Around the NFL - Offseason thread

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

You figure with a personalized license plate that reads "sauced" the last thing you want to do is drink and drive, just ask Knowshon Moreno.

Knowshon Moreno charged with DUI; has a license plate that reads ‘SAUCED’ | Shutdown Corner - Yahoo! Sports

You can't just go around stealing ESPN's jokes. They will come after you.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You can sign him to a long-term deal and then axe him if/when he fails another drug test.

Not before he takes your $10M+ signing bonus... unless there is a clause for that.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Not before he takes your $10M+ signing bonus... unless there is a clause for that.

Well, yeah, you might lose the bonus money. However, wasn't there a case showing that bonus money can be reclaimed if the player violates NFL rules?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You can sign him to a long-term deal and then axe him if/when he fails another drug test.

Chances are the contract is going to have a signing bonus which we will not be able to recoup if he fails another drug tests. That's money lost and money that counts against our cap. I haven't seen a contract yet that makes players give back signing bonus money for being suspended/jailed/etc. The only case I've seen signing bonus money returned is when players retire. You probably won't see one either because I'm sure the NFLPA won't allow it.


Not even sure why you would think it's a good idea to reward bad behavior.

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Chances are the contract is going to have a signing bonus which we will not be able to recoup if he fails another drug tests. That's money lost and money that counts against our cap. I haven't seen a contract yet that makes players give back signing bonus money for being suspended/jailed/etc. The only case I've seen signing bonus money returned is when players retire. You probably won't see one either because I'm sure the NFLPA won't allow it.


Not even sure why you would think it's a good idea to reward bad behavior.

It's hard to get money back but easy to work moral clauses into a contract.
EX. YR 1 $3mil signing bonus plus vet min salary YR 2 $5mil bonus if no off field infractions resulting in league punishment. Vet min salary.

You're on the hook for his signing bonus and his salary while on the team (minus any suspended games) but he only makes the big bucks if clean.

It's similar to the contract D'Brickashaw (sp?) Ferguson signed with the Jets when they were skeptical of his workout habits and included a bonus for showing up to the Jet's facilities to work out off season. Various players have also had them for weight.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You don't reward a guy who's just failed 3 drug tests with a long term deal. That would be idiotic at the very least. He's one failed test away for being out a year. Absolutely not.

Franchise him. Make him earn it this next year.

The way the NFL substance abuse policy works, he's still going to be a strike away at this time next year, even if he stays. There's just no way a long-term contract will be any better for the team when Davis is a year older. There is actually a decent chance that 5/$27 won't get it done a year from now.

I agree with your position if your lean is that Fred Davis is unlikely to receive a long term contract with the Redskins. If that's the case, then we should franchise him, draft a tight end in the second or third round, and let him walk in a year provided there is a better option on the roster (which would theoretically be the draft pick).

But if you think that 365 days of no conflict is going to make Davis a better candidate for a long-term contract, that's just not something I agree with. That just costs the team more in the long run, and slows the process of building a winner.

[diehard]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Franchise tag on Davis is a defensible move, but I don't think it's the right one. Assuming they believe in him as the long term TE (and perhaps they don't), there's not enough TE demand amongst teams for him to skip town with the first offer he gets. 5/$27 gets it done and I don't think he's going to be worth less at this time next year. He'll just be a year older.

I agree.

[Hog1]

Well if the truth be told, NOshawn tried to get "Driver under the influence of Purple D". Sadly......character restrictions on the plates.....

[skinsfaninok]

Theismann: Redskins signing Manning would be “horrific idea” | ProFootballTalk

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Theismann: Redskins signing Manning would be “horrific idea” | ProFootballTalk

Theismann's argument is flawed because it is not an either/or. You can sign PM and draft his protege at the same time, making us set at QB for years to come.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Theismann's argument is flawed because it is not an either/or. You can sign PM and draft his protege at the same time, making us set at QB for years to come.

I agree, I think bring in Manning for a 2 year contract or 3 and draft a Rookie this year or next. He's better at 80% than most rookies would be anyway

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Theismann: Redskins signing Manning would be “horrific idea” | ProFootballTalk

I couldn't agree more with JoeyT, haven't we learned from signing Haynesworth and Hall? Character is not an issue here, but age and health are. Why mortgage the future by paying a big sum of money, instead of doing the right thing by finding someone else. Hopefully common sense prevails and they pass on him or someone else takes a chance on him.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Theismann: Redskins signing Manning would be “horrific idea” | ProFootballTalk

Joe is dead on but it's going to happen. I said this a long time ago. They're going to make a serious run at Manning...older coach, impatient owner, a front office that likes free agents and we've got a lot of cap room. Oh yeah..Grossman and Beck are our QB's.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I couldn't agree more with JoeyT, haven't we learned from signing Haynesworth and Hall? Character is not an issue here, but age and health are. Why mortgage the future by paying a big sum of money, instead of doing the right thing by finding someone else. Hopefully common sense prevails and they pass on him or someone else takes a chance on him.

Why can't we sign PM and also draft a qb?

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Why can't we sign PM and also draft a qb?

We could, but;
1. Does Peyton really want to come here?
2. Is he going to be throwing back the way he used be able to throw or will his arm strength of decreased significantly from not playing/neck surgery?
3. Does Peyton fit our system of bootlegs and roll outs?
4. Will Peyton get along with both shanahans?
5. Do we want to tie so much money into the QB situation, should we really draft RG3 by trading with St. Louis?
6. How much upgrading do we need on our OL and WR's?
7. Do we change our whole offense now, for one player?
8. Do we ever learn that signing big name FA QB's doesn't work? Theres always a "Yeah, But..." with all these Big name FA signings and us.