fleetus wrote:Shanahan definitely didn't give an endorsement of Portis. He said something along the lines of:
It would be fair of me to evaluate Portis right now until I look at all the game tape. A player at his age, it usually comes down to their work ethic at practice and off-season conditioning.
If I were Portis, I would zip my lip and plan to be at every practice with pads on.
Was that Shanahan or Allen? I thought that it was Allen speaking then. I could definitely be wrong about that though.
I was watching it. It was definitely Shanahan saying that. I totally expected him to give a blah, blah answer of Portis is a great competitor... He mentioned conditioning, practice habits and age. definitely not an endorsement.
This is why you aren't a leader CP. All you are capable of is throwing your teammates under the bus. Since when could a guy that sits out practice, preseason, and, this year, half of the regular season, trash a player who goes out there and takes a beating and refuses to come out? Jason might not be that vocal, but he sure does lead by example. An example a lot of these overpaid players that sit out with the least severe injuries need to follow. I really hope Portis is cut this offseason, it should be Shanahan's first move.
fleetus wrote:I was watching it. It was definitely Shanahan saying that. I totally expected him to give a blah, blah answer of Portis is a great competitor... He mentioned conditioning, practice habits and age. definitely not an endorsement.
Thanks. I was streaming it online and wasn't sure which one of Allen/Shanahan was talking in several instances.
Good ole CP. Finger-pointing from the injury slab. At least now we know the reason that CP only has one 100-yd game in his last 12. It was Jason not getting plays in and having no command of the huddle. It was Jason's fault that CP didn't see 20 carries but once this year, even though the Skins were in every game. What a joke.
Cowboys 7- Redskins 6 (All we needed was 2 minutes of the 60)
Cowboys 17 - Redskins 0 (Way to NOT show up for the 100th anniversary)
----- TWO EASY -----
chiefhog44 wrote:Hate to tell ya I told you so, but it doesn't happen very often. I called this shiz 18 months ago. The guy is a cancer and should have got rid of him when he was worth something. Thanks Vinny
I said the same thing. We should have traded Portis while he still had value.
And accounted for the cap hit how exactly?
Like we did for every other high priced player we unloaded over the years.
How about being more specific? It's been widely reported that CP's contract made him untradeable so I'm curious as to how exactly you would have dealt him?
Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
CP I agree with you about Campbell. But you just need to shut up.
This kind of nonsense hopefully comes to and end here soon.
Players speaking out is a sign of disrespect and should be taken seriously by the staff. Next your going to get Landry calling out Hall... Imagine that!
I don't see these guys just getting rid of players based on what they have done on the field or off - I think that the new way of managing things here will be quite simple - players will be kept based on their ability to fit what the offense and defense need - players will be drafted or added or traded for, based on how they fit in with what we want to do here and who we have here already that they can fit into the "plan" with
everybody from now on will be accountable - there will be no more 'country club' or preferential treatment and nothing that has happened in the past matters - this franchise is going to be managed with different priorities in the way we acquire (or keep) players and coaches than we have in the past
that is, unless the Danny is still influencing things here
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
I looked on the THN Salary Cap table, and see his pro-rated signing bonus is just under $5 million, but his base salary is very low (what the trading team would have to pay), so I still think a deal could easily be made. It does show his 2010 number as being over $12 million, though, so I'm not sure what that's about.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
I looked on the THN Salary Cap table, and see his pro-rated signing bonus is just under $5 million, but his base salary is very low (what the trading team would have to pay), so I still think a deal could easily be made. It does show his 2010 number as being over $12 million, though, so I'm not sure what that's about.
Portis is one of only six Redskins believed to have guaranteed contracts for next season. He last renegotiated his deal in March 2008, receiving a signing bonus of almost $9.4 million. Under the terms of that deal, in addition to the signing bonus, Portis will have been paid more than $2.35 million in salaries and bonuses by the end of this season. Most of Portis's 2010 base salary of almost $7.2 million is guaranteed, and he is also due roster and workout bonuses totaling about $507,000.
Many in the league believe 2010 will be an uncapped year, but the current system and its rules are in place while the NFL and NFL Players Association negotiate. If the Redskins were to release Portis before June 1, 2010, they could face a cap hit of as much as $14.8 million, according to league sources familiar with Portis's contract and the Redskins' cap situation.
So, a trading team would need to pay his 7.2 million guarenteed salary (plus the roster/workout bonuses).
AND if it's not uncapped, we'd eat a $14.8 million cap hit for trading him.
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
I looked on the THN Salary Cap table, and see his pro-rated signing bonus is just under $5 million, but his base salary is very low (what the trading team would have to pay), so I still think a deal could easily be made. It does show his 2010 number as being over $12 million, though, so I'm not sure what that's about.
Portis is one of only six Redskins believed to have guaranteed contracts for next season. He last renegotiated his deal in March 2008, receiving a signing bonus of almost $9.4 million. Under the terms of that deal, in addition to the signing bonus, Portis will have been paid more than $2.35 million in salaries and bonuses by the end of this season. Most of Portis's 2010 base salary of almost $7.2 million is guaranteed, and he is also due roster and workout bonuses totaling about $507,000.
Many in the league believe 2010 will be an uncapped year, but the current system and its rules are in place while the NFL and NFL Players Association negotiate. If the Redskins were to release Portis before June 1, 2010, they could face a cap hit of as much as $14.8 million, according to league sources familiar with Portis's contract and the Redskins' cap situation.
So, a trading team would need to pay his 7.2 million guarenteed salary (plus the roster/workout bonuses).
AND if it's not uncapped, we'd eat a $14.8 million cap hit for trading him.
I was just going by what was on the THN site, but we would only be responsible for any bonuses due him in a trade. The base salary would be covered by the trading team, capped year or not.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
I looked on the THN Salary Cap table, and see his pro-rated signing bonus is just under $5 million, but his base salary is very low (what the trading team would have to pay), so I still think a deal could easily be made. It does show his 2010 number as being over $12 million, though, so I'm not sure what that's about.
Portis is one of only six Redskins believed to have guaranteed contracts for next season. He last renegotiated his deal in March 2008, receiving a signing bonus of almost $9.4 million. Under the terms of that deal, in addition to the signing bonus, Portis will have been paid more than $2.35 million in salaries and bonuses by the end of this season. Most of Portis's 2010 base salary of almost $7.2 million is guaranteed, and he is also due roster and workout bonuses totaling about $507,000.
Many in the league believe 2010 will be an uncapped year, but the current system and its rules are in place while the NFL and NFL Players Association negotiate. If the Redskins were to release Portis before June 1, 2010, they could face a cap hit of as much as $14.8 million, according to league sources familiar with Portis's contract and the Redskins' cap situation.
So, a trading team would need to pay his 7.2 million guarenteed salary (plus the roster/workout bonuses).
AND if it's not uncapped, we'd eat a $14.8 million cap hit for trading him.
I was just going by what was on the THN site, but we would only be responsible for any bonuses due him in a trade. The base salary would be covered by the trading team, capped year or not.
Really, I'm not sure what your point is. #1) If it's a capped year next year, we still would eat a substantial cap hit for trading him. After all, we still would have to eat the rest of the 2008 bonus number, which was 9.4 million. It's a pretty substantial cap hit.
And, more importantly, #2) No team is going to trade for a broken down RB with 7 million in guarenteed salary for next year. And there's no way that Portis will renegotiate the contract to give up that guarenteed money, because his next contract won't be anywhere near as generous.
Deadskins wrote:Trade him and eat the dead cap as part of the expense.
Not going to happen. The team that trades for him is going to have to take on his bloated contract (7 mill guarenteeed next year, for starters), and no one is going to want that for him.
I looked on the THN Salary Cap table, and see his pro-rated signing bonus is just under $5 million, but his base salary is very low (what the trading team would have to pay), so I still think a deal could easily be made. It does show his 2010 number as being over $12 million, though, so I'm not sure what that's about.
Portis is one of only six Redskins believed to have guaranteed contracts for next season. He last renegotiated his deal in March 2008, receiving a signing bonus of almost $9.4 million. Under the terms of that deal, in addition to the signing bonus, Portis will have been paid more than $2.35 million in salaries and bonuses by the end of this season. Most of Portis's 2010 base salary of almost $7.2 million is guaranteed, and he is also due roster and workout bonuses totaling about $507,000.
Many in the league believe 2010 will be an uncapped year, but the current system and its rules are in place while the NFL and NFL Players Association negotiate. If the Redskins were to release Portis before June 1, 2010, they could face a cap hit of as much as $14.8 million, according to league sources familiar with Portis's contract and the Redskins' cap situation.
So, a trading team would need to pay his 7.2 million guarenteed salary (plus the roster/workout bonuses).
AND if it's not uncapped, we'd eat a $14.8 million cap hit for trading him.
I was just going by what was on the THN site, but we would only be responsible for any bonuses due him in a trade. The base salary would be covered by the trading team, capped year or not.
Really, I'm not sure what your point is. #1) If it's a capped year next year, we still would eat a substantial cap hit for trading him. After all, we still would have to eat the rest of the 2008 bonus number, which was 9.4 million. It's a pretty substantial cap hit.
And, more importantly, #2) No team is going to trade for a broken down RB with 7 million in guarenteed salary for next year. And there's no way that Portis will renegotiate the contract to give up that guarenteed money, because his next contract won't be anywhere near as generous.
My point was that the THN site only showed less than 5 million in signing bonus, and guaranteed money is not the same as base salary, which is the only part of a contract the trading team has to cover.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Here is the only problem. If next year is uncapped, you have what I consider an opportunity to shed that contract. Yes Dan will pay but there will be know cap ramifications for that. If you try next year to change it up with CP as you mentioned in #2 and it doesn't work, then we're looking at 2011 being capped and us taking a huge hit for that.
Now, somewhere I read that Bruce is very good at getting max value out of his older players. My thinking is that CP will be here for the first 3 weeks of the season and then he'll be traded to a team that might have a injury at the position similar to what we did with Jason Taylor a few years back. If we could get a 3rd or 4th, I would consider that value b/c for the next few years after he's gone, we'll have a younger, a lot cheaper player on the team who in all likelihood will give us similar production and be less injury prone.
Not taking anything away from what he's done in the past. I appreciate his effort but it's about running a team and building for the future too.
Deadskins wrote:My point was that the THN site only showed less than 5 million in signing bonus
Pro-rated signing bonus. Pro-rated.
Remember, we're still on the hook for his original signing bonus, AND the 9.32 million bonus we gave him in 2008. The 2008 contract was a rework (in typical Skins fashion; exchanging salcap hit for guarenteed money), not a new contract.
frankcal20 wrote:What's wrong with what ey said. He was saying that it's tough for JC to be THE team leader on offense because the Front Office had not shown him the commitment to lead this team in the future. Also, ey did not play the last what 6 games? I think that's where JC really stepped up b/c those were the really tough times. That's when everything was going on. And other players did step up and say that JC did lead the team by always being ready to play regardless of his bumps and bruises. When he got knocked down, he got back up and didn't chew guys out who were not true NFL talent at this time.
I get what ey was saying but I think that's more directed at the FO's commitment than at JC. Maybe that's what CP was trying to say but he did a piss poor job of relaying his thoughts.
Something I do quite well - just to call myself out here.
Leadership from player to player is quite overrated to me. If you need someone to beat on ya pads to have a good game and do your job then you don't need to be in the NFL. TRUST IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME. Same thing was said about Eli Manning and countless other players that had successful teams. You do your job and you gain your teammates confidence in you and thats all you need.
All of these players questioning who the leaders are, are the same players thats pretty much making excuses. They need to look in the mirror, get themselves right and the team would be alot better.
There are too many problems with the team starting at the top, hopefully with the moves recently the players will at least trust and believe in the organization that they will do right.
Nothing's wrong with what ey said. However, he and CP were basically saying the same thing (although ey was more tactful), which is that this team has lacked offensive leadership the last two years and that the qb of the team did not take on a leadership role. ey pointed out why, in his opinion, it was difficult to do so this year, but that doesn't change the fact that our offense had zero leadership.
Fios wrote:Man ... I don't want to dislike CP, I still think he's sadly unappreciated by many Redskins fans but this is too much, this disappoints me.
Portis carried this lifeless offense into the playoffs in 2005 ... he and Collins drug it into the playoffs in 2007 ... Campbell can go wash cars.
You're right dude. There's a lot of sloppy thinking on this board wrt Campbell, I really don't get this ridiculous commitment to him when he has, quite simply, NOT PERFORMED. Sure, he never had a good line - but he never showed us any indication that he would be much good with a good line, either.
Both of these guys are gone, anyway, most likely - Allen and Shanahan will want their own guys. I'll miss Portis - he gave us some great years, and no-one can say he didn't give this team his all. He deserved better from the organization - but he's been well compensated. I wish him the best.
Wrong thinking is punishable.
Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded.
You will find it an effective combination.
old-timer wrote:You're right dude. There's a lot of sloppy thinking on this board wrt Campbell, I really don't get this ridiculous commitment to him when he has, quite simply, NOT PERFORMED.
What "ridiculous commitment"? I can only think of a handful of people that are pushing for Campbell to stay with the team as the starter for the long term. Most on THN think that he's not the solution, but that we do have worse problems right now (which is far from "ridiculous commitment"). Then there are the outliers at the other end, who think Campbell is THE problem with the team . . .
Instead of worrying about "sloppy thinking" on the board, why not be on guard against sloppy mischaracterizations?
The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league. But they also take into account certain factors for lack of production.
I personally think that Jason will be a pretty decent QB if he's in one spot to grow as a qb and has a good offensive line. Do I think he's going to be the QB to lead us to the superbowl? No - only b/c we are so far away from that, that I know it's not going to happen anytime soon.
I think he could lead a team but he needs everything to be working on all sides of the field.
So - he's not our longterm answer at QB. Who is - that's still to be determined.
ey said. He was saying that it's tough for JC to be THE team leader on offense because the Front Office had not shown him the commitment to lead this team in the future. Also, 
