Full Blown Mutiny

Coles was never crazy about the Gibbs hire. I remember when they interviewed him at the Pro Bowl and they asked him how he felt about being coached by a HOFamer. From what I remember Coles said something like this "I mean thats great and all, but he likes to run the ball alot".

From the beginning Coles wasn't excited about Gibbs. Now everything is unfolding.

Good poitns Ramseyfan - When Coles signed that major deal he expected to be THE man on offense. He came into a Spurrier throw first, throw second, throw third, fake punt throw 4th offense. This is what Coles was looking forward to! He wanted to the be corner stone of the offense. A guy that can take the game and be exciting - and when healthy he is that guy. Now he's stuck in one of THE WORST passing offenses in the NFL, and get's very few looks per game let alone receptions.

I always hear "Gibbs is master at adaptation" Gibbs will turn it around. The problem I've seen - is in 16 games we saw very little evolution as far as our offense was concerned. It took 8 weeks to change from an absolutely miserable quarterback who not a single other person could defend by week 3, a handcuffed offense who preached turnovers to the point of implosion, a gameplan that was so easily foliled by defensive juggernauts as the Browns that they told Wilbon things in the locker rooms that made skins-fans cringe. The offense rarely put any more than two receivers out - teams DIDN'T respect our passing game, and we did NOTHING all year to change that. We lost some games simply because Gibbs was too afraid to not only hold on to the lead - but extend it. You can't sit on a 3, 6, or 7 point lead in todays NFL with a quarter to go. Just doesn't work.

I'm sorry - I've seen no sign of improvement from the skins offense thus far, and Coles being mad about his role in the upcoming offense scares me even more. If both of our receivers want out of dodge - that doesn't bring good things for our passing game.


Ramseyfan does make a good point about the double standard

As for our receivers "wanting out of dodge"-maybe, just maybe, Gibbs and co. want them out as well. Maybe they think Gardner and Coles are not necessarily the receivers we need to open up the offense.

I dont agree. The player's are "hired" to do a job. If they for some reason fail to execute that job to the satisfaction of the "boss" then they can and should be let go. If the player wants to leave, and the boss doesnt exactly want that player to leave, then the player in question is a "quitter".

This is fun Ramseyfan, I'm willing to bet that you are a democrat.

I can see where LC is coming from, I wouldn't want to be him right now.Gibbs is a great coach, but didn't coach all that great this year.

Regarding the double standard, remember that either way the player leaves prior to end of contract that the team is still paying the player and taking the cap hit. Jerimiah Trotter is an example. Even if you want to call the team a quitter in his case, he could have sat on the couch and watched the games making money with what we paid him this year and will pay him next year. Say what you want but the team loses these battles every time.

I dont agree. The player's are "hired" to do a job. If they for some reason fail to execute that job to the satisfaction of the "boss" then they can and should be let go. If the player wants to leave, and the boss doesnt exactly want that player to leave, then the player in question is a "quitter".

This is fun Ramseyfan, I'm willing to bet that you are a democrat.

A very conservative democrat who knows how bad labor unions can be (see, Britain circa 1985) AND how bad a lack of unions can be (see, U.S. circa 1910).

I'm somewhat familiar with contract law and I beg to differ with your interpretation of the meaning of a contract. You seem to think that contracts are only meaningful/binding so long as they benefit the employer (Snyder). So, if a player outperforms his contract, tough sh-t he's bound by his word. Conversely, if a player underperforms, hit the road and don't the door hit your a-s on the way out because the owner's word don't mean jack.

Speaking of honoring, contracts: Don't forget we have another young man on our team who had a simular situation in Denver,balked at his already existing contract and got 50 mil. from Mr. Dan. What is it to make me think that at some point in time he won't do th same thing to Mr. Dan?

Management does not honor the contracts they sign players too, so in reality, why should we expect the players to be so honorable? Every Year someone has to restructure or face being cut. Forget these "Free Agents" and build a "Team" through the draft and less fancy spending. Oh! and dont forget a Salry-Cap for each position on offense and defense, that way we no longer can be hijacked each year by these "Greedy" already overpaid players who don't care about loyalty or any particular team, they're just in it for the money. Anytime a player leaves a winning orginization for a looser just for a few dollars more, that sort of tells you what our beloved sport is coming too.

Hail! Redskins "Free Agents" on the Warpath

A very conservative democrat who knows how bad labor unions can be (see, Britain circa 1985) AND how bad a lack of unions can be (see, U.S. circa 1910).

I'm somewhat familiar with contract law and I beg to differ with your interpretation of the meaning of a contract. You seem to think that contracts are only meaningful/binding so long as they benefit the employer (Snyder). So, if a player outperforms his contract, tough sh-t he's bound by his word. Conversely, if a player underperforms, hit the road and don't the door hit your a-s on the way out because the owner's word don't mean jack.
I am a moderate republican. And while I am not an attorney, Im familiar with a different type of contract law than this completely. I conduct real estate settlements. I admit that i get frustrated when labor dictates to management. Do you feel that Lav is right in demanding that he not give any bonus back if he is traded?

I can understand Coles' frustrations, but I really don't understand his decision making in this situation.

He's well paid, he's caught over 170 passes in his two seasons here, and he would stand to receive just as much work next season if not more especially with the departure of Gardner. Dude caught 90 balls this year, don't tell me he doesn't get enough work. And if anyone thinks for a second we're going to see the same offense again next year you're seriously smoking something. Gibbs knows the offense was what held the team back this year, do you really think he's not going to make any changes?

Back on Coles, like I said before, what happens when he goes somewhere else and gets frustrated? Will he look to back out of another deal with someone else?

We could argue all day about contracts and what they mean.

Fact is players getting cut is a part of life in the NFL, the players understand when they sign a contract nothing is guaranteed except the bonus. They can be cut anytime.

There's nothing wrong with a player wanting to be traded, but there's no way it's possible unless he gives his bonus back to lessen the cap hit. Otherwise he can just suck it up and be a Redskin whether he likes it or not.

Coles just doesn't have a firm grip on reality if he thinks the Redskins can take a $9M cap hit for trading him, or releasing him outright and getting nothing in return.

Wow!... As for Pierce and Smoot, can anyone honestly say they wouldn't try to get the most money they could. If you had the opportunity to earn several million dollars more by playing for another team, wouldn't you try to hit free agency?... Any player (or person) who says he doesn't care about money is crazy or a liar.

But aren't these guys well paid? I know every dime counts, but this can't be just a paper chase. :oink: