Perry Riley re-signs 3 yrs $13M

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I wouldn't mention him in or around Navarro Bowman.

ILB is a weakness here. Less of a weakness today than yesterday, but a weakness.

Regardless of whether you would mention him or not, his work is that of a starting NFL ILB, not a reserve, on any team.

[Lotus]

Riley has gotten a little better every year. If he does so again, he'll be pretty good next year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Regardless of whether you would mention him or not, his work is that of a starting NFL ILB, not a reserve, on any team.

In some categories, sure. In others, not really.

[DynamiteRave]

I'm glad we kept Riley. He's by no means elite or maybe not even pro bowl status, but he's a solid guy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'm glad we kept Riley. He's by no means elite or maybe not even pro bowl status, but he's a solid guy.

Well, you know, he's really just a reserve for anybody else ...

The FO resigns its own guys at reasonable prices - for both sides - and signs other teams young talent that may be hidden by the roster in front of them, and suddenly we are paying a "loser tax".

whatever ...

[Jamaican'Skin]

We didn't sign him to a vet min? We overpaid

























































[please note this post is riddled with sarcasm. Thanks]

[CRedskinsRule]

Riley, while not a superstar, climbed up through the ranks and deserves to be kept and on team and player friendly terms.

If this link works, Recent news on Perry Riley - Washington Redskins - Rotoworld.com, you can read the tidbits chronologically of how he went from a reach in the 4th round to deserving to being our leading tackler last year. Nah, we don't want to treat him right with a solid contract, silly Redskins!

[CRedskinsRule]

The historical market value is bunk in a year when then cap had a dramatic rise across the board, and teams are looking at both cash minimums as well as salary cap placement. you want to say he would have gotten 3.25 to 3.75 on the open market, I agree with that, so you pay a little (less then 1/2 a million for sure) and you keep a guy who knows your system, and who you know how to use.

That's not a losers tax, it's not a bad FO, move, and it's definitely not an old Redskins habit type signing.

It's a good signing plain and simple.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The historical market value is bunk in a year when then cap had a dramatic rise across the board, and teams are looking at both cash minimums as well as salary cap placement. you want to say he would have gotten 3.25 to 3.75 on the open market, I agree with that, so you pay a little (less then 1/2 a million for sure) and you keep a guy who knows your system, and who you know how to use.

That's not a losers tax, it's not a bad FO, move, and it's definitely not an old Redskins habit type signing.

It's a good signing plain and simple.

Even given the rise in market value, it's a stretch to say that the Redskins aren't paying him like a starter.

If you think he's evidence that the Redskins are developing their own talent, I respect your right to see it that way. And you might be proven right down the road if the Redskins really start to turn out players they draft. But since we don't have the benefit of looking down the road and presuming that the Redskins have it right this time, I think you have to judge moves in the context of the present.

I do think that your definition of a good signing is synonymous with any move the Redskins make. That's fair, no? In a sample size of every move, you've liked for the team on the day it's been made. If it's been proven a bad move later, you've changed your opinion appropriately, but you've always given the team the (unearned) benefit of the doubt on the day of the signing.

Sometimes, moves can be not good and not bad. This one just...is.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Even given the rise in market value, it's a stretch to say that the Redskins aren't paying him like a starter.

If you think he's evidence that the Redskins are developing their own talent, I respect your right to see it that way. And you might be proven right down the road if the Redskins really start to turn out players they draft. But since we don't have the benefit of looking down the road and presuming that the Redskins have it right this time, I think you have to judge moves in the context of the present.

I do think that your definition of a good signing is synonymous with any move the Redskins make. That's fair, no? In a sample size of every move, you've liked for the team on the day it's been made. If it's been proven a bad move later, you've changed your opinion appropriately, but you've always given the team the (unearned) benefit of the doubt on the day of the signing.

Sometimes, moves can be not good and not bad. This one just...is.

They are paying him like a starter b/c he is a NFL starter and would be so on easily 30 to 40% of the NFL rosters.

So ... signing and extending folks like Paulsen, Young, Robinson, Baker, Riley are NOT evidence of developing their own.

Okay.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Even given the rise in market value, it's a stretch to say that the Redskins aren't paying him like a starter.

...

Sometimes, moves can be not good and not bad. This one just...is.

Who's saying he isn't being paid like a starter? He is our starter, and he has earned the right to be a starter on this team, and certainly 26-29 other teams in the league.

This is most definitely not a "just is" move.

[JoeRedskin]

In the "context of the present" somewhere between 19 - 21 of players drafted in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 draft classes are still on the squad and likely to be so in 2014 (Using your 2 year window to judge drafts). Going back to 2010, that number becomes 21-23 out of 27.

In those classes we have already reupped two players (Riley, Robinson).

That's "the context of the present".

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In the "context of the present" somewhere between 19 - 21 of players drafted in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 draft classes are still on the squad and likely to be so in 2014 (Using your 2 year window to judge drafts). Going back to 2010, that number becomes 21-23 out of 27.

In those classes we have already reupped two players (Riley, Robinson).

That's "the context of the present".

Robinson was a ERFA guy. He didn't have a say in his salary.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Robinson was a ERFA guy. He didn't have a say in his salary.

... but the Skins did, and the choice they made was to keep him. In a discussion based on "developing your own", that is kind of the point when relating to "the context of the present".

Maybe he makes the 51, maybe not. Bottom line, rather than simply cutting him loose they give him the chance for another year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

... but the Skins did, and the choice they made was to keep him. In a discussion based on "developing your own", that is kind of the point when relating to "the context of the present".

Maybe he makes the 51, maybe not. Bottom line, rather than simply cutting him loose they give him the chance for another year.

I think you know me well enough to know I'm not against re-signing your own. People who have losing arguments try to frame my arguments against them that way, but I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

To be a player development organization, you can't just have players you developed on your own roster. You have to win with them.

Free agency day is all about signing players to replace the guys who you didn't develop. So when the Redskins are active on a day like this, it's because they are admitting to you they haven't done a good job.

I'm not arguing they shouldn't sign free agents. I'm saying the next four years needs to focus on doing the development so they don't have to pay Perry Riley to start to get him to stay and Andre Roberts to take Aldrick's spot. In the meantime, you do what you have to do to win, and if that's pay Riley and Roberts, you do that.

Do it, and don't spin it like some organizational victory. Just go out and win.