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

ooohh boy. looks like danny boy hasnt learned his lesson, a source says he will be in hot pursuit for Nate Clemons this off season and i doubt he wont get him. is this good? i dont know about this, there have also been rumors that we might trade our 1st rounder for him[/u]

I pray that those rumors about us trading a 1st rounder for him are untrue.

That would be a horrible decision.


If we can get his as a FA then I'd be fine with it. He is a solid corner and he played under Gregg Williams in Buffalo.

Good corner, but we need to stop trading picks...we have enough cash to leiu FA, we don't need to keep mortgaging the future. I do hope we sign him though.

i believe nate clements is an unrestricted free agent after this year, which would mean there is no way we would have to trade a draft pick unless the bills franchise tag him again.

if he is a UFA i see no reason not to do whatever it takes to get him here (CBs are in high demand, so his salary will be high- that's ok as long as it isn't totally ludicrous). we are not in good shape with depth in the secondary, and we can't be sure if springs will hold up for a whole season.

this is a guy who has already proven himself in GW's system, and as a solid player for many years- but without being too old. it's exactly the right kind of guy for free agency.

Yeah, he's very good. I think we could slot him as the #1 corner, Rogers as #2, and move Springs to safety and nickleback in nickle packages. I actually think that might work really well.

die cowboys die wrote:i believe nate clements is an unrestricted free agent after this year, which would mean there is no way we would have to trade a draft pick unless the bills franchise tag him again.

we won't need to use a first round pick for him...the bills franchised him last year and in his contract they put a clause that would prevent buffalo from getting to franchise him again this year...i would love to get clements...also, london fletcher would be an upgrade as well....then we can get a defensive lineman in the draft and call it good

To be honest I think the Skins would be better off bringing Smoot and Clark back. Both are F/A's.

Bring those two back, reunite this secondary and use picks/potential picks for the pass rush.

We don't need ELITE players across the board, thats what gets us in trouble. Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Taylor, Clark/Fox will be a great 2ndary. I believe they could do exceptional with a great pass rush.

Smoot simply isn't big enough to play in Minny's system.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:To be honest I think the Skins would be better off bringing Smoot and Clark back. Both are F/A's.

Bring those two back, reunite this secondary and use picks/potential picks for the pass rush.

We don't need ELITE players across the board, thats what gets us in trouble. Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Taylor, Clark/Fox will be a great 2ndary. I believe they could do exceptional with a great pass rush.

Smoot simply isn't big enough to play in Minny's system.

Now that they both showed they are NOT worth the contracts they got and (if we can sign them) would have to have been waived, maybe their salary would be more reasonable.

We would be 2/2. Smart enough to overpay them then smart enough to get them back for what they ARE worth.

I may be mistaken but Clark did pretty good in Pitt.

Smoot didn't do too bad, he wasnt the right fit for the scheme.

If we could get those two back for a decent price, it'd be dumb not to.

THey know the system.
They flourished in the sytem.
The chemistry is their with the teammates.
Neither was a lockerrom cancer.
You know what you're getting with the two of them.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:To be honest I think the Skins would be better off bringing Smoot and Clark back. Both are F/A's.

Bring those two back, reunite this secondary and use picks/potential picks for the pass rush.

We don't need ELITE players across the board, thats what gets us in trouble. Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Taylor, Clark/Fox will be a great 2ndary. I believe they could do exceptional with a great pass rush.

Smoot simply isn't big enough to play in Minny's system.

I agree that we sould bring smoot back. He fit GWs system and should be humbled by his experience in minny. I would like to have Clark back too but I think that isn't going to happen unless whoever didn't want Clark can admit that they were wrong for letting him go.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I may be mistaken but Clark did pretty good in Pitt.

Unless you call battling for your job with a rookie and a guy who was supposed to be your backup because they are playing as well and make less money good, which is why he may be waived, then you are mistaken, yes.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Smoot didn't do too bad, he wasnt the right fit for the scheme.

If we could get those two back for a decent price, it'd be dumb not to.

THey know the system.
They flourished in the sytem.
The chemistry is their with the teammates.
Neither was a lockerrom cancer.
You know what you're getting with the two of them.

So when you said "If we could get those two back for a decent price" then we agree since that's what I said "get them back for what they ARE worth."

Cappster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:To be honest I think the Skins would be better off bringing Smoot and Clark back. Both are F/A's.

Bring those two back, reunite this secondary and use picks/potential picks for the pass rush.

We don't need ELITE players across the board, thats what gets us in trouble. Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Taylor, Clark/Fox will be a great 2ndary. I believe they could do exceptional with a great pass rush.

Smoot simply isn't big enough to play in Minny's system.

I agree that we sould bring smoot back. He fit GWs system and should be humbled by his experience in minny. I would like to have Clark back too but I think that isn't going to happen unless whoever didn't want Clark can admit that they were wrong for letting him go.

I don't understand how you separate them. Both were wanted back. Both were offered good contracts by us. Both were offered more then they were worth by anohter team, both have struggled, both MAY be waived and available again.

Now you say Smoot is a different situation from Clark? I dont' get it. Their situations are EXACTLY the same!

And BTW, the Skins are not that shallow. If they think Clark can help them win they will sign him.

I'd be glad to have him back, but he's not that big a deal, I still don't get the piners daydreaming for his return.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:To be honest I think the Skins would be better off bringing Smoot and Clark back. Both are F/A's.

Bring those two back, reunite this secondary and use picks/potential picks for the pass rush.

We don't need ELITE players across the board, thats what gets us in trouble. Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Taylor, Clark/Fox will be a great 2ndary. I believe they could do exceptional with a great pass rush.

Smoot simply isn't big enough to play in Minny's system.

I agree that we sould bring smoot back. He fit GWs system and should be humbled by his experience in minny. I would like to have Clark back too but I think that isn't going to happen unless whoever didn't want Clark can admit that they were wrong for letting him go.

I don't understand how you separate them. Both were wanted back. Both were offered good contracts by us. Both were offered more then they were worth by anohter team, both have struggled, both MAY be waived and available again.

Now you say Smoot is a different situation from Clark? I dont' get it. Their situations are EXACTLY the same!

And BTW, the Skins are not that shallow. If they think Clark can help them win they will sign him.

I'd be glad to have him back, but he's not that big a deal, I still don't get the piners daydreaming for his return.

If you were offered a job that pays more money than what you are making now wouldn't you take it? Especially when your job will last for a maximum of say 10-12 years? Smoot and Clark's situations are different.

Smoot left for pretty much the same amount of money that we offered him. We didn't want to pay him more than SS and I guess he felt like he was worth a little more.

Clark's situation was one where we didn't come close into offering anything close to what Pittsburgh offered. The FO didn't feel like he was worth anything.

A lot of players are "system" players. Meaning they play a certain role very well but may struggle in a different role. GW was able to use Smoot and Clark to the best of their abilities. Not to mention the fact that they were locker room guys. The things that we don't see during the week, in the meetings, on the practice field and in the huddle can make a BIG difference in how a team performs.

I think a lot of us realize that we have a beast (ST) in the secondary that misses his brain trust (Clark). Not to mention the character of Clark is something that a football team needs. I believe some of us fans like his story of how he struggled to make the team and pull for him to do well.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[I don't understand how you separate them. Both were wanted back. Both were offered good contracts by us. Both were offered more then they were worth by anohter team, both have struggled, both MAY be waived and available again.

Almost sounds like you're talking about the Redskins.

Smoot left for pretty much the same amount of money that we offered him. We didn't want to pay him more than SS and I guess he felt like he was worth a little more.

Smoot left because, as I recall, Minnesota gave him a contract that had a lot of the money towards the front end of the deal. The Skins, in their usual fashion, had offered him a much more back-loaded deal.

The 2 contracts were "worth" about the same -- using the same logic that says Archuleta is the 'highest paid safety in NFL history' -- but Minn. clearly had a better offer on the table.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Smoot left for pretty much the same amount of money that we offered him. We didn't want to pay him more than SS and I guess he felt like he was worth a little more.

Smoot left because, as I recall, Minnesota gave him a contract that had a lot of the money towards the front end of the deal. The Skins, in their usual fashion, had offered him a much more back-loaded deal.

The 2 contracts were "worth" about the same -- using the same logic that says Archuleta is the 'highest paid safety in NFL history' -- but Minn. clearly had a better offer on the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Mar8.html

I say you bring them both back. This couldn't be any worse than the bone-headed personnel decisions we made in the past. Vincent may have one year or half a year let in his tank. AA was a total bust and you get back ST's right side of the brain and spokesman in Clark and a seasoned and little-bit bigger Smoot.

Have Springs and Smoot as your starting CBs with Clark and ST as your safeties with Vincent spelling Clark or ST from time to time. Rogers can watch and learn and be used in Nickel/Dime packages against teams #3 and #4 options to get his confidence back up until he takes over for Springs eventually.

What you get by bringing these two back is guys that grew-up and played well in this system. They are still young and were good if not descent lockerroom guys.

JPM36 wrote:I pray that those rumors about us trading a 1st rounder for him are untrue.

That would be a horrible decision.


If we can get his as a FA then I'd be fine with it. He is a solid corner and he played under Gregg Williams in Buffalo.

sucks to give up a pick we could use on lamar woodley, but since he was already with williams at some point, i'm happy about that.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[I don't understand how you separate them. Both were wanted back. Both were offered good contracts by us. Both were offered more then they were worth by anohter team, both have struggled, both MAY be waived and available again.

Almost sounds like you're talking about the Redskins.

Yes, that irony hit me when I was saying it. But (and you're not saying otherwise) you have to deal with one issue at a time.

Cappster wrote:If you were offered a job that pays more money than what you are making now wouldn't you take it? Especially when your job will last for a maximum of say 10-12 years?

OK, but my point was they were the same situation and you were saying Smoot could come back but someone would have to eat crow to bring back Clark. I asked how two in the same situation were different. How does that criticize them for leaving for more money?

In other threads, my position was they could leave for more money but couldn't claim to be core loyal Redskins when they do. I stand by that. They can pick the money or the loyalty. They can't leave for money and still claim, but i was loyal!!!!

Cappster wrote:Smoot and Clark's situations are different.

, at least we're on subject now.

Cappster wrote:Smoot left for pretty much the same amount of money that we offered him. We didn't want to pay him more than SS and I guess he felt like he was worth a little more.

Yes, he left for more money. Leaving for a "little" more makes my contention he was driven purely by money all the more solid. Thanks for the support.

Cappster wrote:Clark's situation was one where we didn't come close into offering anything close to what Pittsburgh offered. The FO didn't feel like he was worth anything.

Curious what you're basing this on. I never saw actual numbers. I know they negotiated for a year. I know there were numbers thrown back and forth but my understaning was our offer was never in writing because he rejected the numbers verbally.

Since we negotiated with him a year, in particular I want to hear what you are basing "our FO didn't feel he was worth anything" on. You negotiate a year with a guy not worth anything? That doesn't pass the smell test. That sounds like a guy you do want back. And Pittsburgh considering cutting him for not being worth the money they paid him is a good indication we shouldn't have paid him that either.

Cappster wrote:A lot of players are "system" players. Meaning they play a certain role very well but may struggle in a different role. GW was able to use Smoot and Clark to the best of their abilities. Not to mention the fact that they were locker room guys. The things that we don't see during the week, in the meetings, on the practice field and in the huddle can make a BIG difference in how a team performs.

I think a lot of us realize that we have a beast (ST) in the secondary that misses his brain trust (Clark). Not to mention the character of Clark is something that a football team needs. I believe some of us fans like his story of how he struggled to make the team and pull for him to do well.

I said, if we get him back (for a reasonable price) that's good. I'm not going to make my next step to start looking for superbowl tickets. He's a cog. A player in the system. We can use him, and we need a lot of others. He's not THAT great. For all the bashing our FO gets, this is a case it looks like Pittsburgh is going to eat cap from a signing bonus saying they overpaid.

roybus14 wrote:I say you bring them both back. This couldn't be any worse than the bone-headed personnel decisions we made in the past. Vincent may have one year or half a year let in his tank. AA was a total bust and you get back ST's right side of the brain and spokesman in Clark and a seasoned and little-bit bigger Smoot.

Have Springs and Smoot as your starting CBs with Clark and ST as your safeties with Vincent spelling Clark or ST from time to time. Rogers can watch and learn and be used in Nickel/Dime packages against teams #3 and #4 options to get his confidence back up until he takes over for Springs eventually.

What you get by bringing these two back is guys that grew-up and played well in this system. They are still young and were good if not descent lockerroom guys.

I agree, as long as it's for a reasonable price. Pittsburgh and Minnesota overpaid. Now hopefully the market will not make their wages artificially high.

And then we can both be happy.

Id personally demote Springs to the nickel back for a couple of reasons.

1. Rogers being demoted would kill his confidence.
2. Smoot wouldn't come back to be the nickel back.
3. Having Springs at NB would take wear and tear off of him.

I wouldn't start Vincent.
I'd like Clark battle with Fox for the start.
Archdeluxe would be gone.

I assume that if we do acquire Clements, that means Shawn Springs is gone...


I can't stress this enough: trading a first round pick for Nate Clements would be a HORRIBLE move.

HORRIBLE!!!


I don't even have any problem with the guy. He's a fine player. But we need to use the draft to bring in some younger players. Doesn't anyone else notice this team has an absolutely glaring weakness at defensive tackle? I think the number one need this team has is a huge DT who can occupy 2 blockers on every play and free up everyone else to make plays. That would definitely make Andre Carter's life easier for one, and it would make it harder to just run up the middle on us.

My recommendation: DT Alan Branch, Michigan if he is on the board.

Trading the 1st round pick shouldn't even be discussed.

OK, but my point was they were the same situation and you were saying Smoot could come back but someone would have to eat crow to bring back Clark. I asked how two in the same situation were different. How does that criticize them for leaving for more money? In other threads, my position was they could leave for more money but couldn't claim to be core loyal Redskins when they do. I stand by that. They can pick the money or the loyalty. They can't leave for money and still claim, but i was loyal!!!!

The difference is Smoot seemed as though he wanted to leave anyway. So he would be the one that would have to eat crow. Clark didn't want to leave. I remember hearing on the radio that someone in the FO wasn't going to pay much money for clark. Hence, someone in FO eating crow. I never said anything about loyalty. Not all players are like LB and not everyone on the team is a "core" Redskin. You think Ade Jimoh wouldn't go anywhere else if he was offered a lot of money even though he has been with us for a while? All you can expect from NFL players is to be loyal while they are under contract. Not when their contract expires.

Yes, he left for more money. Leaving for a "little" more makes my contention he was driven purely by money all the more solid. Thanks for the support.

As the link from fios states, Smoot was getting paid more up front. As anyone knows, you can get injured and not receive all of the "backloaded" money so he was trying to get as much as he could in the shortest amount of time. Smoot was loyal while he was here. Remember stories of him puking in the locker room at half time and coming back out to play. To me, that is being dedicated to your team.

Curious what you're basing this on. I never saw actual numbers. I know they negotiated for a year. I know there were numbers thrown back and forth but my understaning was our offer was never in writing because he rejected the numbers verbally.

Since we negotiated with him a year, in particular I want to hear what you are basing "our FO didn't feel he was worth anything" on. You negotiate a year with a guy not worth anything? That doesn't pass the smell test. That sounds like a guy you do want back. And Pittsburgh considering cutting him for not being worth the money they paid him is a good indication we shouldn't have paid him that either.

Read what I bolded above. Also read what I said about a lot of players being "system" players. Clark probably didn't fit the system they run just like our situation with AA. He "could" have been worth the money here if we had signed him but we won't know unless he signs with us again (for a lower salary than what he was getting from Pittsburgh) and we see how he performs.

I said, if we get him back (for a reasonable price) that's good. I'm not going to make my next step to start looking for superbowl tickets. He's a cog. A player in the system. We can use him, and we need a lot of others. He's not THAT great. For all the bashing our FO gets, this is a case it looks like Pittsburgh is going to eat cap from a signing bonus saying they overpaid.

I agree, as long as we get him for a reasonable price then I say sign him. I never said he was THAT great but he is a solid piece that we can benefit from. Gibbs is always looking for "quality" people and I believe that Clark is a quality person.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I may be mistaken but Clark did pretty good in Pitt.

Smoot didn't do too bad, he wasnt the right fit for the scheme.

If we could get those two back for a decent price, it'd be dumb not to.

THey know the system.
They flourished in the sytem.
The chemistry is their with the teammates.
Neither was a lockerrom cancer.
You know what you're getting with the two of them.

That would be an interesting move by bringing those guys back, but it would have to be for a good price. I don't see Smoot coming in and starting, he was benched in Week 11 for rookie Cedric Griffin, and Rogers is starting to come on, its only fair to him to get a shot. But as for Clark, I think he would love to come back here. I mean he can be a backup here instead of Philly.