Perry Riley re-signs 3 yrs $13M

It's not a terrible move, I just noticed that the Redskins seem to be paying a loser's tax on a lot of these deals. It's probably unavoidable: you still need football players to play a football season, and if that's what they cost, that's what they cost.

So Riley was willing to come back, as a starter. If he had been drafted and developed by a winning org, maybe he's willing to come back in the role that best fits him, and for less money. It's understandable. The Redskins didn't seem to have the option to bring him back under the terms I thought he deserved. It seemed to be a situation where you pay him to start, or he was going to explore other opportunities.

When the Redskins start to draft and develop a lot of Perry Riley's instead of just one, they'll be able to name their price on him. They're a couple years away still.

Where is the "loser's tax" on Riley? My argument above is the same whether we finished 13-3 or 3-13.

Even given the rise in market value, it's a stretch to say that the Redskins aren't paying him like a starter.

...

Sometimes, moves can be not good and not bad. This one just...is.
Who's saying he isn't being paid like a starter? He is our starter, and he has earned the right to be a starter on this team, and certainly 26-29 other teams in the league.

This is most definitely not a "just is" move.

In the "context of the present" somewhere between 19 - 21 of players drafted in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 draft classes are still on the squad and likely to be so in 2014 (Using your 2 year window to judge drafts). Going back to 2010, that number becomes 21-23 out of 27.

In those classes we have already reupped two players (Riley, Robinson).

That's "the context of the present".

In the "context of the present" somewhere between 19 - 21 of players drafted in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 draft classes are still on the squad and likely to be so in 2014 (Using your 2 year window to judge drafts). Going back to 2010, that number becomes 21-23 out of 27.

In those classes we have already reupped two players (Riley, Robinson).

That's "the context of the present".Robinson was a ERFA guy. He didn't have a say in his salary.

Where is the "loser's tax" on Riley? My argument above is the same whether we finished 13-3 or 3-13.The losers tax is 3/13 for a guy who, ideally, wouldn't be making 3/13.

I use the word ideally because in reality, the Redskins took this as far as they could before getting the deal done, and then paid market value.

Robinson was a ERFA guy. He didn't have a say in his salary.

... but the Skins did, and the choice they made was to keep him. In a discussion based on "developing your own", that is kind of the point when relating to "the context of the present".

Maybe he makes the 51, maybe not. Bottom line, rather than simply cutting him loose they give him the chance for another year.

... but the Skins did, and the choice they made was to keep him. In a discussion based on "developing your own", that is kind of the point when relating to "the context of the present".

Maybe he makes the 51, maybe not. Bottom line, rather than simply cutting him loose they give him the chance for another year.I think you know me well enough to know I'm not against re-signing your own. People who have losing arguments try to frame my arguments against them that way, but I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

To be a player development organization, you can't just have players you developed on your own roster. You have to win with them.

Free agency day is all about signing players to replace the guys who you didn't develop. So when the Redskins are active on a day like this, it's because they are admitting to you they haven't done a good job.

I'm not arguing they shouldn't sign free agents. I'm saying the next four years needs to focus on doing the development so they don't have to pay Perry Riley to start to get him to stay and Andre Roberts to take Aldrick's spot. In the meantime, you do what you have to do to win, and if that's pay Riley and Roberts, you do that.

Do it, and don't spin it like some organizational victory. Just go out and win.

The losers tax is 3/13 for a guy who, ideally, wouldn't be making 3/13.

I use the word ideally because in reality, the Redskins took this as far as they could before getting the deal done, and then paid market value.

So, they paid market value for a NFL starting ILB (who would be an immediate starter on at least 8-10 other teams), and, in doing so, retained a player who they drafted & developed, showed growth in their system and will be only 26 when the season starts.

Yup. I can see why you wouldn't call that a "good move".

So, they paid market value for a NFL starting ILB (who would be an immediate starter on at least 8-10 other teams), and, in doing so, retained a player who they drafted & developed, showed growth in their system and will be only 26 when the season starts.

Yup. I can see why you wouldn't call that a "good move".The implication is that there is a performance gap between how they're treating him and how he's playing.

If Riley improves his level of play and is a quality starter for them, that's when he becomes a success for the player development arm of the team. If all you care about his the contract, you can put your checkmark up now. But the playing strong, consistent football still has to be proven.

Riley just tweeted to Keenan Robinson that he was excited about lining up with him next season, I think that they are out of the ILB market until late in the draft or if a stud falls to them, Like Skov in the 3rd round or later.

I love this signing, keeping home grown talent on the team at a resonable price so he doesn't go somewhere else and become a stud (Pierce, Clark) and we fall in love wiht and overpriced free agent who sucks (Adam Archuleta, I am talking to you).