Lenny P reporting Moss signed.

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

TheMalcolmConnection
05-05-2005, 09:39 AM
Yeah, as soon as I got on here this morning, I was like, "I can deal with that."

Not TOO shabby.

PSUSkinsFan21
05-05-2005, 09:59 AM
Well i guess that they are really happy that they got T.O cheep now that he descided he doesn't want to play, isn't Westbrook doing the same thing?:party-smi :smashfrea :frusty:



Very true, and I love seeing it. However, this isn't the first time the Eagles have dealt with situations like this. Staley held out of training camp once, Trotter, Douglas, and Emmons all wanted more money than they were worth and were sent packing (the very year after they were voted defensive MVP by their teammates), and Taylor and Vincent weren't given a second glance when they wanted starting CB money just a year ago. Fact is (and this is the part that drives me absolutely insane), it's never come back to bite them in the a$$. Every other time they've had a player demand something of them, they haven't hesitated to say "don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on the way out".

By no means am I defending the Eagles. I hate the Eagles as much as anyone on this earth can possibly hate them. I literally have to deal with their fans every single day (and everyone knows the worst part about the Eagles is their fans). But if the question is who has done a better job than the Skins at managing the cap? That's my answer. I'd trade their cap situation for ours, and the success they've had over the past 5 years, any day.

skinsguy
05-05-2005, 10:22 AM
After thinking about it, it's probably a pretty decent deal for the Redskins. At least we have Moss in our camp now - a much needed receiver working out with the team!

Drift Reality
05-05-2005, 10:41 AM
Yeah, except we overpayed for his ass.

Oh well, we can't be wrong on all of our decisions.

Can we????

firstdown
05-05-2005, 10:55 AM
Only time will tell if this was a good deal. He does seem to have a nack for getting into the endzone and if I'm correct Coles only score one TD last Year. With all of his receptions you would have thought he could have scored a few more.

MTK
05-05-2005, 11:01 AM
Only time will tell if this was a good deal. He does seem to have a nack for getting into the endzone and if I'm correct Coles only score one TD last Year. With all of his receptions you would have thought he could have scored a few more.

Not only a knack for scoring but for gaining first downs as well.

I really don't think this is a bad deal at all, in fact I was expecting much worse.

It's basically a 5-year, $25M deal. Could have been much worse. If we took a WR at #9 in the draft it probably would have cost just as much if not more, at least we're getting a proven guy.

TheMalcolmConnection
05-05-2005, 11:06 AM
Yeah, and we know he DOES have the potential to be a strong #1 as well. In his best season, he put up TO-like numbers. If he can replicate that kind of production, I'll be more than happy with the contract.

I'll think it was a bargain.

Grayacre
05-05-2005, 11:54 AM
class-act like pierce? give me a break, all he talked about was being a team guy and how badly he wanted to return to the skins, then he leaves for new york for just a little more money then we offered. he did not deserve to be payed more money than marcus washington. screw pierce, i hope portis out runs him all the way to the endzone.

I'm not sure that being a team guy necessarily means being willing to accept any deal that they throw at you. Pierce went from back-up to Pro Bowl alternate; expecting a commensurate pay increase was not unreasonable. Further, it was not inconsistent to say that he wanted to return, give the 'Skins a chance to match any offer, and then leave when they didn't. It IS inconsitent to blather on about a "core group of Redskins" and then balk at paying more for someone who exceeded every expectation on the field and made it clear that he wanted to be here. If it was "just a little more money," the 'Skins should not have hesitated to pay ...

TheMalcolmConnection
05-05-2005, 11:58 AM
What you and wolfeskins say are both very true... It can go either way. It's the same to say that Pierce SHOULD have stayed for just a little less money than he was offered just as the Redskins should have paid a little more.

Typically, I like to side with the organizations because we get into the age-old argument that pro athletes are paid too much.

Grayacre
05-05-2005, 12:57 PM
That's a fair position ... it's definitely an issue that can quickly lead to a circular discussion.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum