Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Trent Williams doesn't want to play for the Redskins period!


Trill OG

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, TheRed said:

He wants another fat contract.

Where are we going to get the cap space for that?

JR no longer owns this franchise. Get that mindset out of here. We can afford him, if there is a Tepper there is a way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheRed said:

He wants another fat contract.

Where are we going to get the cap space for that?

He has been "claiming" its because some medical issue that he's angry

It definitely more than just money going on with him and the skins

 

 

 

Now if your the Panthers....in a win now mode the way youve seen Marty and co seem to be.

With a QB who's not getting younger, with injury history.  

With a the biggest question mark being LT, where the 2nd round draft pick you brought in intending to be your guy being Far from ready to being on the field

 

 

Would you be willing to give up a 3rd or 2nd for him.  Even if its jist for 1 year.  

If that guy coups be the missing piece from becoming a legit superbowl contender this season.  Is a 2nd or 3rd worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TheRed said:

He wants another fat contract.

Where are we going to get the cap space for that?

Nah, he wants out of Washington. 

Quote

When Williams skipped the Skins’ mandatory minicamp in June, Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports reported that Williams was unhappy with the way the team’s medical staff had handled an offseason procedure to remove what turned out to be a benign tumor on his scalp. La Canfora has since reportedthat the relationship between Williams and the team is “totally fractured,” which elicited an unequivocal denial from the team’s PR boss. Any guesses as to who was fibbing?

Dude had a tumor growing on his head last season and the Skins told him to ignore it. No way he's going back.

https://deadspin.com/report-trent-williamss-beef-with-the-skins-runs-pretty-1836882310

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Trill OG said:

JR no longer owns this franchise. Get that mindset out of here. We can afford him, if there is a Tepper there is a way!

 

1 minute ago, ncfan said:

He has been "claiming" its because some medical issue that he's angry

It definitely more than just money going on with him and the skins

 

 

 

Now if your the Panthers....in a win now mode the way youve seen Marty and co seem to be.

With a QB who's not getting younger, with injury history.  

With a the biggest question mark being LT, where the 2nd round draft pick you brought in intending to be your guy being Far from ready to being on the field

 

 

Would you be willing to give up a 3rd or 2nd for him.  Even if its jist for 1 year.  

If that guy coups be the missing piece from becoming a legit superbowl contender this season.  Is a 2nd or 3rd worth it?

 

1 minute ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Nah, he wants out of Washington. 

Dude had a tumor growing on his head last season and the Skins told him to ignore it. No way he's going back.

https://deadspin.com/report-trent-williamss-beef-with-the-skins-runs-pretty-1836882310

If he can vastly improve this OL, I am all for it. However there are zero scenarios that this happens under without a new contract, and it will not be cheap. Let's just be frank about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things to keep in mind 

1) While yes, Trent Williams is an All-Pro on the field, he hasn't played a 16 game season since 2013!  If we're a team with playoff aspirations, then is it really smart to rely on an injury-prone, 31 year old on a big contract to stay healthy for 16 games + playoffs?  Especially when his job is to protect the blindside of our QB coming off shoulder surgery.  We can't afford to have him missing games.  You could express the same concern about Daryl Williams, but I'd rather have D. Williams on his contract missing games than T. Williams on his contract missing games (plus the picks and players we would have to give up)

2) There are reports that, even if Trent Williams showed up, he wouldn't be medically cleared.  He had to get surgery at the end of the season.

Trading for Trent Williams would be moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Trill OG said:

JR no longer owns this franchise. Get that mindset out of here. We can afford him, if there is a Tepper there is a way!

Our cap issues  and bad contracts all occurred under JR.  Its not about how much money the owner has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRed said:

 

 

If he can vastly improve this OL, I am all for it. However there are zero scenarios that this happens under without a new contract, and it will not be cheap. Let's just be frank about that.

He comes here and becomes a elite OT on a top tier offense thats a legit superbowl contender.  Heck yes he will get paid.

 

He'll play this year under the same deal, after that maybe not.  Say he has a good season, then next year he holds out.  After this season, his guaranteed $$ is up and teams have the option to cut. 

So if we trade for him. He has a good season (while Little sits back and grooms), we're superbowl contenders but we cut him after 1 year.  

Is that 1 good season with some aging guys like Olsen, McCoy, etc worth trading a 2nd or 3rd.

Whats too rich a price tag to trade for someone who may be a final piece to being a superbowl contender, but that guy is just there for 1 year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...