PDA

View Full Version : Day 2: Is their any Loyalty in Ashburn?


joethefan
02-23-2005, 08:45 AM
I ask that question knowing there are some JackA$$es that want to mess our cap situation up all because they want to boost thier stats. I hope they can count the dropped passes this year....

Yes, I asked the question at hand. "Is there any loyalty in Ashburn? Does it come from an owner that claims that the Skins have the best fans? An owner that is raking so much "lout", at FEDEX, that I'll have to get a part time Job cause I can't afford to take my family to a game. Is that Loyalty?

Is it loyalty when Joe is working his butt off to get this team back to a winning state by cleaning up mess after mess after mess? Created by our owner in his gremlins.

What about the players, Ramsey, Thomas and others looking to restructure to create moving room for the team, while others seeking 14 million signing bonues will be packing up thier stuff cause thier being greedy? Some people didn't play well last year at key skilled positions and told us "stickem up" cause we were robbed.

When I think of the mess that is now the Skins, I'm not angry, just dissapointed. Our offseason brings excitement that is unbelievable. It is my hope that we can get restored soon.....But my hope is not diminishing at all and no this is not frustration talking. Just a fan that understands that as much time as it took get where we are, it's gonna take twice as much time to get back to where we can become once again a dominant team again.

I am open for you share your thoughts.

JTF.......out

CarMike
02-23-2005, 08:49 AM
I think there's a lot of loyalty in Redskins Park. Gibbs asked those who don't want to be in Washington, to speak up. Only two players did so. Coles and Gardner.

I think thats pretty good odds.

If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.

CNYSkinFan
02-23-2005, 08:51 AM
I think there's a lot of loyalty in Redskins Park. Gibbs asked those who don't want to be in Washington, to speak up. Only two players did so. Coles and Gardner.

I think thats pretty good odds.

If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.

That is true. However there are 18 unsigned UFAs as well that could all be holding up their hand too, they are just seeking better options now.

joethefan
02-23-2005, 08:54 AM
I think there's a lot of loyalty in Redskins Park. Gibbs asked those who don't want to be in Washington, to speak up. Only two players did so. Coles and Gardner.

I think thats pretty good odds.

If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.

I do believe that too but I have to pose the question..I hope you understand. Many players are sticking to their guns...Which I appreciate.

Kanman21
02-23-2005, 08:57 AM
If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.



I agree. Look at the Pats. Almost every player there wants to be there (excluding Ty Law) and they hardly ever overspend on anyone. Obviously it can be done and if anyone can do it, its Coach Joe.

MoeRedskins
02-23-2005, 09:09 AM
The problem was the precedent set before Joe got the skins on how players came here and got paid. That damaged the psyche of the team cause you can't expect people to play well if they expect great return when that no longer is the case. Joe will find out that turnover is high, but he is going to go into next season with a core of guys to build around that want to be in Ashburn. Randy Thomas is talking about restructuring his deal which would be a huge boost. Recievers are always the breed taht cause dissention among teams. Maybe an offseason were we didn't make the big deal would be refreshing. Like using a new kind of shampoo.

guinness4health
02-23-2005, 09:24 AM
the preverbal sh*t has hit the fan.....all of the years of us getting our way is coming back around and bitting us in the butt....

please front office i am begging you lock up pierce!!!!!

Jimreaper007
02-23-2005, 09:28 AM
I say we just go into Salary Cap hell now and get it over with....


Lookouts to bridge......I see an Ice Berg (SCREEEEEETCH).....Nevermind.

Spence
02-23-2005, 09:28 AM
The players are loyal to themselves, just as the team is loyal to itself. Loyalty is a two-way street. Every year the Redskins--and the other 31 teams in the NFL--get rid of players who want to stay with that franchise and play football for another year. What loyalty do those players deserve?

These are business decisions. Loyalty has little or nothing to do with it. That goes for the teams and the players equally.

Jimreaper007
02-23-2005, 09:30 AM
The players are loyal to themselves, just as the team is loyal to itself. Loyalty is a two-way street. Every year the Redskins--and the other 31 teams in the NFL--get rid of players who want to stay with that franchise and play football for another year. What loyalty do those players deserve?

These are business decisions. Loyalty has little or nothing to do with it. That goes for the teams and the players equally.

Amen..

Redskinmayhem
02-23-2005, 09:32 AM
I say we just go into Salary Cap hell now and get it over with....


Lookouts to bridge......I see an Ice Berg (SCREEEEEETCH).....Nevermind.





I'm sort of in line with this thinking. WTF is Pierce doing? If he doesn't want to be here then fine. GET OUT!!! If he's willing to work something out with the team then he better do it asap. This is not a reflection on how I feel about these guys as players. Coles and Pierce are good players. I know it, they know it, and other teams know it. Bottom line. I don't hate them but if they don't want DESPERATELY to be skins, then I don't want them in DC. Now, if they go to the Eagles Giants or Cowpukes, I will hate them.

IowaSkinsFan
02-23-2005, 09:36 AM
I think there's a lot of loyalty in Redskins Park. Gibbs asked those who don't want to be in Washington, to speak up. Only two players did so. Coles and Gardner.

I think thats pretty good odds.

If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.

Maybe Pierce didn't speak up because he didn't have to (UFA)?

GolfFreak
02-23-2005, 09:36 AM
I think there's a lot of loyalty in Redskins Park. Gibbs asked those who don't want to be in Washington, to speak up. Only two players did so. Coles and Gardner.

I think thats pretty good odds.

If they don't want to be here, I don't want them here.

:goodpost:

Bottom line - it's a buisness and they are all in it to make money. As much as I want Smoot and Pierce here next year they have to go after the best deal ... now if it's a small difference then I would hope they would come back.

Spence
02-23-2005, 09:38 AM
I'm sort of in line with this thinking. WTF is Pierce doing? If he doesn't want to be here then fine. GET OUT!!!Pierce is looking after his own interests. He thinks he'll get a better offer from the Redskins or some other team if he hits the free market as an unrestricted free agent. Nothing unusual about that. It's not that Pierce does not want to be in Washington. He wants to be in Washington if Washington pays him more than anyone else. If Washington does not pay him more than anyone else, he wants to go where someone WILL pay him more than anyone else. This is standard operating procedure.

Redskinmayhem
02-23-2005, 09:46 AM
Pierce is looking after his own interests. He thinks he'll get a better offer from the Redskins or some other team if he hits the free market as an unrestricted free agent. Nothing unusual about that. It's not that Pierce does not want to be in Washington. He wants to be in Washington if Washington pays him more than anyone else. If Washington does not pay him more than anyone else, he wants to go where someone WILL pay him more than anyone else. This is standard operating procedure.


I diagree spence, I know that it's a business but Gibbs is trying to bring back some of the "Old time" loyalty to the Redskins so that when we lose, guys arent all smiles and slapping butts with the guys who just smacked them down. We need guys who bleed burgundy and gold, not green($$). I'm a reasonable guy and will always listen to the other side of an argument but I'm passionate about this. I will not change my mind. If Pierce hits the open Market and we have to match or beat an offer, and do so successfully his loyalty is obviously to $$, and not the skins.

Spence
02-23-2005, 09:56 AM
I diagree spence, I know that it's a business but Gibbs is trying to bring back some of the "Old time" loyalty to the Redskins so that when we lose, guys arent all smiles and slapping butts with the guys who just smacked them down. We need guys who bleed burgundy and gold, not green($$). I'm a reasonable guy and will always listen to the other side of an argument but I'm passionate about this. I will not change my mind. If Pierce hits the open Market and we have to match or beat an offer, and do so successfully his loyalty is obviously to $$, and not the skins.I'm not sure what your point of disagreement is. You are stating that Pierce is behaving as if his first loyalty is to himself [meaning his earning power] and not to the Redskins. I'm agreeing with that. It's obvious. What I'm telling you is that this is not unusual. This is how it works in the NFL. Gibbs might be trying to bring back "old time loyalty," but how do you do that when you've just cut two players who were under contract? [I'm talking about Haley and Parker.] The Redskins did that to save money. It was an economic decision. Pierce--and others--are making their decisions based on money, too. Both sides do it. The Redskins can preach "family" and "loyalty" all they want, but those things are a two-way street. The Washington Redskins franchise is loyal to itself. It's players are loyal to themselves. All the other teams in the NFL are just the same. This is how the league works.

Remember: All this talk about "old time loyalty" refers to a time when players had no free agency rights and were paid FAR below their actual market value because of an unconscionable collective bargaining agreement. What people think of "old time loyalty" was actually a situation where players were held against their will and paid far less than they could have made on the open market. That's not loyalty. That's domination.

Redskinmayhem
02-23-2005, 10:28 AM
I'm not sure what your point of disagreement is. You are stating that Pierce is behaving as if his first loyalty is to himself [meaning his earning power] and not to the Redskins. I'm agreeing with that. It's obvious. What I'm telling you is that this is not unusual. This is how it works in the NFL. Gibbs might be trying to bring back "old time loyalty," but how do you do that when you've just cut two players who were under contract? [I'm talking about Haley and Parker.] The Redskins did that to save money. It was an economic decision. Pierce--and others--are making their decisions based on money, too. Both sides do it. The Redskins can preach "family" and "loyalty" all they want, but those things are a two-way street. The Washington Redskins franchise is loyal to itself. It's players are loyal to themselves. All the other teams in the NFL are just the same. This is how the league works.

Remember: All this talk about "old time loyalty" refers to a time when players had no free agency rights and were paid FAR below their actual market value because of an unconscionable collective bargaining agreement. What people think of "old time loyalty" was actually a situation where players were held against their will and paid far less than they could have made on the open market. That's not loyalty. That's domination.


Well, as I said, I'm a reasonable man and I do see your side and as you stated it's not all that different from mine. Vaughn Parker is not a Redskin. He was beaten out by Ray Brown all season. nuff said. Haley- well, I don't know anything about his lockeroom behavior or much about his future with teh skins(apparently none now) so I will withhold comment. While, It is a 2 way street, if the franchise wants you and thinks you're good, they will ask you to restruc if your cap hit is too large to allow for other moves. That's being a team player. With that in mind, the FO must not think that highly of
Haley. Also, as Gibbs said, even if your good and the Franchise wants you, if you're going to ask for so much $$ that it hinders the team from improving other areas, then you're out the door. Maybe I'm a homer and not really seeing the business side of things but In this case I feel that Pierce is being selfish. Now, to be fair to Pierce, I don't know what he's being offered. I think he's a very good player, and a very intelligent man as well. Hopefully this is all just "playing hardball" noise from his agent. That, business-wise, is to be expected.

LadyNRedskinsfan
02-23-2005, 10:32 AM
loyalty disappeared when free agency was introduced IMO. its all about how much money a player can squeeze out of the team, not turning down 10 million to take 8 million because you really love the family you have formed over the first 5-7 years with your team. its all a competition with the players these days. all of them want to be the highest paid playar at their position and thats understandable sometimes but some players eventually "get it" and realize they just want a ring.

that doesnt go for all players though. there are guys like jansen and wynn who have tried to help the team because they know something special is being built for the next 4+ years. and there players who act as there own agents and negotiate there own contract and dont nearly half as much as their peers are making but dont care because they just love to play the game of football.

Sweepea436
02-23-2005, 11:02 AM
I agree. Look at the Pats. Almost every player there wants to be there (excluding Ty Law) and they hardly ever overspend on anyone. Obviously it can be done and if anyone can do it, its Coach Joe.

I think you can attribute that to the age old saying "Winning cures everything". I used to know what that meant, but it's been a while since I've seen it practiced here...... :banghead:

Ohiofan
02-23-2005, 11:12 AM
Plus, if he only wants to be in DC if we pay him the most money, then he does not want to be in DC. He wants to be where he gets the most money, and if it is DC, fine.

Yeah, it is a business, but look at a lot of the guys from NE. They are not just looking for the highest offer. They do show loyalty to the Franchise.
Gibbs is trying to develop that loyalty here, but it appears that it is gonna be an uphill struggle.

I am not jumping to any conclusions, but it does appear that maybe, and I said maybe, Gibbs does not have the rapoire with players that we think he does. Also not saying whose fault that is.

But this has not beenan exciting offseason so far, it has been nerveraking and there is a big difference.

Also sorry to see the comment in the Post articl, that Coles' attitude was hard on some of his teammates.

smoak
02-23-2005, 11:18 AM
Too much of this thread is speculation. Sure some players will look out for numero uno, but some have other priorities (championships, not moving again, etc). I think I'll just wait and see who is here before I start calling guys selfish or making judgements and speculative comments.

hockeygoalie29
02-23-2005, 11:26 AM
Didn't Pierce turn down offers last offseason to leave the Redskins because he wanted to stay with the team that first "gave him his shot"? That seems pretty loyal to me.

Skinz4lyfe
02-23-2005, 11:27 AM
I think you can attribute that to the age old saying "Winning cures everything". I used to know what that meant, but it's been a while since I've seen it practiced here...... :banghead:

Good point! For the most part we've been a losing franchise the past 13 years or so. Its much easier for the Pats players to be loyal to their franchise. We also have an owner that is known for breaking the bank. Therefore, we might be paying for our own transgressions. Even though we have Joe Gibbs back, the players (and mostly the agents) are trying to get paid. I don't agree with it at all but that's how the business goes. It sure would be nice for some of our players to sacrifice a couple million dollars for the good of the team but it just doesn't seem like its gonna happen.

redwolf1218
02-23-2005, 11:37 AM
winning cures everything, as someone already said. you could get a lot in endorsements if you play for the Pats and win superbowls, so why leave? i see both sides of the argument here. basically, if it was me, i would not want to move to a new area, so my loyalty would stay where i work, but in that case it's not really loyalty so much as just not wanting to move (Pierce hopefully like last year when he turned down the vikings), unless i was miserable (Coles, Bailey). i could make twice as much money if i moved from Richmond to DC but it's all relative and i dont want to move. some people would like it, and some players dont seem to mind it. remember that artical about Raymer having to move to san diego and then move back here? these guys do what's best for themselves and their families. remember Elway taking the league minimum to make cap room to sign great players and win 2 superbowls? then he makes 50 Mil in endoresements from a huge denver area fan base. was that loyalty? or just a smart business decision? Pierce would be stupid to leave IMO. he might go somewhere for a few more bucks and not be nearly as good as he is with Greg Williams.

hockeygoalie29
02-23-2005, 11:44 AM
Redwolf that was one of the best posts I've seen on this board in a long while, I completely agree.

Farbod
02-23-2005, 11:49 AM
With the players we have? No there is no loyalty.... Win, lose, or draw 99% of the players in the NFL are greedy mercenaries, get used to it....

RedskinRyan
02-23-2005, 11:55 AM
Didn't Pierce turn down offers last offseason to leave the Redskins because he wanted to stay with the team that first "gave him his shot"? That seems pretty loyal to me.

yeah, he rejected an offer sheet from the vikings because he said washington wouldnt have been able to match it. but with coles wanting out and being a little &^*% and refusing to restructure, then it means we dont have any money available to sign pierce, and he isnt good enough for the franchise tag. now washington doesnt have the money to offer him a competitive contract, which i think pierce is looking for from us. he might be holding out to see what he could get as a free agent, and then use that as a start for contract negotiations with us. if he wants to really stay as a skin, he would turn down a long-term deal with a $8 million signing bonus and stick with us for a $5 million bonus.

bwparker
02-23-2005, 02:21 PM
Its funny that you guys have come to the conclusion that all these players aren't loyal because they are out for the Big Bucks. Remember, Coles wants out so bad he's willing to pay us. For him its not money, its that he doesn't feel like he can suceed here. I think most players will agree, their loyalties are to winning AND to money. Whichever one is lacking they seek the other out. If they are on a winning team that won't pay them -- look for money. If they are making money but can't win -- go where you can win. Everyone is searching to get the most when you sum the two together.

The Pats are winning so much, some don't even need the money.

Right now, Smoot and Pierce might feel they can make more money AND win more elsewhere. from that point of view I don't think its a tough decision for them. We might be offering them a resonable contract, but if they don't think we can win -- go get reasonable somewhere else.

bwparker
02-23-2005, 02:23 PM
I'd like to point out that I think we CAN win. But when you have a history of losing its hard to break out.

RedskinsVision
02-23-2005, 02:25 PM
loyalty these days runs along 2 major paths: 1. the welfare of themselves and their family 2. the NFL they represent.. not the individual teams they play for.

it's only a bonus for fans to have players that want to be loyal to a team because they are NFL professionals to begin with and there are 32 organizations within that profession to establish their work.

but with Jansen, Ramsey, Wynn and hopefully Thomas restructuring.. we're seeing who the Redskins loyals are.

wewantdallas
02-23-2005, 02:29 PM
I think the way this offseason is going so far is a great omen for next year.

I mean, in the past we've signed up most of our free agents, made big splashes with big names that were supposed to be our "saviors" and look where it got us: 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, etc., etc., etc.

I say we have a HORRIBLE offseason and relinquish the Offseason Lombardi Trophy. I say we strive to look HORRIBLE ON PAPER!!!

This could only mean good things and pleasant surprises when the real season rolls around....

I'm only half kidding.

joethefan
02-23-2005, 02:30 PM
I think the way this offseason is going so far is a great omen for next year.

I mean, in the past we've signed up most of our free agents, made big splashes with big names that were supposed to be our "saviors" and look where it got us: 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, etc., etc., etc.

I say we have a HORRIBLE offseason and relinquish the Offseason Lombardi Trophy. I say we strive to look HORRIBLE ON PAPER!!!

This could only mean good things and pleasant surprises when the real season rolls around....

I'm only half kidding.

Great points...

Spence
02-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Yeah, it is a business, but look at a lot of the guys from NE. They are not just looking for the highest offer. They do show loyalty to the Franchise.This really isn't accurate. New England loses players to free agency just like any other team. The difference is that they don't overpay to keep those free agents, don't overpay to replace those lost free agents, and are very good at finding replacements who cost less money. That's brilliant management based on good scouting and coaching, not selfless loyalty by the players.

Spence
02-23-2005, 02:33 PM
With the players we have? No there is no loyalty.... Win, lose, or draw 99% of the players in the NFL are greedy mercenaries, get used to it....Speaking as a season ticket holder, I know that the owners are at least as greedy as the players. And when the owners leave town, they take the whole damn team with them.

Spence
02-23-2005, 02:37 PM
It seems to me that people on this board love free agents when they leave their original teams and come to Washington. I don't recall anyone here calling Marcus Washington a greedy mercenary. What about Shawn Springs? Is he a greedy mercenary? If you think Laveranues Coles is a greedy mercenary now, did you think he was a greedy mercenary two years ago when he left the Jets for a big pot of Dan Snyder's cash? Is Randy Thomas a greedy mercenary? How about Cornelius Griffin? Greedy mercenary there, too?

Why is it that players are greedy mercenaries when they leave the Redskins for more money, but not when they come to the Redskins for more money?

bgforever
02-23-2005, 02:39 PM
PREACH IT JTF ! PREACH ON! Amen!

Right ther, Right ther!

Great post, and I agree with you all on the fact it now is the real start of the new type of off-season. I actually shed a tear on losses of such good players, but always remember that through the years, change in our lives also plays out like this. As we pass on, we shed a tear, and a new life begins in another womb.

ConradCountry
02-23-2005, 02:44 PM
I am happy despite losing some players that I really liked {Pierce and Smoot} that the team is going in the direction. We no longer are going to overpay people and we are not going to put up with any crap from players. The attitude if you don't want to be here and you are not committed to winning then get out. This is a much diffrent approach then has been taken in the past.

chad101
02-23-2005, 03:18 PM
The players are loyal to themselves, just as the team is loyal to itself. Loyalty is a two-way street. Every year the Redskins--and the other 31 teams in the NFL--get rid of players who want to stay with that franchise and play football for another year. What loyalty do those players deserve?

These are business decisions. Loyalty has little or nothing to do with it. That goes for the teams and the players equally.

Obviously you are not wearing the Burgundy and Gold glasses required to post in this thread.

Spence
02-23-2005, 03:23 PM
Obviously you are not wearing the Burgundy and Gold glasses required to post in this thread.I guess not. I love the Redskins as much as anyone, but I try to leave my brain in the ON position as much as possible.

2Cooley
02-23-2005, 03:30 PM
I diagree spence, I know that it's a business but Gibbs is trying to bring back some of the "Old time" loyalty to the Redskins so that when we lose, guys arent all smiles and slapping butts with the guys who just smacked them down. We need guys who bleed burgundy and gold, not green($$). I'm a reasonable guy and will always listen to the other side of an argument but I'm passionate about this. I will not change my mind. If Pierce hits the open Market and we have to match or beat an offer, and do so successfully his loyalty is obviously to $$, and not the skins.


He will be loyal to a team that will give him the most money why would he stay here if we dont give him the most money what else do he have to offer....a championship run?

bgforever
02-23-2005, 03:30 PM
loyalty disappeared when free agency was introduced IMO. its all about how much money a player can squeeze out of the team, not turning down 10 million to take 8 million because you really love the family you have formed over the first 5-7 years with your team. its all a competition with the players these days. all of them want to be the highest paid playar at their position and thats understandable sometimes but some players eventually "get it" and realize they just want a ring.

that doesnt go for all players though. there are guys like jansen and wynn who have tried to help the team because they know something special is being built for the next 4+ years. and there players who act as there own agents and negotiate there own contract and dont nearly half as much as their peers are making but dont care because they just love to play the game of football.

This will come back. Somewhere another purge is coming. Strike years seem to haunt Joe Gibbs (two in 10 years) and he may very well be looking at another in 2007. I think this time the owners will win. The figures these guys want, even without a cap are just so astronomical, translating into more costs to the fans. If a game isnt' on the net, radio or paper, cable and dish may be for the very well off. Currently that means I am out of that loop. For every, action, there's a reaction for every reaction, there is a recourse. I may be a participating fan casualty one day.

bgforever
02-23-2005, 03:33 PM
This really isn't accurate. New England loses players to free agency just like any other team. The difference is that they don't overpay to keep those free agents, don't overpay to replace those lost free agents, and are very good at finding replacements who cost less money. That's brilliant management based on good scouting and coaching, not selfless loyalty by the players.


This is what Joe Gibbs WILL do, when we lose players. last year was the last time we'd see the fat check and no dance. For now on, its lets see what you can do first, and then if its not Market Fresh, its rejected. That is we want to it be market fair, not welfare.

2Cooley
02-23-2005, 03:34 PM
It seems to me that people on this board love free agents when they leave their original teams and come to Washington. I don't recall anyone here calling Marcus Washington a greedy mercenary. What about Shawn Springs? Is he a greedy mercenary? If you think Laveranues Coles is a greedy mercenary now, did you think he was a greedy mercenary two years ago when he left the Jets for a big pot of Dan Snyder's cash? Is Randy Thomas a greedy mercenary? How about Cornelius Griffin? Greedy mercenary there, too?

Why is it that players are greedy mercenaries when they leave the Redskins for more money, but not when they come to the Redskins for more money?


I agree with you 100% we are just spoiled as skins fans over the past years by just signing whoever we want we are on the other side of the spectrum now and some people just cant handle it.

Spence
02-23-2005, 03:35 PM
Strike years seem to haunt Joe Gibbs (two in 10 years) and he may very well be looking at another in 2007. I think this time the owners will win.They've won every time. The owners crushed the players in 1982 and in 1987. It was so bad for the players in 1987 that they decertified their union. It was that decertification that led to the system of partial free agency we have today.

It seems unlikely to me that the owners would want to upset the current situation. They're making bundles of money right now. Owning an NFL team is a license to print money. It's not possible to lose money if you own an NFL team. The NFL has had almost a dozen year of labor peace and record profits, with no end in sight. If the owners get the same deal from the players that they have right now, they'll take it in a millisecond because it is so good to them.

akhhorus
02-23-2005, 03:37 PM
They've won every time. The owners crushed the players in 1982 and in 1987. It was so bad for the players in 1987 that they decertified their union. It was that decertification that led to the system of partial free agency we have today.

It seems unlikely to me that the owners would want to upset the current situation. They're making bundles of money right now. Owning an NFL team is a license to print money. It's not possible to lose money if you own an NFL team. The NFL has had almost a dozen year of labor peace and record profits, with no end in sight. If the owners get the same deal from the players that they have right now, they'll take it in a millisecond because it is so good to them.


And the players are doing better than ever, so there's no reason for them to upset things.

LadyNRedskinsfan
02-23-2005, 03:39 PM
It seems to me that people on this board love free agents when they leave their original teams and come to Washington. I don't recall anyone here calling Marcus Washington a greedy mercenary. What about Shawn Springs? Is he a greedy mercenary? If you think Laveranues Coles is a greedy mercenary now, did you think he was a greedy mercenary two years ago when he left the Jets for a big pot of Dan Snyder's cash? Is Randy Thomas a greedy mercenary? How about Cornelius Griffin? Greedy mercenary there, too?

Why is it that players are greedy mercenaries when they leave the Redskins for more money, but not when they come to the Redskins for more money?
good points spence......i think in some cases, though, its just time for guys to leave. they either outgrown their stay or are pushed out by young players (springs in seattle for example). colts didnt have enough to keep marcus. they only had $5 bucks to spend according to him, lol.

Spence
02-23-2005, 03:39 PM
And the players are doing better than ever, so there's no reason for them to upset things.I tend to agree with that. Compared to the NBA players or the MLB players, the NFL players have a rotten collective bargaining agreement. However, it is better than anything the NFL players have ever had before, so I doubt they'll complain too much. I don't expect big changes in the next CBA.

Ramsey2Moss
02-23-2005, 03:40 PM
We should have tagged Pierce. Outside of Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher no MLB makes very good money...

bgforever
02-23-2005, 03:40 PM
They've won every time. The owners crushed the players in 1982 and in 1987. It was so bad for the players in 1987 that they decertified their union. It was that decertification that led to the system of partial free agency we have today.

It seems unlikely to me that the owners would want to upset the current situation. They're making bundles of money right now. Owning an NFL team is a license to print money. It's not possible to lose money if you own an NFL team. The NFL has had almost a dozen year of labor peace and record profits, with no end in sight. If the owners get the same deal from the players that they have right now, they'll take it in a millisecond because it is so good to them.

Thanks you two. I can now say I have been slapped silly with the truth.
Oh well, at least while on the poor farm, I can take solace in the fact that I have a team and it will only get better. so let me be on my merry way (skipping).

akhhorus
02-23-2005, 03:40 PM
I tend to agree with that. Compared to the NBA players or the MLB players, the NFL players have a rotten collective bargaining agreement. However, it is better than anything the NFL players have ever had before, so I doubt they'll complain too much. I don't expect big changes in the next CBA.

Yes, but salaries have been going up; there is plenty of opportunity and causing trouble would hurt them in the end. They wont rock the boat at all.

Spence
02-23-2005, 03:41 PM
good points spence......i think in some cases, though, its just time for guys to leave. they either outgrown their stay or are pushed out by young players (springs in seattle for example). colts didnt have enough to keep marcus. they only had $5 bucks to spend according to him, lol.Sure and that's our problem now. The Skins don't have enough money to keep all these players. If the Skins lose Pierce it'll be for the same reason the Colts lost Washington. My point is that nobody has used the free agent market more than the Redskins have. If the fans cheer when players chase the money to Washington, they shouldn't jeer when the players chase the money out of Washington.

LadyNRedskinsfan
02-23-2005, 03:43 PM
Sure and that's our problem now. The Skins don't have enough money to keep all these players. If the Skins lose Pierce it'll be for the same reason the Colts lost Washington. My point is that nobody has used the free agent market more than the Redskins have. If the fans cheer when players chase the money to Washington, they shouldn't jeer when the players chase the money out of Washington.
yep, cant argue with that......

Spence
02-23-2005, 03:46 PM
We should have tagged Pierce. Outside of Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher no MLB makes very good money...The cost of a franchise tag on Pierce would not be determined by middle linebackers, it would be determined by linebackers as a whole. The 2005 minimum franchise tag tender offer for linebackers is $5.95 million per season. In other words, the Redskins would have to set aside almost $6 million of cap space just to franchise Pierce. Do you think Pierce is worth $6 million per year?

I don't.

War Hogg
03-01-2005, 07:04 PM
I dont hear anyone writing anymore loyalty posts.......Did you see where "loyalty" got TROY BROWN today? He played every position except head coach last season and now he's looking for a job.....

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/03/01/patriots_decline_option_on_troy_brown/

GoDannyBoy
03-01-2005, 08:43 PM
I think the signing bonus are the problem, not the salaries. I think that in the past guys did care if we won or lost because the money was already in the bank.

I hope that we will try to cut back on these, but it doesn't look good. What incentive does Samuels have to play now? He is rich even he if he gets injuried and doesn't play again.