Re: Next years QB
 

Though of course with his injury history you could make the case that it's a roll of the dice anyway.

Still, the only way the Redskins screw themselves is if he gets injured. Otherwise this commits us to nothing.

Given his physical tools you can make the case that the very limited downside risk is worth it.

This is exactly why Griffin says he wouldn't be bummed if we don't pick up the option. He knows he has to earn his way into the $16M anyway.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Schneed10;1111455]Though of course with his injury history you could make the case that it's a roll of the dice anyway.

[B]Still, the only way the Redskins screw themselves is if he gets injured.[/B] Otherwise this commits us to nothing.

Given his physical tools you can make the case that the very limited downside risk is worth it.

This is exactly why Griffin says he wouldn't be bummed if we don't pick up the option. He knows he has to earn his way into the $16M anyway.[/quote]

Exactly. He's been hurt 2/3 years since he's been a pro and also hurt in college.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1111456]Exactly. He's been hurt 2/3 years since he's been a pro and also hurt in college.[/quote]

I can't argue.

Re: Next years QB
 

Yup. If he weren't such an injury risk, picking up the option is a no brainer. Unfortunately, getting stuck with an huge cap hit for an injured RGIII is a substantial risk in this situation.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1111458]Yup. If he weren't such an injury risk, picking up the option is a no brainer. Unfortunately, getting stuck with an huge cap hit for an injured RGIII is a substantial risk in this situation.[/quote]

But it would have to be an injury that keeps him out part of 15 and ALL of 16 for the guarantee kicks in. If we pick up the option and he gets knocked out but would be back at any point in 2016, we don't have to pay the guarantee (or at least that's my understanding).

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1111456]Exactly. He's been hurt 2/3 years since he's been a pro and also hurt in college.[/quote]

The injury risk is so minimal that it's really not even a risk. The only way that money becomes guaranteed is if Griffin has an injury severe enough that it keeps him out all of the 2016 season. What are the chances?

Picking up the option is the way to go.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=SirLK26;1111467]The injury risk is so minimal that it's really not even a risk. The only way that money becomes guaranteed is if Griffin has an injury severe enough that it keeps him out all of the 2016 season. What are the chances?

Picking up the option is the way to go.[/quote]

Exactly.

He can be cut any time.

Even if he had as severe a knee injury as before, it wouldn't keep him out long enough to guarantee the money.

Re: Next years QB
 

Just curious, suppose we pick up the option, at what point does it hit the cap. For example, if you put a franchise tag on a player that hits the cap the day you tag him, regardless of whether the player signs the franchise tag or not. Is it the same with the option? If they exercise it on May 2nd, does that mean at the start of next year's league year, that hit counts against our cap? And when does the guarantee convert from injury only to for the year? Again, I would think it would be day one of next year's league year.

Re: Next years QB
 

If we pick up the option, what is the impact of our ability to trade him for the option year?....I mean...does this mean his final year is 16M?
If so, even if he plays great, we wont be able to trade him, right?

Or does this give us the ability to trade him next year with this 16M in case of full year injury clause with a different salary?

Can someone please explain?

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1111476]Just curious, suppose we pick up the option, at what point does it hit the cap. For example, if you put a franchise tag on a player that hits the cap the day you tag him, regardless of whether the player signs the franchise tag or not. Is it the same with the option? If they exercise it on May 2nd, does that mean at the start of next year's league year, that hit counts against our cap? And when does the guarantee convert from injury only to for the year? Again, I would think it would be day one of next year's league year.[/quote]

As soon as we pick up the option $16M goes against our 2016 cap. 2016 cap, not 2015 cap.

But if we exercise the option and then either trade or cut him, then all $16M comes back off the cap.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=skinsnut;1111482]If we pick up the option, what is the impact of our ability to trade him for the option year?....I mean...does this mean his final year is 16M?
If so, even if he plays great, we wont be able to trade him, right?

Or does this give us the ability to trade him next year with this 16M in case of full year injury clause with a different salary?

Can someone please explain?[/quote]

No impact on our ability to trade him.

If a team wanted to trade for him in the last year of his contract they would likely have an extension in mind. They would only trade with the Skins if Griffin were amenable to the new contract terms they had in mind.

We have the same ability to trade him in his final season as we would with any other player in his final season.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Schneed10;1111484]As soon as we pick up the option $16M goes against our 2016 cap. 2016 cap, not 2015 cap.

But if we exercise the option and then either trade or cut him, then all $16M comes back off the cap.[/quote]

Thanks

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1111486]Thanks[/quote]

The only way the $ is guaranteed is for an injury.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=irish;1111664]The only way the $ is guaranteed is for an injury.[/quote]

He's had 2 major injuries the past 2 years, and other numerous smaller ones as well. Why take that gamble? Haven't we gambled enough with RGIII? It's like they are doubling down on stupidity. If he weren't injury prone, I wouldn't have an issue with the option year since it's only guaranteed for injury.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1111670]He's had 2 major injuries the past 2 years, and other numerous smaller ones as well. Why take that gamble? Haven't we gambled enough with RGIII? It's like they are doubling down on stupidity. If he weren't injury prone, I wouldn't have an issue with the option year since it's only guaranteed for injury.[/quote]

RG is injury prone so this is a definite risk for the Skins.

Re: Next years QB
 

Pretty much a done deal.
[url=http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/McCloughan-announces-Redskins-will-pick-up-RGIIIs-2016-option-36981553]McCloughan announces Redskins will pick up RGIII's 2016 option[/url]

Re: Next years QB
 

This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Redskins247;1111673]This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."[/quote]

Its not like because they took this option they cant cut RG, they can. I think RG has to come right out of the box playing well because if he doesnt then they will bench him to avoid the injury and possibly cut him.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=irish;1111674]Its not like because they took this option they cant cut RG, they can. I think RG has to come right out of the box playing well because if he doesnt then they will bench him to avoid the injury and possibly cut him.[/quote]

I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Redskins247;1111675]I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.[/quote]

Wrong. If Suh puts him out with a hit that sidelines him for 2015 AND 2016 then the guarantee kicks in. From what I understand it all comes down to the year end physical and if he passes it then the option is not guaranteed. If he fails then it's guaranteed. There's really minimal risk, even with his injury history.

Re: Next years QB
 

Someone in another thread mentioned "we should do this because we have invested so much to get him"
IMO, as an organization and we need to get over what we invested to get him. That is in the past. We need to be careful not to make a big $16M decisions based what we invested in him and the past.
I understand the potential value and desire to keep his rights as long as we can just in case he has a miracle come back year in 2015.
However my fear is he plays just good enough to where we are enticed to keep him and pay him $16M, but he never plays well enough to meets that $16m value.......a la Orakpo.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Redskins247;1111675]I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.[/quote]

Wrong. If Suh puts him out with a hit that sidelines him for 2015 and he fails a physical in January, then the guarantee kicks in. From what I understand it all comes down to the year end physical and if he passes it then the option is not guaranteed. If he fails then it's guaranteed. There's really minimal risk, even with his injury history.

Re: Next years QB
 

And if he plays decent enough all year and doesnt leave his spleen on the field then its a good thing.
Who has a better crystal ball?

Re: Next years QB
 

Whether or not it makes sense to do this all depends on your perception of the injury risk.

Important reminder that I'm going to keep saying till I'm blue in the face: this only guarantees the salary AGAINST INJURY. If he's not hurt GOING INTO 2016, then the team can cut (or trade) him and walk away from the $16M salary with no cap consequence. In other words, this only guarantees against injury, not against sucking.

So if after considering that, and you still feel it's a big risk, then you must think RGIII's chances of having an injury big enough to last from the end of 2015 into 2016 is greater than 50%.

I'd say that's crazy. Even the devastating ankle injury last year didn't span the entire course of the offseason. Even if he got hurt in week 17, it still wouldn't have. There are only a handful of injuries that could span that long, the dreaded ACL and achilles stuff. Possible, sure. Greater than 50%? If you think so you're a panicky little risk-averse schmuck.

Do some cost-benefit thinking once in a while, tools.

Re: Next years QB
 

What happened to "in Scott we trust" ... Man people flip like light switches lol.
I'm passed the point of caring anymore lol, it is what it is, I don't run or have any involvement with the team, so, so be it, let them do what they may, can't wait for the draft and season to begin! I will always be die hard, but I'm tired of giving the front office my attention or energy, hey, hope it works out for them and us.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Redskins247;1111673]This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."[/quote]

Wrong, it gives the Redskins options. It also puts Griffin on a short leash. If he isn't learning, you pull him, and say your goodbye's at the end of the year. If we don't know by the bye that he's the guy, you pull him, and he's done here. If the light goes on, and he gets it, then we get him for 3million less than franchise tag price and have leverage to negotiate a long term contract. If you are too worried about his injury risk, you have no reason to try to make him the starter this year, you should already be moving on.

Re: Next years QB
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/16928/redskins-assume-risk-on-rg-iii-option-to-a-point]Washington Redskins assume risk on RG III option -- to a point - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN[/url]

Re: Next years QB
 

What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111690]What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.[/quote]

This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1111692]This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.[/quote]

That assumes you want Mariota, and I am at best agnostic about that (although I will go along with what Scot wants). I am not sure how they could have determined the dynamics for draft day to the degree needed to make the timing of the decision sensible. I a report recently that idnciated that one of the NFL draft day mega-trades (I confess I don't recall which one) wasn't even proposed until the team that initiated it was 7 minutes on the clock. I don't think it is possible to determine with any real accuracy what teams will do under the kind of pressure they feel on draft day.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111694]That assumes you want Mariota, and I am at best agnostic about that (although I will go along with what Scot wants). I am not sure how they could have determined the dynamics for draft day to the degree needed to make the timing of the decision sensible. I a report recently that idnciated that one of the NFL draft day mega-trades (I confess I don't recall which one) wasn't even proposed until the team that initiated it was 7 minutes on the clock. I don't think it is possible to determine with any real accuracy what teams will do under the kind of pressure they feel on draft day.[/quote]

Again, I agree with you the timing doesn't make sense. I was giving scenarios that might be true to make it make sense.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111690]What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.[/quote]

It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111696]It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.[/quote]

That's true in the sense that if we don't take Mariota (and today's news is likely to make folks think we will pass), teams that want him will want to trade with someone above 6 in order to get him, as the Jets seem likely to do grab him at 6. My point is that this move arguably makes the Redskins less of an attractive trading partner than teams picking above us if the objective is to land Mariota. Before this news, we were probably a very attractive trading partner at 5 because the Jets would likely snag him at 6. But now, someone else gets that privilege (although, I will allow, at greater cost to the team trading up, as the higher the pick, the more you have to give up for it).

Re: Next years QB
 

I'm not sure today's news changes things a whole lot. It's not a long term commitment and it's guaranteed for injury only. It's window dressing more than anything. In the end it just gives the team more control.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111701]I'm not sure today's news changes things a whole lot. It's not a long term commitment and it's guaranteed for injury only. It's window dressing more than anything. In the end it just gives the team more control.[/quote]

I don't disagree -- my issue is only one of timing. Had we done this next Monday, we'd have the same control re: RGIII. We arguably have a little less now with regard to draft strategy, and I just cannot see a reason why this was done now.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111703]I don't disagree -- my issue is only one of timing. Had we done this next Monday, we'd have the same control re: RGIII. We arguably have a little less now with regard to draft strategy, and I just cannot see a reason why this was done now.[/quote]

Everyone knows if the Titans don't take him, he's definitely going to be there at #5. The Jags aren't taking him and neither are the Raiders. #5 is when things will start to get interesting regardless of the news today. And I don't think picking up the option is big news to teams around the league. Pretty sure it was expected.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111696]It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.[/quote]Yes! If we might take Mariota, other teams wouldn't try to trade with us, they would try to leap-frog us with the #4 or higher pick.

Picking up Griffin's option improves the chance someone might trade with us, if Mariota is there.

Re: Next years QB
 

Does anybody up here really believe that Robert is going to be the starter come week 1?


This is how this is going to play out. Kirk is going to win the job in training camp and be the day 1 starter. If Kirk repeats that shit from last year, he's going to be yanked and Robert is going to be allowed his shot at being the starter.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1111711]Does anybody up here really believe that Robert is going to be the starter come week 1?


This is how this is going to play out. Kirk is going to win the job in training camp and be the day 1 starter. If Kirk repeats that shit from last year, he's going to be yanked and Robert is going to be allowed his shot at being the starter.[/quote]

I don't think Griffin can start 16 games. He just has too long a ways to go to be a complete QB. That's not to say KC or Colt are 16 game starters either, just seems like KC has a shorter ways to go. But my guess is Griffin starts off the number one but won't keep the job. i just hope this be about performance and not about the politics that surrounds Griffin.

Re: Next years QB
 

Looks like Haslett doesn't think much of Robert...lol


[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsblog/jim-haslett-answers-if-redskins-should-take-marcus-mariota?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo]Jim Haslett answers if Redskins should take Marcus Mariota | Comcast SportsNet Washington[/url]

[QUOTE]"If I'm making the call, I would take him," Haslett said to Comcast SportsNet's Chick Hernandez. [/QUOTE]