Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

i also want the best draft position possible. (i wish we sucked for luck)

im not knocking the colt signing at all, pennies on the dollar .... but i dont get the need to sign him now. why not sign him in july. why not leave the QB3 spot open just in case we want to bring in a pat white for PS purposes or take a flyer on a UDFA?

its not a big deal but i dont see the timing of it (unless another team was close to signing him).

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=donofriose;1109787]What are your expectations?[/quote]

Not asking for a Super Bowl.

Anything short of 8-8 makes us losers (again) but the goal of the game is to win. Math tells us we should always be trying to finish at least 8-8 IMO.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=Lotus;1109799]Not asking for a Super Bowl.

Anything short of 8-8 makes us losers (again) but the goal of the game is to win. Math tells us we should always be trying to finish at least 8-8 IMO.[/quote]

You forgot to mention that Bruce Allen eats babies.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=over the mountain;1109795]i also want the best draft position possible. (i wish we sucked for luck)

im not knocking the colt signing at all, pennies on the dollar .... but i dont get the need to sign him now. why not sign him in july. why not leave the QB3 spot open just in case we want to bring in a pat white for PS purposes or take a flyer on a UDFA?

its not a big deal but i dont see the timing of it (unless another team was close to signing him).[/quote]

You can have up to 90 players on the roster during the off season. I fail to see how this means we cant bring in another QB to compete for a job. We can have QB4, QB5, and QB6 if we want at this time of the year.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

Yeah McCoy could easily be cut later on if needed. No biggie.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=Lotus;1109799]Not asking for a Super Bowl.

Anything short of 8-8 makes us losers (again) but the goal of the game is to win. [B]Math tells us we should always be trying to finish at least 8-8 IMO.[/B][/quote]

Shooting for mediocrity eh?

I could really care less how we finish this year. I'm more interested in what happens 2-3 years from now.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=Mattyk;1109806]Shooting for mediocrity eh?

I could really care less how we finish this year. I'm more interested in what happens 2-3 years from now.[/quote]

This

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

average coaching and QB play should get us to around 8 wins. if we fall short, those are two spots you have to look at for change. I think they've done enough on D to keep us from losing games there (assuming the grab a pass rusher in the draft). without at least average QB play, you'll never get anywhere though.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1109801]You forgot to mention that Bruce Allen eats babies.[/quote]

I understand why you would disagree with me about Bruce Allen. I'm just another ignorant fan.

But Smootsmack has insight into the workings of Redskins Park. And when Reid wrote that Bruce Allen should be fired for incompetence, this is what SS said about Reid:

[quote=SmootSmack;1109765]he was on point about what has been happening with the organization more than most reporters/columnists covering the team.

[/quote]

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=Skinzman;1109803]You can have up to 90 players on the roster during the off season. I fail to see how this means we cant bring in another QB to compete for a job. We can have QB4, QB5, and QB6 if we want at this time of the year.[/quote]

you're right. if there is no guaranteed money it doesnt matter. i was thinking 53 (or 54 or whatever the active roster is now) and not the expanded roster.

Re: Redskins reportedly are not bringing back Colt McCoy
 

[quote=over the mountain;1109834]you're right. if there is no guaranteed money it doesnt matter. i was thinking 53 (or 54 or whatever the active roster is now) and not the expanded roster.[/quote]

top 51 contracts count, vet min contracts beyond 3 years (or 5 years or whatever) count as the 3/5/whatever year vet min contract value, signing bonuses of up to $40k on those vet min deals don't count against the cap. so technically there can be guaranteed money that also doesn't matter.