do we show our hand to soon (Barrow allowed to seek trade)

mooby · 07-21-2005, 10:28 AM

personally i think we should cut our losses and move on. if any team offered a 7th round pick for barrow, i would take it. it's better than releasing him and getting nothing. same with gardner. because every other team knows they can get gardner without giving up a draft pick. but in the case someone will give up a draft pick, take it. stop all this, we want at least a fifth round pick for him. it's obvious they aren't gonna get one.

JWsleep · 07-21-2005, 11:44 AM

One could argue about the GM (and lord knows we have!!) but why is Barrow thing so bad? My impression is that Barrow and his agent ASKED for permission to seek a trade, and it was granted. SHould they have said no? Why? If the guy thinks he has value, why not? Same with Gardner--we're going to release him, sure. But maybe, before we do, some team is going to lose a WR in training ca,p to injury, and wont be able to take the chance of not getting Rod. They'll trade. Or not, and then we're where we were anyway.

How does this make us a laughing stock, blah balh blah?

As for the FO, I agree with Matty. Let's see it on the field. And Gibbs is only going into his SECOND year as president. It takes time to fix things. Are we in cap hell? No. Short of Taylor (is it the FOs fault he did what he was alleged to do?) and Arrington (Can you say POSTONS?), things seem to be falling into place IMHO.

Redskins8588 · 07-21-2005, 12:01 PM

First thing, I do remember reading that Gardner did want an extension from which ever team he went to and this was stalling any trade. But what I do not understand is how can Gardner have any demands as such if he is still under contract to us? When we would trade him wouldn't is basicly be his contract to the other team for what ever pick or player in return?

As for Barrow, there was nothing our Front office could do about that, I mean like many posted he was a very good player that had the bad luck bug bite him last season. So if Barrow would like to try to get to another team then so be it...

But I do want to say that the Gardner thing is about the only thing that the front office did this offseason that made me scratch my head. Many complain about the so called crappy offseason that we had, but I dont see it. Look, we brought in needed help at center, we signed a vet reciever that has tons of experience. We let go a 2nd round corner only to replace him with a first round corner. And we traded an injured reciever for a healthy reciever. Plus we drafted help for our linebackers and for special teams. Most importantly we kept the same staff for another season. All in all, I personally think that we had a pretty good offseason...

MTK · 07-21-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

First thing, I do remember reading that Gardner did want an extension from which ever team he went to and this was stalling any trade. But what I do not understand is how can Gardner have any demands as such if he is still under contract to us? When we would trade him wouldn't is basicly be his contract to the other team for what ever pick or player in return?

The problem is this, a team that wants to trade for him doesn't want him for one year. His new team would rather lock him up now rather than having him for one year, he has a big year and then he jets for a bigger contract somewhere else.

One of the conditions of a trade would be him agreeing to a new deal with his new team, and if he's not willing to do that, he's not going to be traded, simple as that.

For Gardner it makes sense for him to test the free agent waters where he could possibly get a couple of teams to outbid each other for his services, rather than agree to a new deal via a trade.

Redskins8588 · 07-21-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The problem is this, a team that wants to trade for him doesn't want him for one year. His new team would rather lock him up now rather than having him for one year, he has a big year and then he jets for a bigger contract somewhere else.

One of the conditions of a trade would be him agreeing to a new deal with his new team, and if he's not willing to do that, he's not going to be traded, simple as that.

For Gardner it makes sense for him to test the free agent waters where he could possibly get a couple of teams to outbid each other for his services, rather than agree to a new deal via a trade.

Thanks that clears things up...

MTK · 07-21-2005, 12:26 PM

The Skins are about $1.65M under the cap right now.

Gardner will clear up $2M in cap space and at this point I'm thinking the team's willingness to part with Barrow is more cap related than anything.

Dumping Barrow will free up another $1.74M giving the team plenty of room to get the deals done with the rooks.

Gmanc711 · 07-21-2005, 12:40 PM

Every single team has its share of bad moves, we're no different. But looking at Schneeds post, you can see that we have had a TON of quality guys brought in. I dont know if I agree with Taylro being a hit, I think the jury is still out on him, but I wouldnt call him a bad pickup either.

Obviously Brunell was a stupid move from the get go, I didnt understand that one form the begining. But I dont think Barrow was that stupid of a move. It wasent even a gamble when we signed him. We were all excited to get a quality, veteran MLB, and things went south with his heath. It happens. I dont think we should crucify the front office for antyhing that happened this offseason.

Its not the front offices fault that L. Coles wanted to leave. We got the best we could for him, and while that situation still irks me, I dont blame the front office for anything.

Its not the front offices fault that Sean Taylor did what he did. They cant follow these guys every hour of every day, they are supposed to be adults.

Its not the front offices fault that Lavar Arrington's agents are idiots.

With that, I dont understand where this "horrific offseason" has come from. This was the offseason we have all wanted, some low key signings, and not trying to bring in over the hill losers. I'm not pissed at our front office for anything that happend this year.

SmootSmack · 07-21-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I dont understand where this "horrific offseason" has come from. This was the offseason we have all wanted, some low key signings, and not trying to bring in over the hill losers. I'm not pissed at our front office for anything that happend this year.

If the past has taught us nothing else it's that we shouldn't judge the offseason until the next season (or two) has actually been played

TheMalcolmConnection · 07-21-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Every single team has its share of bad moves, we're no different. But looking at Schneeds post, you can see that we have had a TON of quality guys brought in. I dont know if I agree with Taylro being a hit, I think the jury is still out on him, but I wouldnt call him a bad pickup either.

Obviously Brunell was a stupid move from the get go, I didnt understand that one form the begining. But I dont think Barrow was that stupid of a move. It wasent even a gamble when we signed him. We were all excited to get a quality, veteran MLB, and things went south with his heath. It happens. I dont think we should crucify the front office for antyhing that happened this offseason.

Its not the front offices fault that L. Coles wanted to leave. We got the best we could for him, and while that situation still irks me, I dont blame the front office for anything.

Its not the front offices fault that Sean Taylor did what he did. They cant follow these guys every hour of every day, they are supposed to be adults.

Its not the front offices fault that Lavar Arrington's agents are idiots.

With that, I dont understand where this "horrific offseason" has come from. This was the offseason we have all wanted, some low key signings, and not trying to bring in over the hill losers. I'm not pissed at our front office for anything that happend this year.

Also having an offseason like this brings out some heavy media bias too. I mean it always seems its lose-lose when it comes to us.

jacobyfan · 07-21-2005, 01:15 PM

Isn't Barrow's release fee about the same as his salary for this year?

mooby · 07-21-2005, 12:47 PM

it's not that im pissed at the front office, i am happy we had a low key offseason, but it's more what happened off the field during the offseason. the arrington thing, coles hating the team, gardner requesting a trade, taylor getting arrested, not resigning smoot and pierce, it's a whole combination. i would love to have an offseason where we are low key, where we didn't have any off the field distractions either.

Schneed10 · 07-21-2005, 12:54 PM

Yeah I suppose we have to wait and see how Taylor plays this year, and whether or not his legal situation is a distraction. And certainly, if he goes to jail for three years, the drafting of Sean Taylor would be the ultimate "miss". But from what I've read, it sounds like Taylor will be acquitted or the case will be dropped, since the state's evidence is a little on the weak side.

Even with Taylor's trouble though, he still was a first alternate for the Pro Bowl in his ROOKIE season, and the players in front of him were named Brian Dawkins, Roy Williams, and Michael Lewis. Pretty good company. I'm counting on him improving and continuing to play for the Skins.

Besides, player acquisition NEVER tells the full story. We love to look back on the players the front offices acquired and say well that one worked out, or that other one was a bust... etcetera. But the quality of the coaching and the ability of the coaching staff to teach those acquired players how to play is just as important as anything. It's no surprise that just about every player acquired by Spurrier was a bust, he couldn't teach them diddily poo. Now look at the defensive guys brought in; even guys previously viewed as schmucks like Joe Salavea'a are tearing it up thanks to quality instruction and coaching. Even guys previously buried on the Skins roster started to shine, like Pierce, Ryan Clark, and Lemar Marshall.

The NFL is a coach's league, player acquisition will only take you as far as the coaches allow it to, after all those acquired players have to fit into and perform in the coaching scheme. Changes to the front office are not the answer; time is the answer. Just give Gibbs a little time, he'll have a winner before we know it.

crlesh · 07-21-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The NFL is a coach's league, player acquisition will only take you as far as the coaches allow it to, after all those acquired players have to fit into and perform in the coaching scheme. Changes to the front office are not the answer; time is the answer. Just give Gibbs a little time, he'll have a winner before we know it.

Well said. Team chemistry is the factor that takes good teams through the playoffs. Team chemistry can only be built with time, as more or less talented players learn their niches in the system and become accountable to their teammates and coaches. We had it on defense last year. We just have to build it on offense with the players we have.

As to front office decisions... those are best judged in hindsight, as has been stated. But as Schneed so aptly described above, player acquisition is given too much attention by the fans. If we had won a few more of the close games last year, gotten into the playoffs, and somehow managed to go all the way, the Brunell situation would be perceived completely differently. Everyone would be talking about the great leadership and locker-room presence he brought to the team.

It all changes when you have team chemistry and string together wins. And I assert that the personnel doesn't matter as much as we think.

FRPLG · 07-21-2005, 01:13 PM

I love how this argument comes up every couple weeks. It's been overdue for a while now.
I can't see how anyone could disagree with the getting rid of Coles deal. He didn't want to be here and the Skins didn't want him. Both Gibbs and Coles attempted to makeup and I think in the end you have to admin both guys are stand up guys with a decent amount character. It wasn't going to work. Now I'll jump on the band wagon who quibble with making the trade to pick up Moss and wasting that cap space but I'll also admit that's a move that none of us can possibly judge as good or bad yet. My gut says we didn't pull it off well but we still need to play the games.
I am convinced that Barrow was potentially our BEST pickup last season. He was a multiple time pro bowler who led his team in tackles for 3+ years. He had monster seasons and didn't miss games. Plain and simple it should have worked. 9 times out of 10 that move works. The Skins got stuck with the 1 out 10 time that it backfired. Luck of the draw.
Brunell was a horible pick up and we all knew it when it happened. That was a serious brain fart for ole coach gibbs. That's one strike but it's the only strike you can attribute as a mistake in judgement. Now this year we have a couple candidates for the brain fart category. Giving up Smoot and Pierce could be problems BUT I'd suggest that Greg williams did a fantastic job limited talent last year and there's no reason to suspect any different this year with a similar level of talent.

Simply the jury is still out on this past off season and it's way too premature to suggest we need a GM. Lets get through some games before we start making declarations.

Now what other good topics can we discuss that are past due for some rumbling. Spurrier anyone?

TheMalcolmConnection · 07-21-2005, 01:18 PM

Maybe Canuck can shed some light on that one... You around buddy?

Canuck, will this be an overall positive or negative move on the salary cap?

07-21-2005, 10:28 AM	#1
mooby Hug Anne Spyder Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 20,596	Re: do we show our hand to soon personally i think we should cut our losses and move on. if any team offered a 7th round pick for barrow, i would take it. it's better than releasing him and getting nothing. same with gardner. because every other team knows they can get gardner without giving up a draft pick. but in the case someone will give up a draft pick, take it. stop all this, we want at least a fifth round pick for him. it's obvious they aren't gonna get one.

07-21-2005, 11:44 AM	#2
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 57 Posts: 4,719	Re: do we show our hand to soon One could argue about the GM (and lord knows we have!!) but why is Barrow thing so bad? My impression is that Barrow and his agent ASKED for permission to seek a trade, and it was granted. SHould they have said no? Why? If the guy thinks he has value, why not? Same with Gardner--we're going to release him, sure. But maybe, before we do, some team is going to lose a WR in training ca,p to injury, and wont be able to take the chance of not getting Rod. They'll trade. Or not, and then we're where we were anyway. How does this make us a laughing stock, blah balh blah? As for the FO, I agree with Matty. Let's see it on the field. And Gibbs is only going into his SECOND year as president. It takes time to fix things. Are we in cap hell? No. Short of Taylor (is it the FOs fault he did what he was alleged to do?) and Arrington (Can you say POSTONS?), things seem to be falling into place IMHO. __________________ Hail from Houston!

07-21-2005, 12:01 PM	#3
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 47 Posts: 2,519	Re: do we show our hand to soon First thing, I do remember reading that Gardner did want an extension from which ever team he went to and this was stalling any trade. But what I do not understand is how can Gardner have any demands as such if he is still under contract to us? When we would trade him wouldn't is basicly be his contract to the other team for what ever pick or player in return? As for Barrow, there was nothing our Front office could do about that, I mean like many posted he was a very good player that had the bad luck bug bite him last season. So if Barrow would like to try to get to another team then so be it... But I do want to say that the Gardner thing is about the only thing that the front office did this offseason that made me scratch my head. Many complain about the so called crappy offseason that we had, but I dont see it. Look, we brought in needed help at center, we signed a vet reciever that has tons of experience. We let go a 2nd round corner only to replace him with a first round corner. And we traded an injured reciever for a healthy reciever. Plus we drafted help for our linebackers and for special teams. Most importantly we kept the same staff for another season. All in all, I personally think that we had a pretty good offseason... __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

07-21-2005, 12:26 PM	#6
MTK Hail Raiser Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 53 Posts: 100,049	Re: do we show our hand to soon The Skins are about $1.65M under the cap right now. Gardner will clear up $2M in cap space and at this point I'm thinking the team's willingness to part with Barrow is more cap related than anything. Dumping Barrow will free up another $1.74M giving the team plenty of room to get the deals done with the rooks. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

07-21-2005, 12:40 PM	#7
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 40 Posts: 7,506	Re: do we show our hand to soon Every single team has its share of bad moves, we're no different. But looking at Schneeds post, you can see that we have had a TON of quality guys brought in. I dont know if I agree with Taylro being a hit, I think the jury is still out on him, but I wouldnt call him a bad pickup either. Obviously Brunell was a stupid move from the get go, I didnt understand that one form the begining. But I dont think Barrow was that stupid of a move. It wasent even a gamble when we signed him. We were all excited to get a quality, veteran MLB, and things went south with his heath. It happens. I dont think we should crucify the front office for antyhing that happened this offseason. Its not the front offices fault that L. Coles wanted to leave. We got the best we could for him, and while that situation still irks me, I dont blame the front office for anything. Its not the front offices fault that Sean Taylor did what he did. They cant follow these guys every hour of every day, they are supposed to be adults. Its not the front offices fault that Lavar Arrington's agents are idiots. With that, I dont understand where this "horrific offseason" has come from. This was the offseason we have all wanted, some low key signings, and not trying to bring in over the hill losers. I'm not pissed at our front office for anything that happend this year. __________________ #21

07-21-2005, 01:15 PM	#10
jacobyfan Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Nashville, TN Age: 47 Posts: 172	Re: do we show our hand to soon Isn't Barrow's release fee about the same as his salary for this year?

07-21-2005, 12:47 PM	#11
mooby Hug Anne Spyder Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 20,596	Re: do we show our hand to soon it's not that im pissed at the front office, i am happy we had a low key offseason, but it's more what happened off the field during the offseason. the arrington thing, coles hating the team, gardner requesting a trade, taylor getting arrested, not resigning smoot and pierce, it's a whole combination. i would love to have an offseason where we are low key, where we didn't have any off the field distractions either.

07-21-2005, 12:54 PM	#12
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	Re: do we show our hand to soon Yeah I suppose we have to wait and see how Taylor plays this year, and whether or not his legal situation is a distraction. And certainly, if he goes to jail for three years, the drafting of Sean Taylor would be the ultimate "miss". But from what I've read, it sounds like Taylor will be acquitted or the case will be dropped, since the state's evidence is a little on the weak side. Even with Taylor's trouble though, he still was a first alternate for the Pro Bowl in his ROOKIE season, and the players in front of him were named Brian Dawkins, Roy Williams, and Michael Lewis. Pretty good company. I'm counting on him improving and continuing to play for the Skins. Besides, player acquisition NEVER tells the full story. We love to look back on the players the front offices acquired and say well that one worked out, or that other one was a bust... etcetera. But the quality of the coaching and the ability of the coaching staff to teach those acquired players how to play is just as important as anything. It's no surprise that just about every player acquired by Spurrier was a bust, he couldn't teach them diddily poo. Now look at the defensive guys brought in; even guys previously viewed as schmucks like Joe Salavea'a are tearing it up thanks to quality instruction and coaching. Even guys previously buried on the Skins roster started to shine, like Pierce, Ryan Clark, and Lemar Marshall. The NFL is a coach's league, player acquisition will only take you as far as the coaches allow it to, after all those acquired players have to fit into and perform in the coaching scheme. Changes to the front office are not the answer; time is the answer. Just give Gibbs a little time, he'll have a winner before we know it.

07-21-2005, 01:13 PM	#14
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 47 Posts: 10,164	Re: do we show our hand to soon I love how this argument comes up every couple weeks. It's been overdue for a while now. I can't see how anyone could disagree with the getting rid of Coles deal. He didn't want to be here and the Skins didn't want him. Both Gibbs and Coles attempted to makeup and I think in the end you have to admin both guys are stand up guys with a decent amount character. It wasn't going to work. Now I'll jump on the band wagon who quibble with making the trade to pick up Moss and wasting that cap space but I'll also admit that's a move that none of us can possibly judge as good or bad yet. My gut says we didn't pull it off well but we still need to play the games. I am convinced that Barrow was potentially our BEST pickup last season. He was a multiple time pro bowler who led his team in tackles for 3+ years. He had monster seasons and didn't miss games. Plain and simple it should have worked. 9 times out of 10 that move works. The Skins got stuck with the 1 out 10 time that it backfired. Luck of the draw. Brunell was a horible pick up and we all knew it when it happened. That was a serious brain fart for ole coach gibbs. That's one strike but it's the only strike you can attribute as a mistake in judgement. Now this year we have a couple candidates for the brain fart category. Giving up Smoot and Pierce could be problems BUT I'd suggest that Greg williams did a fantastic job limited talent last year and there's no reason to suspect any different this year with a similar level of talent. Simply the jury is still out on this past off season and it's way too premature to suggest we need a GM. Lets get through some games before we start making declarations. Now what other good topics can we discuss that are past due for some rumbling. Spurrier anyone?

07-21-2005, 01:18 PM	#15
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: do we show our hand to soon Maybe Canuck can shed some light on that one... You around buddy? Canuck, will this be an overall positive or negative move on the salary cap? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

do we show our hand to soon (Barrow allowed to seek trade)

Locker Room Main Forum