Who will be the next coach of the Redskins and does it even freakin matter?

[FrenchSkin]

Kevin Sheehan today advocated that, this season being lost, the Redskins should trade any player who's not going to be there when this team has a chance to be competitive (either because of age and/or contract and/or not wanting to stay here) and who we can get value for, including: TW, Scherff, AP, P Richardson, Kerrigan, Norman ...

While I think some players in that list won't bring back much value, it's really hard to disagree IMO.
The debate on Scherff is open but if you're not ready to give him highest paid Guard in the NFL money, you should trade him.
I like Kerrigan, but he's 31 and has one year left on his contract... how well is he gonna be playing in 2 seasons when we can start hoping for anything legit ?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Kevin Sheehan today advocated that, this season being lost, the Redskins should trade any player who's not going to be there when this team has a chance to be competitive (either because of age and/or contract and/or not wanting to stay here) and who we can get value for, including: TW, Scherff, AP, P Richardson, Kerrigan, Norman ...

While I think some players in that list won't bring back much value, it's really hard to disagree IMO.
The debate on Scherff is open but if you're not ready to give him highest paid Guard in the NFL money, you should trade him.
I like Kerrigan, but he's 31 and has one year left on his contract... how well is he gonna be playing in 2 seasons when we can start hoping for anything legit ?

Sheehan's been saying the same thing since our 2018 season was over nearly every day on his podcast.

It's not going to happen as long as Bruce is in charge. Speaking of which...

Last year (or early this year, before the draft), i seem to recall Bruce making a comment to the effect that he and Jay both had losing records and were in the hot seat. I wonder if part of Bruce's reluctance to trade anyone and to continue to publicly state that theyre close is because he doesn't give two craps about the Redskins future - because he doesn't believe he'll be part of it.

I mean, think about it. Sure, Bruce could probably get a slew of first and second round picks by trading Williams, Kerrigan, Scherff, etc., but why do that if you believed you'd probably be fired and someone else would be using those picks?

Why would Bruce trade players who could presumably help the team get to a somewhat respectable record in 2019 - maybe 7-9 or 6-10 if the team gets on a streak. Then, Bruce could present Dan a plausible argument (or atleast one he believes is plausible) that theyre "close."

Perhaps i'm not looking at things the right way, but if Bruce truly felt secure in his job long-term, he WOULD be dealing players for picks. He'd be planning to build a team of young players to surround Haskins. He'd be wanting to acquire as many picks as possible to help pitch the job to a top end head coach in 2020. But he's not. Bruce is going all in on 2019, and the only reason that makes sense is if he believes his job is on the line.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sheehan's been saying the same thing since our 2018 season was over nearly every day on his podcast.

It's not going to happen as long as Bruce is in charge. Speaking of which...

Last year (or early this year, before the draft), i seem to recall Bruce making a comment to the effect that he and Jay both had losing records and were in the hot seat. I wonder if part of Bruce's reluctance to trade anyone and to continue to publicly state that theyre close is because he doesn't give two craps about the Redskins future - because he doesn't believe he'll be part of it.

I mean, think about it. Sure, Bruce could probably get a slew of first and second round picks by trading Williams, Kerrigan, Scherff, etc., but why do that if you believed you'd probably be fired and someone else would be using those picks?

Why would Bruce trade players who could presumably help the team get to a somewhat respectable record in 2019 - maybe 7-9 or 6-10 if the team gets on a streak. Then, Bruce could present Dan a plausible argument (or atleast one he believes is plausible) that theyre "close."

Perhaps i'm not looking at things the right way, but if Bruce truly felt secure in his job long-term, he WOULD be dealing players for picks. He'd be planning to build a team of young players to surround Haskins. He'd be wanting to acquire as many picks as possible to help pitch the job to a top end head coach in 2020. But he's not. Bruce is going all in on 2019, and the only reason that makes sense is if he believes his job is on the line.

All you said absolutely makes sense... But it's BA, and he made stupid stubborned decisions that hurt the future of this team even way before he could possibly feel insecure about his job here (which I'm still not sure is true...).
Point is I could see him be totally confident Dan has his back and still make poor arrogance led choices like not trading TW and not wanting to pay Scherff...

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

All you said absolutely makes sense... But it's BA, and he made stupid stubborned decisions that hurt the future of this team even way before he could possibly feel insecure about his job here (which I'm still not sure is true...).
Point is I could see him be totally confident Dan has his back and still make poor arrogance led choices like not trading TW and not wanting to pay Scherff...

At this point, I think the Trent situation is mostly about spite on both sides. And the team does want to pay Scherff, but Scherff most likely doesn't want to sign a long-term deal here - at least not presently. Its in his financial best interests to make the skins tag him next year and then sign a deal (with the skins or another team) under the new CBA in 2021. That said, I really don't think Scherff is worth what most fans think he is worth. We (as fans)have a long history of overvaluing our own players. For the past decade, most of our roster has been below-average talent-wise. But, we think its average. So we see Brandon Scherff and think he's an elite guard - maybe one of the best 2-3 in the league. But he's really not THAT great. He's top 10 for sure, but not top 2-3.

And to be completely honest, seeing the production we're getting from Flowers, is the difference between his play and Sherff's enough to justify paying him 4 times what Flowers is making (4M per year)? Because that's what top guard money is going to be. I personally don't think it is. Id rather let Scherff walk and get a mid-range RG in FA or in the draft, and use the money saved to get an elite playmaker at a skill position. Those are far harder to come by than a capable guard.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

At this point, I think the Trent situation is mostly about spite on both sides. And the team does want to pay Scherff, but Scherff most likely doesn't want to sign a long-term deal here - at least not presently. Its in his financial best interests to make the skins tag him next year and then sign a deal (with the skins or another team) under the new CBA in 2021. That said, I really don't think Scherff is worth what most fans think he is worth. We (as fans)have a long history of overvaluing our own players. For the past decade, most of our roster has been below-average talent-wise. But, we think its average. So we see Brandon Scherff and think he's an elite guard - maybe one of the best 2-3 in the league. But he's really not THAT great. He's top 10 for sure, but not top 2-3.

And to be completely honest, seeing the production we're getting from Flowers, is the difference between his play and Sherff's enough to justify paying him 4 times what Flowers is making (4M per year)? Because that's what top guard money is going to be. I personally don't think it is. Id rather let Scherff walk and get a mid-range RG in FA or in the draft, and use the money saved to get an elite playmaker at a skill position. Those are far harder to come by than a capable guard.

Agreed 100% about TW, and spite is rarely of wise council ...

About Scherff, while I agree we tend to over rate our own players and he's more likely in the top 10 range than in top 5 range, I still think you pay him.
He'll only be the highest paid G until the next one signs a huge contract. Losing an elite LT is a huge blow, losing a pro bowler RG on top of that is too much.

Plus I think for culture purposes at some point you have to keep the rare players you drafted that play well...

Finally, the more I watch football the more I think it's won in the trenches and I'd put having a dominant OL (+DL) ahead of having an extra skill player. But that's highly debatable.

Hey anyway, it's probably not going to happen so ^^

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Agreed 100% about TW, and spite is rarely of wise council ...

About Scherff, while I agree we tend to over rate our own players and he's more likely in the top 10 range than in top 5 range, I still think you pay him.
He'll only be the highest paid G until the next one signs a huge contract. Losing an elite LT is a huge blow, losing a pro bowler RG on top of that is too much.

Plus I think for culture purposes at some point you have to keep the rare players you drafted that play well...

Finally, the more I watch football the more I think it's won in the trenches and I'd put having a dominant OL (+DL) ahead of having an extra skill player. But that's highly debatable.

Hey anyway, it's probably not going to happen so ^^

We aren't really missing TW. Penn is playing mighty damn good football. Not that i think Penn is the future - it just shows that you don't need to overpay for the position (however, if there is one position i would overpay at, its LT). As far as Scherff goes, a top 10 guard should not be getting as many holding penalties.