Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=FRPLG;283139]This money seems about right. In fact it seems downright cheap.[/quote]


exactly that is cheap for the skins plus he makes 50% or 12.5 of the 25 mill in the next 2 years

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;283178]I felt that this would make for an intresting compariosn
2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc.
[B]Grade:[/B] 78 | [URL="http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/features/scouting#key"][COLOR=#000000]Key[/COLOR][/URL]
[B]Alert:[/B] B (Bulk)

[B]Comment:[/B]
Fletcher has excellent experience, durability and toughness. He plays in regular and sub packages. He is competitive, active and hard-working. [B]He handles all of the Bills' calls and adjustments within the box.[/B] He has good recognition skills and key-and-diagnose against the run and pass. He is an instinctive tackler who has sideline-to-sideline range. He can slide, stay square, avoid and play through trash in the box. He has a knack for timing up his blitzes and pressuring quarterbacks. He can open his hips and get good depth in underneath zones. [B]He still has the speed to carry the vertical seam in cover 2.[/B] He has very good awareness and effectively communicates pattern recognition. He can match up with tight ends or backs over short areas in man-to-man. But Fletcher is undersized and lacks ideal power. He isn't a natural take-on player. He can get engulfed by bigger blockers and driven out of run lanes. He knows how to use his hands but lacks explosiveness in his stack-and-shed. He doesn't always protect his lower half when moving downhill.[/quote]


I've highlighted the two statements that jump up at me. I don't know if Marshall ever got comfortable with the mental aspect of MLB. I have no evidence of that (except this signing today), its just a feeling. I hope Lemar keeps a starting job outside. It was wrong to try to move him, IMO.

The second one about cover 2 will be great if true. Hopefully that's not just what his agent thinks. A lot of these analysis summaries are full of subjective opinions. Informed opinions, you hope, but still. Williams asks his MLB to cover downfield a lot. If Fletcher can stil run that would be helpful.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR;283190]10 million bonus for a 32 yr old LB give me a break[/quote]

Yet you don't have a problem with what Dockery got??

Fletcher is a Redskin and Smoot smack to boot!!!
 

The AP reported by Joseph White has Fletcher signing a five year 25 million deal that includes a 10.5 signing bonus. With Fletcher in the middle this will put Lemar Marshall back outside and Washington holding down the other outside LB spot. As for Smoot the Redskins are very close and may have news about him in the AM saturday. "Everything would be put back in placeif I did[return] smoot said me leaving here was a big mistake". If he finds his old form this could be great!

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

You guys dont think he was a bit overpaid for his age...? I realize there are no other options, but still.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=Questfor31;283147]As a Bills fan, I 've been watching London Fletcher for the last five years. He's been an asset at Middle Linebacker for the Buffalo Bills, leading the team in tackles just about every year, but in my opinion on the wrong side of thirty, London Fletcher is not worth a five year, $25 million contract. I think you guys have got yourself a player, but his best years are behind him.[/QUOTE] You maybe right...as for Dockery you got a player that I believe has reached his best days. He is not going to get any better. He may be the same for a few years but he is what he is middle of the road lineman. A lot of money for a team that has so many needs. By the way isn't it your team that didn't like last year agreement with the players and the NFL. Saying your team could sign player for this kind of cash. I guess your owner found 49 million in a locker.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=RedskinPete;283293]You maybe right...as for Dockery you got a player that I believe has reached his best days. He is not going to get any better. He may be the same for a few years but he is what he is middle of the road lineman. A lot of money for a team that has so many needs. By the way isn't it your team that didn't like last year agreement with the players and the NFL. Saying your team could sign player for this kind of cash. I guess your owner found 49 million in a locker.[/quote]


well, snyder's now forced to fork over something like 3mill a year from his highest grossing team to the lowest grossing one i believe. like that'd even matter ;).

i don't know what the market is now, its so erratic... sellers, roster fill LBs etc seem to be working on last year's pay scale, but some teams (Bills, 49ers), seem to be spending ridiculous amounts.

Re: Fletcher is a Redskin!!!
 

smoot played balls to the wall for the skins. he was a worthless blitzer (how can you get to the QB if you're rushing him with your eyes closed?), but he was much more consistent than the #2 CBs since he's left.

Re: Fletcher is a Redskin!!!
 

Fletcher is a great signing and for a fair price. He knows Williams and system and is a consistant top level MLB and hasn't missed a game to my knowledge. As for Smoot I welcome him back cause he'll try and not get abused like Rogers. And there will be some kinda smoooooot/cooooooooooooley connection. What a morning radio show they could do! Is there vids of Fletcher on the site yet?

Re: Fletcher is a Redskin!!!
 

the bills site has fletcher highlights, youtube seems limited :/.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

This is ridiculous, 25 mil coupled with a 10 and a half mil. signing bonus? No wonder we are the only team he visited. And there you have it another big money guy on his way out, we just refuse to use the draft. Were just lost as a team.

And there it is we are forced into overpaying for an ageing undersized MLB because we have no picks to draft a MLB like a Patrick Willis, so we cover up that fact with Fletcher. Lets see what a big difference there is between him and Marshall.

Fletcher is going to be real happy if the rumor is correct and we take Adams, an undersized MLB and 2 undersized DE's, a Recipe for disaster.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=offiss;283305]This is ridiculous, 25 mil coupled with a 10 and a half mil. signing bonus? No wonder we are the only team he visited. And there you have it another big money guy on his way out, we just refuse to use the draft. Were just lost as a team.

And there it is we are forced into overpaying for an ageing undersized MLB because we have no picks to draft a MLB like a Patrick Willis, so we cover up that fact with Fletcher. Lets see what a big difference there is between him and Marshall.

Fletcher is going to be real happy if the rumor is correct and we take Adams, an undersized MLB and 2 undersized DE's, a Recipe for disaster.[/quote]


If we go 4 - 12, we will all congratulate you on your prophetic gift.

Did you hear that the Jets cut loose Ramsey earlier? Mangini is such a prick.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;283306]If we go 4 - 12, we will all congratulate you on your prophetic gift.

Did you hear that the Jets cut loose Ramsey earlier? Mangini is such a prick.[/QUOTE]

Well if thats the case you have plenty of congradulations already to make up for.

Like Betts, Lavar, Brunell, I could go on and on but I doubt you'll really ever get it.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

Yeah, I don't get it all.

I will say that "London" is a cool first name. Having a geographical place as a first name can make a strong statement about someone's personal style. Some other examples:

Minnesota Fats
Amarillo Slim
Tennessee Williams
Tennessee Ernie Ford
Virginia Woolfe
Gary U.S Bonds
Tokyo Rose
Johnny Knoxville
Denver Pyle
Tex Ritter
England Dan

[B]Update:[/B]
Jack London (can't believe I forgot him)
Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre character in The Maltese Falcon)
Charlotte Rae (What you talking about Miss Garett)
Montgomery Clift
Dallas Green
Houston Nutt
River Phoenix and sibs
Buffalo Bill/Bob
Isaiah/Irving Berlin
Tim Richmond

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;283315]Yeah, I don't get it all.

I will say that "London" is a cool first name. Having a geographical place as a first name can make a strong statement about someone's personal style. Some other examples:

Minnesota Fats
Amarillo Slim
Tennessee Williams
Tennessee Ernie Ford
Virginia Woolfe
Gary U.S Bonds
Tokyo Rose
Johnny Knoxville
Denver Pyle
Tex Ritter
England Dan[/QUOTE]

lol

Jersey Joe Walcot
Texas Dolly

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=offiss;283305]This is ridiculous, 25 mil coupled with a 10 and a half mil. signing bonus? No wonder we are the only team he visited. And there you have it another big money guy on his way out, we just refuse to use the draft. Were just lost as a team.

And there it is we are forced into overpaying for an ageing undersized MLB because we have no picks to draft a MLB like a Patrick Willis, so we cover up that fact with Fletcher. Lets see what a big difference there is between him and Marshall.

Fletcher is going to be real happy if the rumor is correct and we take Adams, an undersized MLB and 2 undersized DE's, a Recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, free agents love us because we throw so much money at players on the decline. Signing a linebacker who will turn 32 this year just does nothing for me.

Re: Fletcher is a Redskin!!!
 

i didnt want fletcher, but the contract is fair to both parties

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[COLOR=red]Pierce signed a six-year, $26 million contract yesterday, but kept his promise of providing the Redskins an opportunity to match New York's offer. The Redskins felt that the deal -- which included a $6.5 million signing bonus -- was too expensive and would damage their offseason plans even more.[/COLOR]

this is from the WP after he signed with the giants. similar contract we just payed a 31 year old LB. i know he is an improvement over what we had last year. but just an example of how we dont pay the players we bring up the organization.

Re: ESPN: Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=hooskins;283292]You guys dont think he was a bit overpaid for his age...? I realize there are no other options, but still.[/quote]

Compared to the deals going down right now, no.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

As I said in another post I suspected Fletcher's deal was probably in reality a 2-3 year deal and this from the WP seems to support that, so let's take a step back before bashing this deal and see it for what it really is:

[B]Fletcher, 31, signed a five-year deal worth a maximum of around $25 million, sources said, but in reality the deal likely will amount to a three-year deal worth about $15 million given his age and the contract structure. Fletcher will receive approximately $10 million in bonuses. He was the Redskins' primary free agent target.[/B]

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

I think that they should have waited to see about some of the younger LBs on the team could do. If he is a bust than there goes another huge contract waste like AA

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

The free agent market has gone crazy this year, therefore, the Fletcher deal isn't too bad. I do think 25 mil is rich for a 31/32 year old, however, the problem with that is Nate Clements just got 8 years/80 million. The reason being that the NFL's salary cap is 30% larger than it was 3 years ago. That's a lot of money. Everyone's gonna get paid huge money this year. If the NFL keeps going, we might start seeing baseball money being paid to NFL players.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=redskins5044;283354][COLOR=red]Pierce signed a six-year, $26 million contract yesterday, but kept his promise of providing the Redskins an opportunity to match New York's offer. The Redskins felt that the deal -- which included a $6.5 million signing bonus -- was too expensive and would damage their offseason plans even more.[/COLOR]

this is from the WP after he signed with the giants. similar contract we just payed a 31 year old LB. i know he is an improvement over what we had last year. but just an example of how we dont pay the players we bring up the organization.[/QUOTE]
I feel like this is getting beat to the ground, but I'll say it again... Look at the contracts that are being given out [I]right now.[/I] The salary cap is 30% bigger this year than it was back when we didn't match the giants offer. You have to be relative with these bonuses.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

I think it's a great move to bring in Fletcher. We didn't overpay, this guy at 32 we can get 3 to 4 really good years out of him.

Marshall wasn't getting it done! Had to make a move at MLB PERIOD.

This guy has proubally this BEST track record available of MLB on the market. Doesn't miss games at all, not injury prone, and get's it done on the field. What more could you want?

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

i understand the contracts are bigger than two years ago. but we were overpaying players then when we should keep our own players in some instances. name me a player that we have drafted in the past 5 or 6 years that we have kept around or who were worthy of the draft pick. betts is the only one that comes to mind. i want us to keep our good young players. is cooley going to get paided when he is a FA. what about Taylor. sad to say these two are the only descent players that we have drafted in the past couple years. we still have to see how campbell performs this year,

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=redskins5044;283371]i understand the contracts are bigger than two years ago. but we were overpaying players then when we should keep our own players in some instances. name me a player that we have drafted in the past 5 or 6 years that we have kept around or who were worthy of the draft pick. betts is the only one that comes to mind. i want us to keep our good young players. is cooley going to get paided when he is a FA. what about Taylor. sad to say these two are the only descent players that we have drafted in the past couple years. we still have to see how campbell performs this year,[/quote]
COOOOLEY, Rogers

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

i stated cooley in there. rogers hasnt show me much of anything yet maybe if he learns to catch the ball maybe.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=redskins5044;283371]i understand the contracts are bigger than two years ago. but we were overpaying players then when we should keep our own players in some instances. name me a player that we have drafted in the past 5 or 6 years that we have kept around or who were worthy of the draft pick. betts is the only one that comes to mind. i want us to keep our good young players. is cooley going to get paided when he is a FA. what about Taylor. sad to say these two are the only descent players that we have drafted in the past couple years. we still have to see how campbell performs this year,[/quote]


First and foremost, Jansen.

You hope you can retain the right guys on the team and not have to go after a bunch of FA.

Then you look at the DOCK case and you UNDERSTAND?

You can't OVERPAY for everyone, keep the "CORE GUYS" you need and pay for them accordingly,fair market. Ya can't have it all, with the cap all teams are working with.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

pierce wasnt a core guy. smoot wasnt a core guy, they were. bailey was a core guy just didnt want to pay him and wanted out of here. i understand they we cant sign anyone. jansen was a core guy we drafted and so was lavar. it pointless to argue over the past anymore. this is how the skins do business so i just better get use to it.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

I'm opptimistic about this signing sounds like Fletcher is a class act, and a great leader which this defense needs. Hopefully we can squeeze 3-4 good years out of him.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

The more I think about it, the more I like the move. With Fletcher, our LB corps will vastly improved. He knows the system, and the guy can tackle. Along with Rocky and MW, we should be pretty straight. Now let's move to addressing the D-line.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

knowing the system doesn't matter.

his age doesn't matter.

can he play right now? can he play well over the next 2 or 3 years? that's what matters.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[QUOTE=That Guy;283565]knowing the system doesn't matter.

his age doesn't matter.

can he play right now? can he play well over the next 2 or 3 years? that's what matters.[/QUOTE]

Well what do you think? Can he???

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

redskins5044 you couldnt be more right that the problem with this team. Cheaper to keep our own

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

yeah, i definitely think fletcher can play for at least 2 more years at a high level.

it wasn't cheaper to keep dock or champ or smoot or.... it was cheaper to keep betts, sellers, etc. moss was a steal too.

it's really only cheaper to DRAFT your own. a lot of players don't give home town discounts, so you have to keep some of your FAs at full retail, which, of course, isn't cheap.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

moss wasnt a steal because we had to take a 9 million dollor cap hit because of coles. It would have been cheaper to keep smoot instead of paying him now because we had to give rogers a 10 million bonus and not get marrieman and bailey wanted 14 we gave portis 17. We alread had betts and passed on portis in the draft that year.

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

You Bailey guys [B]just dont get it[/B][B]!!!! [/B] [B]HE WANTED OUT!!!![/B] He wasn't going to stay no matter what, even if we franchise tagged him, he was leaving...

Re: (MERGE): Redskins Sign London Fletcher
 

[quote=CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR;283714]moss wasnt a steal because we had to take a 9 million dollor cap hit because of coles. It would have been cheaper to keep smoot instead of paying him now because we had to give rogers a 10 million bonus and not get marrieman and bailey wanted 14 we gave portis 17. We alread had betts and passed on portis in the draft that year.[/quote]

if we signed dyson (for the same price as rogers that year), we probably wouldn't need smoot now, so it would be cheaper. coles was going to be out anyways, that hit was on him and the FO which would have had to lose cap space there or on sitting him anyways, so saying that didn't make moss cheap is inaccurate at best (danny didn't lose any money on coles btw, he was already paid, the skins lost cap space instead).