Trent Williams holding out for new deal

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Respect is earned, not given.

Matty must have made a mistake: "- Perhaps the most important guideline of this forum is this, treat your fellow forum members with the utmost respect at all times. Personal attacks will not be tolerated." - http://www.thewarpath.net/misc.php?do=cfrules

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Schneed.

Matty, please fix the Forum Rules to reflect Schneed's revelation here, thanks.
-"at all times."
+"once they've earned it."

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by los panda

Matty must have made a mistake: "- Perhaps the most important guideline of this forum is this, treat your fellow forum members with the utmost respect at all times. Personal attacks will not be tolerated." - http://www.thewarpath.net/misc.php?do=cfrules

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Schneed.

Matty, please fix the Forum Rules to reflect Schneed's revelation here, thanks.
-"at all times."
+"once they've earned it."

[los panda]

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Schneed, can you pass me some of that salt?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

And one of the players who we've had health concerns with is.... wait for it...

Trent Williams.

He is 31 and has only been playing 75% of games lately. Due to the kind of injuries he's had and how often he's played hurt, John Clayton said on John Keim's podcast that he would probably have a shorter career than some other LTs. He's not a guy whose likely to be playing football in 5 years. He likely will be done in 2 or maybe 3. We have him under contract for 2 more years.

Its not like the team has done Trent wrong financially. When he signed his current contract, the team made him the highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL. His contract is still among the top in the league. And again, he has not one, but two more years, on it. If Trent didn't want to play out that contract, he should have negotiated one with a shorter term.

Also, we don't need Trent "back in the fold" before training camp. He doesn't need the practice. His holdout will not extend into the regular season. This is really about the money and he won't want to miss the game checks. So this is not the "crisis" many are making it out to be.

The team may decided to restructure his current deal a bit to guarantee a little bit more of the money on it. Maybe give him an extra $500,000 bonus or something. But it would be downright foolish of them to give him any deal that would guarantee any new money beyond the next two years. All that would do is create a situation where we have a lot of money allocated to a player who will likely be missing more and more time as his health and performance declines.

Before you let a player like Trent go, you have a replacement, especially with a Rookie QB and an unknown right beside him at LG. He doesn't need to practice, but you got a terrible distraction as well as top leader on Offense away. You don't need to do a big extension, but you could do alittle more to make the man happy.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Respect is earned, not given.

I've got thick skin. Being called an idiot rolls off the sleeve.

But why bring your grandmother into it? Cold.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Because you're an idiot. Comparing this Redskins team to the 2017 Eagles is nothing short of asinine. The Eagles may have succeeded without Peters but THIS team will not succeed without Trent.

There's a massive difference in the rosters - they had two very good QBs and we're not sure we even have one. They had receiving threats all over the place (who stayed healthy) in Ertz, Jeffrey, Agholor, Trey Burton, etc, we have one proven one who can't stay healthy (Reed). It's a ridiculous comparison that makes you look like you watch football as often as my grandmother.

HEY! She's a nice lady

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Before you let a player like Trent go, you have a replacement, especially with a Rookie QB and an unknown right beside him at LG. He doesn't need to practice, but you got a terrible distraction as well as top leader on Offense away. You don't need to do a big extension, but you could do alittle more to make the man happy.

I think a lot of people are expecting some type of deal to make TW happy, perhaps restructuring his deal with more guaranteed money, without having a full blown extension.

I just hope TW doesn't go full Kirk-Cousins-crazy and start making crazy money demands because he doesn't want to play here anymore.

The team is in a terrible situation though having to appease TW, while trying to renew Schreff.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by los panda

Not cool, Homie. Feel free to express your opinions and make your points but treat others with respect.

The bad news is there is an internet tough guy who thinks he knows everything, and obviously has some sort of deep rooted mommy or daddy issues that need to be ironed out on this board. The good news is alot of other boards have multiple d-bags like that. Yay us.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

On a team that doesn't have a single star player, yes, you need your HOF LT to have a chance at succeeding. There's no Zeke, there's no Julio Jones, there's no Von Miller, no Luke Keuchley.



You're being kind of dense. Trent makes a major difference to this team, the kind of difference that could take them from 8-8 to 6-10.

If we NEED him to be 8-8, it's a lost season and all decisions should be geared toward success in 2020.

How many games do you think he will play in the next two years?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by punch it in

The bad news is there is an internet tough guy who thinks he knows everything, and obviously has some sort of deep rooted mommy or daddy issues that need to be ironed out on this board. The good news is alot of other boards have multiple d-bags like that. Yay us.

Great point.

One is too many but way better than two.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think a lot of people are expecting some type of deal to make TW happy, perhaps restructuring his deal with more guaranteed money, without having a full blown extension.

I just hope TW doesn't go full Kirk-Cousins-crazy and start making crazy money demands because he doesn't want to play here anymore.

The team is in a terrible situation though having to appease TW, while trying to renew Schreff.

TW can’t afford it too after missing the first game check. But while yes we could sit and done nothing...I’d rather have TW all in and leading the offense, by adding another year to his deal and some guarantee money the next couple years. I don’t think it has to be a huge deal...but TW has to realize one way or the other, he will be a skin this year

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Because you're an idiot. Comparing this Redskins team to the 2017 Eagles is nothing short of asinine. The Eagles may have succeeded without Peters but THIS team will not succeed without Trent.



There's a massive difference in the rosters - they had two very good QBs and we're not sure we even have one. They had receiving threats all over the place (who stayed healthy) in Ertz, Jeffrey, Agholor, Trey Burton, etc, we have one proven one who can't stay healthy (Reed). It's a ridiculous comparison that makes you look like you watch football as often as my grandmother.

Hmm.

Teams with deep, talented rosters are able to deal with injuries better than teams without a deep talented roster.

We don't have deep talent so we can't handle injuries.

So we MUST sign an aging, injury prone LT.

Interesting.

You're really short on details but it's easier to leave them out.

What is the max offer you make in terms of AAV and number of years? What are the limits to your "Must sign" position?

What is your expectation as to the number of games he plays in the next two years?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

Hmm.

Teams with deep, talented rosters are able to deal with injuries better than teams without a deep talented roster.

We don't have deep talent so we can't handle injuries.

So we MUST sign an aging, injury prone LT.

Interesting.

You're really short on details but it's easier to leave them out.

What is the max offer you make in terms of AAV and number of years? What are the limits to your "Must sign" position?

What is your expectation as to the number of games he plays in the next two years?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I didn’t take a ‘must sign’ position. You’re reading something in my posts that’s just not there.

But to answer your question, I think it would be reasonable to add a year to his deal and boost the AAV on those three years in total to match the AAV of the highest paid T in the league right now.

If he’s looking for five years then I’d have to consider what we’d get in a trade. I think our roster needs more and I wouldn’t destroy a disproportionate sum of cap space on a guy that will prevent us from filling out some other spots.

But I don’t anticipate it would come to that. I think they could either stare Trent down and force him to blink, or they could offer him a reasonable increase and I think he’d take it. I don’t believe JLC when he says Trent has vowed not to play for the Skins, because who believes JLC at this point in his career.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

On a team that doesn't have a single star player, yes, you need your HOF LT to have a chance at succeeding. There's no Zeke, there's no Julio Jones, there's no Von Miller, no Luke Keuchley.



You're being kind of dense. Trent makes a major difference to this team, the kind of difference that could take them from 8-8 to 6-10.

I thought your use of the word "need" in this post meant you were advocating must sign.

As far as availability, how would you calculate Trent's over the next two years when making an offer?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk