Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

[Tahoe Skin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So you'd rather keep an unhappy player around and let him potentially become a locker room distraction down the road, if he isn't already?

Some players have already voiced their opinion that if a player doesn't want to be here he should leave. Those players that feel that way probably wouldn't be likely to warm up to Coles after this mess and it would just simmer in the back of their minds.

Nobody wants to go into battle with someone who isn't playing for the right reasons.

Yes, rather than screw up my ability to sign 2, 3 or 4 other quality players, I would rather keep an unhappy player around and let him potentially become a locker room distraction down the road.

Winning changes player attitudes!

And players can police themselves.

I would even lock him out if it got bad, rather than screw up my cap space.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Yes, rather than screw up my ability to sign 2, 3 or 4 other quality players, I would rather keep an unhappy player around and let him potentially become a locker room distraction down the road.

Winning changes player attitudes!

And players can police themselves.

I would even lock him out if it got bad, rather than screw up my cap space.

What other 2, 3 or 4 players were we going to sign? It's not like we were going on a FA shopping spree.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

What other 2, 3 or 4 players were we going to sign? It's not like we were going on a FA shopping spree.

bingo

[Tahoe Skin]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

What other 2, 3 or 4 players were we going to sign? It's not like we were going on a FA shopping spree.

Perhaps we're not going on a spending spree cause we now have $9 million LESS to do so because of the Coles trade. I can think of several people we could have gotten, beginning with one named Fred Smoot.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Perhaps we're not going on a spending spree cause we now have $9 million LESS to do so because of the Coles trade. I can think of several people we could have gotten, beginning with one named Fred Smoot.

We weren't going on spending spree anyway (read the Washtimes article titled "Skins done in Free agency") even before the Coles trade. And as for Smoot, we made our offer, and we weren't going to budge (read the WPost).

I really don't know why you think we were better off keeping a guy who doesn't want to be here. Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and cut your losses. Coach Gibbs has said over and over again that he wants players who want to be "real Redskins". Coles doesn't fit that criteria.

[Tahoe Skin]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

I really don't know why you think we were better off keeping a guy who doesn't want to be here.

Why? Dollars and common sense!

Whether or not we actually spend the cap money is academic now. If we had the cap space, options would be there. And that's the point: We greatly reduced, if not eliminated, many of our options.

I'd let him sit and pout all he wants. Sooner or later he'd have a change of heart, particularly if we're winning and get our act together offensively.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Why? Dollars and common sense!

Whether or not we actually spend the cap money is academic now. If we had the cap space, options would be there. And that's the point: We greatly reduced, if not eliminated, many of our options.

I'd let him sit and pout all he wants. Sooner or later he'd have a change of heart, particularly if we're winning and get our act together offensively.

Common sense? Having a player sit and pout and bring a negative attitude to the team is common sense?

Have you ever played any type of team sport? Have you ever heard of comradarie? Or team chemistry?

And what makes you think that he'll have a change of heart? And if we're winning with him "sitting and pouting" on the bench.....then why even let him play when he decides to have his "change of heart"? By that time we won't even need him.

Common sense? Please.

[SkinsRock]

We'll see what people think of this deal after Coles doesn't play half the season due to further injuring the toe from the artificial turf at Giants stadium. And when we have more cap room next year.
Actually, I was in the thought that if the Skins would have released him, we WOULD be getting something in return....$5 Million more room against the cap, which some of could have been used to sign a FA receiver. Maybe the NFL PA gave the Skins the impression that they wouldn't approve the give-back...they were already questioning it. That said, I think we made the best out of a bad situation, and Moss could end up being the super-fast WR that Coles was supposed to be for us. Remember, Griffin was a "disappointment" for the Giants before we signed him last year and he almost (should have) made the pro bowl, so why couldn't Moss be the same type of situation? It happens with players all the time....whether it's a different system or just a change of scenery. Any change is a risk, just like when "great" players struggle with a new team.

[Tahoe Skin]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

Common sense? Having a player sit and pout and bring a negative attitude to the team is common sense?

Have you ever played any type of team sport? Have you ever heard of comradarie? Or team chemistry?

And what makes you think that he'll have a change of heart? And if we're winning with him "sitting and pouting" on the bench.....then why even let him play when he decides to have his "change of heart"? By that time we won't even need him.

Common sense? Please.

Yes, in fact, I played quarterback in high school and split end in college. And we had a couple of players pouting in high school and one in college. There's usually someone who's unhappy for selfish reasons. So if YOU had played football, you would know that "comradarie" and "team chemistry" is not always affected by one player's negative attitude. (For example, several Vikings players, including Culpepper, didn't want to see Randy Moss leave, and he was as disruptive as you can get. Even Jeff Garcia didn't want to see T.O. leave the Niners.)

Our players rallied around each other, and the discontents each found themselves alienated. Because of the peer pressure that existed in our squads, and because they saw we were occassionally winning, they each had a change of heart and straightened up. But you probably can't understand that.

And you also probably can't understand that common sense means that, rather than blow away all our cap money on one player in one year, we could have used that Cap Space to re-sign Smoot AND Pierce, PLUS maybe a pass rushing defensive end AND/OR a quality left guard. I'm sorry to say, but we just don't make smart management decisions. But don't take my word for how stupid this move was. Get a clue! Read today's Wash Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2005...0841-3835r.htm

The Washington Redskins will spend $9.3 million for Laveranues Coles not to play for them next season.
. . .
The $9.3 million figure, an acceleration of Coles' signing bonus, represents 11 percent of the Redskins' $85.5 million salary cap for next season -- and the latest example of how the Redskins continue to struggle with NFL caponomics.
One source with intimate knowledge of NFL players' contracts and team salary structures said no club has spent so much and gained so little as the Redskins.
Those kind of expensive mistakes explain why the Redskins likely will have to let top cornerback Fred Smoot leave as a free agent: They probably won't have enough room under the salary cap to re-sign him. The loss of Smoot would force the Redskins to gamble on Walt Harris as the new starting corner and leave them with no proven replacement for Harris at nickelback.
Those moves also explain why the Redskins settled for the cheaper and older David Patten at receiver instead of pursuing the top-end free agent wideouts, Derrick Mason and Plaxico Burress.