Rolle Signed?

celts32 · 03-03-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

Why? As long as the money is right, it's ok.

I would not sign Rolle over Smoot for the same money. The only way this deal makes any sense to me at all is if Rolle got less than Smoot will get. Smoot is not even in his prime yet. Rolle will be 29 in September. I know that everyone seems to think that 2 or 3 years is not that big an age difference, but when it comes to football players I do not agree. Football players have very short carreers by comparison to other sports. the amount of guys that play at a high level into their mid 30's are few and far between. Most guys are winding it down in their early 30's. We are giving up 2 very productive seasons in choosing Rolle over Smoot. Also Rolle is not even much better than Smoot is now and Smoot may still get better, whereas Rolle is not getting better at 29 years old. Also Smoot is a current Redskin who was drafted by the Redskins. Doesn't that mean anything to the Redskins? This is just spinning wheels I think. They are going to disrupt continuity and go give roughly the same money to a different corner. Why? To prove a point that Smoot is not worth a big bonus, but Rolle is. It makes no sense. It's like they are biting off their nose to spite their face...

e16bball · 03-03-2005, 01:58 PM

This is true. We should only get him if he can play a pretty pure DE. My point about Cody was, he is nothing different than any player we have right now, in that he would be tough on the run but not really able to bring pressure. I feel like we need a pure rush DE, someone in the mold of Freeney, Kearse, KGB, etc. We have the great bonus of having such good pass-rush from our OLBs, but I think the only real missing link on D (besides MLB now) is a rush DE.

e16bball · 03-03-2005, 02:04 PM

Yeah Boss is right. We can't afford to wait on Smoot, let everyone else get signed, and then find out he has signed with the Cowboys or some other such stab to the heart. If Rolle is wants to sign and Smoot doesn't, then I will be glad to see Rolle in the burgundy and gold.

celts32 · 03-03-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

I agree with your logic. But time is running out. If Smoot is saying no to what we have on the table and another one of these guys says yes, so be it.

Thanks, you may be the first person on this website that ever agreed with me...

I don't want to sign any other corner until Smoot says no. Infact, if they decide that Smoot is to expensive I would rather they let Harris start then pay Rolle big money. The only CB I think they should give a big contract to is Smoot, otherwise start Harris.

SmootSmack · 03-03-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celts32

Thanks, you may be the first person on this website that ever agreed with me...

I don't want to sign any other corner until Smoot says no. Infact, if they decide that Smoot is to expensive I would rather they let Harris start then pay Rolle big money. The only CB I think they should give a big contract to is Smoot, otherwise start Harris.

Yeah I had figured the plan was go with Harris (if not Smoot) in 2005 then maybe in 2006 you pass the position on to Wilds. Going with Rolle seems like a decision heavily influenced by Gregg Williams, considering their history. So far his decisions seem to have been dead on...but is he due for a letdown?

RedskinRat · 03-03-2005, 02:14 PM

I don't see a problem with Wilds, he was pretty god in limited action last year, I think that Williams/Springs/Harris would be ideal tutors for him.

Let's save some money and be able to get a decent draft pick. Mike Williams, please.

celts32 · 03-03-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

Yeah I had figured the plan was go with Harris (if not Smoot) in 2005 then maybe in 2006 you pass the position on to Wilds. Going with Rolle seems like a decision heavily influenced by Gregg Williams, considering their history. So far his decisions seem to have been dead on...but is he due for a letdown?

Exactly this is what I thought the plan was as well. Just becasue you lose an expensive player that doesn't mean you need to replace him with just as expensive a player. If they can afford Rolle than they can afford Smoot also, so what's the point? The Redskins need to replace a loss from within for once instead of heading out to the grocery store like they alwasy do! As mad as I will be if we lose Smoot I will be 10 times madder if they replace him with Rolle. Rolle will be 29 on opening day. That means we get one year of him before he turns 30. CB's start to lose their speed in their early 30's, and a slow CB is not worth a whole lot in the NFL. CB's & RB's are the worst positions to spend money when they hit 30. Signing Rolle is a mistake. CB's like Darrel Green that run fast deep into their 30's are a rare breed. I think this is a mistake.

e16bball · 03-03-2005, 02:28 PM

Boss- I will take your word on Cody. I think we could get him all the way back in the 20s of this draft.

I'm not real excited about the Rolle signing, even though he is definitely better than Smoot at this point. Smoot is a Redskin, and I was under the impression that that meant something to the team these days. The age issue which has been brought up often is a factor as well.

I really don't think starting Harris is an option though. He is purely a nickel corner at this point IMO, and I think the team only came out and said that he could start as a negotiating ploy with Smoot. I could be wrong, but that's how it felt to me. I would really just like to re-sign Smoot. Wilds could take over as the nickel guy in 2006 and eventually replace Springs, I guess.

SmootSmack · 03-03-2005, 02:39 PM

I'd like to have Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot when we play Oakland, when we play Dallas, when we play Philly, when we play KC, when we play San Diego, and so on

SkinsRock · 03-03-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

And you probably wanted Smoot and Bailey too this past year, huh? Let it go people. We'll be more than satisfied with whoever is signed.

Actually, most people last year were fine with Bailey leaving....He didn't want to be here! Whereas Smoot has said numerous times that he wants to be a Redskin. From a business standpoint, he is actually being pretty smart in being able to separate his emotions to try to get the best deal he can. I'm sure the Redskins have a plan for if he gets a rich contract offer and goes elsewhere.....whether it be Harris, signing another FA CB, giving Wilds a shot, or drafting a CB.

SmootSmack · 03-03-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

And you probably wanted Smoot and Bailey too this past year, huh? Let it go people. We'll be more than satisfied with whoever is signed.

Actually I was really happy that we got Springs, seeing as to how he was my favorite non-Redskin in the league at the time

BigSKINBauer · 03-03-2005, 03:22 PM

i don't know how much smoot really wants to be here. i mean we ended up offering 11.5 and then he asked for 13.5. I think he is the type of player who will play with the same intensity at what ever club he is with. i am sure he doesn't not want to be here but in other threads people said that if he were offered about 1-2 million more from another team he would stay with us. I think he would take them dollars and again play with that intensity and same amount of leadership. Just because we hear his voice a lot does not mean that he is devoted to stay here.

BigSKINBauer · 03-03-2005, 03:29 PM

i know rolle is better and it hard to argue that he is not. he knows our system which is the most important thing for continuity on defense. i think everyone uses the term continuity to much too i mean we used to use it because of changing defensive cordinators, i mean 6 in 6 years is obviously not continuity. if we get smoot or rolle it will be because our coaching staff feels that they are more worth it. We aren't dumb to get a worse player for more money. Greg williams says he wants rolle and plain and simple that is b/c he is better and Williams knows he is. If we get rolle it will be because of GW and him wanting him. if GW feels that smoot is better he would get him for less money and i guess we will see who GW feels is more worthy to play in this elite "leeeeeet" system

VishsSkins · 03-03-2005, 03:36 PM

I really dont understand why so mny of you are disappointed that we could have possibly signed Rolle. The argument that keeps coming up is that he is too old or we will not have continuity. First of all Rolle, is only 2-3 yrs older than Smoot which is not a big deal even for football players. He could still have a good 5-7 years left in the pros, meaning that we will have him for a long enough time. Smoot cannot be truly considered a loyal Redskin because it seems that he will sign with the team that offers the most money. If he really wanted to be here, he would have taken the $11.5 million, become one of the highest paid cornerbacks, and stayed with our team. Secondly, if you are talking about continuity, Smoot has only been in this defense for a year whereas Rolle has been under Williams for 3. There will be no need for a time to adapt in this system. By sitting around and waiting for Smoot to re-sign, we would definitely loose out on Rolle, possibly being left with nothing if Smoot decides to sign elsewhere. The bottom line is that Rolle is a better player whos presence will greatly increase our strength on defense since we would have 2 #1 CBs. Why pay Rolle more when we could offer the same amount to Smoot? Rolle is better, Williams wants him more, and a corner with the status of Smoot should not get a contract that would potentially put him among the top 5 richest CBs when,frankly, he is not one of the top 5 in the league.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-03-2005, 03:42 PM

I hate that we had to love having Smoot on the team so much. :p

03-03-2005, 01:58 PM	#17
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Rolle Signed? This is true. We should only get him if he can play a pretty pure DE. My point about Cody was, he is nothing different than any player we have right now, in that he would be tough on the run but not really able to bring pressure. I feel like we need a pure rush DE, someone in the mold of Freeney, Kearse, KGB, etc. We have the great bonus of having such good pass-rush from our OLBs, but I think the only real missing link on D (besides MLB now) is a rush DE.

03-03-2005, 02:04 PM	#18
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Rolle Signed? Yeah Boss is right. We can't afford to wait on Smoot, let everyone else get signed, and then find out he has signed with the Cowboys or some other such stab to the heart. If Rolle is wants to sign and Smoot doesn't, then I will be glad to see Rolle in the burgundy and gold.

03-03-2005, 02:14 PM	#21
RedskinRat Born a Rocker,Die a Rocker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 6,784	Re: Rolle Signed? I don't see a problem with Wilds, he was pretty god in limited action last year, I think that Williams/Springs/Harris would be ideal tutors for him. Let's save some money and be able to get a decent draft pick. Mike Williams, please.

03-03-2005, 02:28 PM	#23
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Rolle Signed? Boss- I will take your word on Cody. I think we could get him all the way back in the 20s of this draft. I'm not real excited about the Rolle signing, even though he is definitely better than Smoot at this point. Smoot is a Redskin, and I was under the impression that that meant something to the team these days. The age issue which has been brought up often is a factor as well. I really don't think starting Harris is an option though. He is purely a nickel corner at this point IMO, and I think the team only came out and said that he could start as a negotiating ploy with Smoot. I could be wrong, but that's how it felt to me. I would really just like to re-sign Smoot. Wilds could take over as the nickel guy in 2006 and eventually replace Springs, I guess.

03-03-2005, 02:39 PM	#24
SmootSmack Mad Men Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 43,098	Re: Rolle Signed? I'd like to have Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot when we play Oakland, when we play Dallas, when we play Philly, when we play KC, when we play San Diego, and so on __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

03-03-2005, 03:22 PM	#27
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: College Park; where they chop cars Age: 25 Posts: 5,635	Re: Rolle Signed? i don't know how much smoot really wants to be here. i mean we ended up offering 11.5 and then he asked for 13.5. I think he is the type of player who will play with the same intensity at what ever club he is with. i am sure he doesn't not want to be here but in other threads people said that if he were offered about 1-2 million more from another team he would stay with us. I think he would take them dollars and again play with that intensity and same amount of leadership. Just because we hear his voice a lot does not mean that he is devoted to stay here.

03-03-2005, 03:29 PM	#28
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: College Park; where they chop cars Age: 25 Posts: 5,635	Re: Rolle Signed? i know rolle is better and it hard to argue that he is not. he knows our system which is the most important thing for continuity on defense. i think everyone uses the term continuity to much too i mean we used to use it because of changing defensive cordinators, i mean 6 in 6 years is obviously not continuity. if we get smoot or rolle it will be because our coaching staff feels that they are more worth it. We aren't dumb to get a worse player for more money. Greg williams says he wants rolle and plain and simple that is b/c he is better and Williams knows he is. If we get rolle it will be because of GW and him wanting him. if GW feels that smoot is better he would get him for less money and i guess we will see who GW feels is more worthy to play in this elite "leeeeeet" system

03-03-2005, 03:36 PM	#29
VishsSkins Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2005 Age: 24 Posts: 173	Re: Rolle Signed? I really dont understand why so mny of you are disappointed that we could have possibly signed Rolle. The argument that keeps coming up is that he is too old or we will not have continuity. First of all Rolle, is only 2-3 yrs older than Smoot which is not a big deal even for football players. He could still have a good 5-7 years left in the pros, meaning that we will have him for a long enough time. Smoot cannot be truly considered a loyal Redskin because it seems that he will sign with the team that offers the most money. If he really wanted to be here, he would have taken the $11.5 million, become one of the highest paid cornerbacks, and stayed with our team. Secondly, if you are talking about continuity, Smoot has only been in this defense for a year whereas Rolle has been under Williams for 3. There will be no need for a time to adapt in this system. By sitting around and waiting for Smoot to re-sign, we would definitely loose out on Rolle, possibly being left with nothing if Smoot decides to sign elsewhere. The bottom line is that Rolle is a better player whos presence will greatly increase our strength on defense since we would have 2 #1 CBs. Why pay Rolle more when we could offer the same amount to Smoot? Rolle is better, Williams wants him more, and a corner with the status of Smoot should not get a contract that would potentially put him among the top 5 richest CBs when,frankly, he is not one of the top 5 in the league.

03-03-2005, 03:42 PM	#30
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,119	Re: Rolle Signed? I hate that we had to love having Smoot on the team so much. :p __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

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

Rolle Signed?

Redskins Locker Room