORK-OUT" IN MIAMI. He said he wanted more time with his family. That ain't working out. And when a player suffers injuries to the extent Taylor did, it's not unreasonable for the team to want him to rehab and work-out with his employers trainers.

Come on SF you're smarter then that..you know what he meant...he wanted to stay in Miami to be close to his family and of course he would workout there.
As for the injury it had nothing to do with conditioning and you already knew that.

His injury didn't have anything to do with conditioning, but that's not at all the point.

The situation could be closely monitored by the Redskins in camp, they could work out his injury problem and get him 100% healthy. It's not about improved conditioning, it's about controlled rehab and making sure we could avoid his flop from last season.

Instead he showed a serious lack of dedication IMO, he's going to go play for a team like Tampa where he'll be close to home and get the veteran treatment.

Right, at his age, conditioning has nothing to do with injury prevention and how dare his employer ask him to show up and work. Sorry, I guess we just see this completely differently. In my mind, the guy signing my check has the right to ask me to work for it.

DEHog wrote:As for the injury it had nothing to do with conditioning and you already knew that.

The injury was unrelated to his conditioning at that time... true (sort of... folks who are in exceptional condition are probably at greater risk of compartment syndrome, because so much muscle mass is packed into relatively small "spaces"... meaning that any swelling or pressure is more likely to cause damage.)

You, however, are not looking at the rehab picture. Compartment Syndrome destroys muscle tissue. Whether he lost a lot or a little, we don't know. It doesn't so much matter. Rehab and recovery from traumatic loss of muscle mass does not happen overnight. I'm betting that Jason has more intensive rehab work to do. The Redskins, perhaps, wanted to be in a position to oversee that rehab (I think there was actually much more to their plan, including figuring out how to best take advantage of his talents in light of the presence of Haynesworth). After all, they weren't asking him to take a paycut...

I'm thinking that he just doesn't have the motivation anymore.