Lets overpay for Jared Allen

Ruhskins · 02-19-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

Also I think its funny that a majority of ppl are willing to criticize Dan Snyder for overpaying and chasing FA's but yet if the same skins fans were polled, I think a majority would advocate breakin the bank for an Asante Samuel or Chad Johnson or some other big name guy...At some level there is some hypocrisy going on!

For the record I don't want one of those big name FA's unless they really fit our system and come at a bargain price this year...

As someone said to me, people will always complain. But I do agree. People are jumping on the Ocho Cinco bandwagon, but little do they realize that the Bengals will take our 1st and 3rd round picks and CJ will cost a ton of money. There are plenty of young UFAs at WR out there that would not cost us much money and could thrive with the Skins. The same goes for some good Defensive Linemen, although the Giants' D-Line performance might bump up their price. I think the Skins need to go young, be efficient with their FAs signing and use the draft.

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Funny how when we overpay for certain guys and they work out that DS and the FO don't get credit for that.

Even in this scenario, if you overpay for someone who "works out" -- you've still OVERPAID for him.

Funny how Lil' Danny still has his rabid defenders with that sparkling 50-62 record.

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

Let's not overpay for anyone...It's not like we have any absolute desperate needs anywhere (except possibly a need to get younger at CB). We were good on defense and if healthy can be good on offense. Why not just take smaller steps each offseason and add only when we need to in FA AND when it is sensible (i.e. not break the bank and screw ourselves for when we truly do have a need)? With the money and draft picks we save by not "Snydering it" this offseason maybe we can add quality depth and RETAIN THE TALENT WE ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPING. Let's not forget that we were a playoff team that lost many close games in the regular season (not exactly a team that needs a complete overhauL). I think that if we changed nothing this offseason our team as a whole would still progress. I'm all for some tweaks and changes here and there this offseason but lets not handicap ourselves like we typically do.

Maybe not "desperate" needs, but I think a case could be made that we have pressing needs at multiple positions. And that's pretty unusual for a 9-7 playoff team.

Quarterback, running back and linebacker are the only areas I think the Redskins are pretty solid. But we really need young, budding talent at just about every position at O-line. Then we have the season-after-season problem of getting another DE who can consistently get pressure on the QB.

Then there's the secondary: Reed Doughty filled in admirably for Sean Taylor, but no one can argue he's a long term answer at that position. At cornerback, Shawn Springs' gas tank apparently never reaches "empty" -- but sooner or later, we all know that day is coming. Rogers is coming off a grotesque injury to his knee, and he hasn't been knocking anyone's socks off anyhow.

Add to that wide receiver, where Santana Moss has been slacking and we still have no capable #2 complement to him.

That's a fairly intense list of needs that can't possibly be answered in one draft or offseason. But I think they are vital if this team is to take the next steps forward.

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Even in this scenario, if you overpay for someone who "works out" -- you've still OVERPAID for him.

Funny how Lil' Danny still has his rabid defenders with that sparkling 50-62 record.

If you're going to keep pulling that 50-62 argument out every other week you should at least get the numbers right

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If you're going to keep pulling that 50-62 argument out every other week you should at least get the numbers right

How are those numbers wrong?

1999 -- Casserly's team, I don't count that
2000 -- 8-8
2001 -- Marty's year, not counting that either
2002 -- 7-9
2003 -- 5-11
2004 -- 6-10
2005 -- 10-6
2006 -- 5-11
2007 -- 9-7

Grand total = 50-62

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

How are those numbers wrong?

1999 -- Casserly's team, I don't count that
2000 -- 8-8
2001 -- Marty's year, not counting that either
2002 -- 7-9
2003 -- 5-11
2004 -- 6-10
2005 -- 10-6
2006 -- 5-11
2007 -- 9-7

Grand total = 50-62

Well if you're going to just make up your own rules and decide when he "didn't count" as an owner then I guess there's just no arguing with you.

T.O.Killa · 02-19-2008, 08:50 PM

Chiefs Franchised Allen today

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well if you're going to just make up your own rules and decide when he "didn't count" as an owner then I guess there's just no arguing with you.

Ok then, how would YOU total up his record?

What's your objection to my discounting of 1999 when the team was already assembled and 2001 when he had no say over team personnel?

T.O.Killa · 02-19-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Chiefs Franchised Allen today

was this old news?

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

was this old news?

it's been posted a few times in this thread

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Ok then, how would YOU total up his record?

Well first I don't see the point of it, but that's besides the point. I would just add up the wins and losses, simple as that. I know the numbers aren't great but it's not 50-62.

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well first I don't see the point of it, but that's besides the point. I would just add up the wins and losses, simple as that. I know the numbers aren't great but it's not 50-62.

You don't see the point in looking at the total number of wins and losses as a measure of success or failure? Interesting.

Upon what then, do you base the success of an owner who by all accounts has an important role in determining the team's overall makeup?

If you agree that the numbers "aren't great" but disagree with the manner by which I arrived at those numbers, then we differ by degree, but not in principle.

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You don't see the point in looking at the total number of wins and losses as a measure of success or failure? Interesting.

Upon what then, do you base the success of an owner who by all accounts has an important role in determining the team's overall makeup?

If you agree that the numbers "aren't great" but disagree with the manner by which I arrived at those numbers, then we differ by degree, but not in principle.

But you're not even looking at the total numbers because you're pulling numbers out.

Besides you know that wins and losses isn't all it comes down to.

Team A:

Year 1: 12-4
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 4-12

Team B:

Year 1: 4-12
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 12-4

So who's the better owner?

Beemnseven · 02-19-2008, 10:09 PM

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

SmootSmack · 02-19-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

Well answer my question about Team A vs. Team B

02-19-2008, 08:50 PM	#52
T.O.Killa The Starter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Berlin, MD Posts: 1,937	Re: Lets overpay for Jared Allen Chiefs Franchised Allen today

02-19-2008, 10:09 PM	#59
Beemnseven Fighting off The Crazies Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 39 Posts: 5,280	Re: Lets overpay for Jared Allen Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70? And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Lets overpay for Jared Allen

Redskins Locker Room