Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

jdlea · 01-02-2005, 10:19 AM

You guys all have very idealistic views about what the Washington Redskins are. This is NOT a winning team. This is NOT a loyal franchise. This is NOT a team, IMO, a team most players should want to play for. We hand out big contracts and within a few years we demand that that money get handed back or we'll cut the player. See: Stephen Davis or Chris Samuels or Bruce Smith. Somehow a lot of the fans seem to think that the loyal players will give the money back. The ones who are interested in being Redskins. However, if the FO were interested in them being Redskins throughout their contract, they wouldn't have made the damn thing suffocate them late in the cap.

All of you were pissed at Champ when he left, why? He didn't want to be here and, frankly, I don't blame him. The Skins wanted to make him one of the highest paid corners in the leage? No. They were backloading that contract just like they always do and they would have made him restructure or cut him towards the end of it. Champ went out and got a front loaded contract from the Broncos for about the same terms, why? So he can play the contract out. The Redskins disgust me with the way they do business and if I were a player, I wouldn't stay here either. So while all of you villify Smoot you need to take a look at the Front Office and the way they plan to structure the contract. The reason the Skins can sign so many people in the offseason with something like $10 mil in cap space is because most of the money in a contract comes at the end of the deal which is why players get cut. It's not just the Redskins by any means, but I think the Skins could be the worst offenders.

01-02-2005, 10:19 AM	#22
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 41 Posts: 3,109	You guys all have very idealistic views about what the Washington Redskins are. This is NOT a winning team. This is NOT a loyal franchise. This is NOT a team, IMO, a team most players should want to play for. We hand out big contracts and within a few years we demand that that money get handed back or we'll cut the player. See: Stephen Davis or Chris Samuels or Bruce Smith. Somehow a lot of the fans seem to think that the loyal players will give the money back. The ones who are interested in being Redskins. However, if the FO were interested in them being Redskins throughout their contract, they wouldn't have made the damn thing suffocate them late in the cap. All of you were pissed at Champ when he left, why? He didn't want to be here and, frankly, I don't blame him. The Skins wanted to make him one of the highest paid corners in the leage? No. They were backloading that contract just like they always do and they would have made him restructure or cut him towards the end of it. Champ went out and got a front loaded contract from the Broncos for about the same terms, why? So he can play the contract out. The Redskins disgust me with the way they do business and if I were a player, I wouldn't stay here either. So while all of you villify Smoot you need to take a look at the Front Office and the way they plan to structure the contract. The reason the Skins can sign so many people in the offseason with something like $10 mil in cap space is because most of the money in a contract comes at the end of the deal which is why players get cut. It's not just the Redskins by any means, but I think the Skins could be the worst offenders.