Redskins: 2012 Off-Season-Free Agency/Trades

[redskins5044]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i honestly dont think hall is "underachieving" - hes performing exactly as he always has and about what we'd expect. i honestly dont get controversial either, but perhaps i dont understand what is meant by controversial - i'm assuming controversial would mean - there would be a controversy amongst fans if he were traded. With hall, i dont think there'd be too much contoversy. I also think the trent williams trade talk is a bit silly - he's only been here two years and we've got to have someone protecting our new QB. the OT market is pretty weak in free agency. we'd be fools to trade Williams at this point.

dont know if williams was mentioned early in this thread about being traded. i think it would also be a mistake to trade out LT, but he is one of few players that has any trade value.

[CRedskinsRule]

controversial = cooley (controversial because fan favorite)
underachiever = hall

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

With his shit talking. The calling out of Haslett for him not covering the best WR, only to give up 100+ yards and TD to some scrub WR the following week.


I'd say he was controversial.

So that was like what, two years ago?

[T.O.Killa]

Underachiever=Armstrong(not much trade value)
Underachiever=Moss(last year, not much trade value)
Underachiever=Hall(not much trade value)
Underachiever=Chester(not much trade value, maybe Baltimore)


Controversial=Hall
Controversial=Davis
Controversial=T.Williams

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Underachiever= Barnes

That's a bingo. Barnes was a 3rd round pick, and for 3 seasons now he hasn't even been a good depth player. He should've stepped up and grabbed the nickel corner spot by last season, but he didn't even do that. He's definitely an underachiever, and probable trade bait as well.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

If you think, Barnes isn't even a valuable depth player, then how is hr "trade bait?" why would another team want to trade for him?

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If you think, Barnes isn't even a valuable depth player, then how is hr "trade bait?" why would another team want to trade for him?

Exactly!

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

How is Hall controversial? I think thats just in the fans eyes....now underachieving, def.

I think controversial here means character issues. Like calling out the coaching staff after a game through the media. Or some of his other incidents.

Great in hockey, bad in football.

Damn Haynesworth got in on that. I wouldn't want to fight him, he'll come at you hard for like 30 seconds.
stefen0603 5 months ago 10

[DCtoAZ]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I nominate Captain Insano

Captain Insaneo shows no mercy


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?1k0vt1

[Monkeydad]

I honestly do not believe we have the depth to get rid of a lineman or secondary player. Yes, FA is a possibility but we don't have many draft picks until Shallenhan starts wheeling and dealing at the draft. So I doubt it's Williams or Hall. We'd be left with even bigger gaping holes in those parts of the team with no guaranteed replacements. Very risky.

Orakpo, no way.

I'm fearing that Cooley is the most logical. I hope not.

I don't know...Adam Carricker? He has been solid but for his 13th overall draft position, an underachiever. We have Jarvis Jenkins coming back to play DE instead of NT...so he could be expendable but I'd rather keep the solid depth unless it really helps us fill a real need.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I think controversial here means character issues. Like calling out the coaching staff after a game through the media. Or some of his other incidents.
<video>
Great in hockey, bad in football.

To be fair, Jacobs is just as much of a trashy player at times.



I don't mind the side shows with Hall, or even lapses in coverage. He makes big plays when we need them. If we get 2 other solid corners so he's not always on the other team's #1, I'm fine with him staying.

Sometimes teams need spark plugs like this to light fires.

[SmootSmack]

Carriker's a free agent. He wouldn't be traded

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by DCtoAZ

Captain Insaneo shows no mercy

His ONLY negative is I feel theres a good chance he's going to test positive for cocaine somewhere down the line

Still I just love that pic of him and Barkley.


Seriously he just played the wrong sport. If he played hockey a lot of his character issues would have been viewed as assets.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If you think, Barnes isn't even a valuable depth player, then how is hr "trade bait?" why would another team want to trade for him?

Teams trade crappy picks (aka 7th rd, etc.) for "2nd chance" (which is another way of saying crappy) players all the time. If some other team thinks it can turn that players' career around and he's available for dirt cheap than why not? We did it with Adam Carriker, and look at him now. Just because I don't think KB is that good doesn't mean some other team won't take a chance on him to resurrect his career.

[DCtoAZ]

I must admit I'm confused at all the get rid of Orakpo talk. Ugh have you not seen how much promise we have with Rak & Kerrigan ? Why would you break that up when when we just dumped picks. That's silly. And the D-Hall bashing I get but everyone wanted Los out too and how did that work out ? We don't need to unload players, we made our big deal. Why trade for a WR when we can simply go pick a FA up, stud WRs and draft a CB or SS.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5rxdwj