Perry Riley re-signs 3 yrs $13M

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He's a fringy starter in yards per run tackle and yards per pass target. He's never been awful at either, but the kind of guy you upgrade on if better options are out there.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Perry Riley

He's been a nice upgrade across the board on Rocky McIntosh...but that's more of a Rocky issue than a Perry Riley compliment.

The ideal Perry Riley job in the NFL is 30-40% defensive snaps at LB and 100% of special teams snaps, where he is a positive contributor. Essentially, that's a 3rd LB, and has been historically worth $2-2.5 MM AAV according to the market.

Well, ok, if your argument is that we could do better than Riley, I don't disagree. This is why Riley did not get near to elite money.

But with one ILB position wide open, keeping him as a starting ILB is hardly our worst move. We can upgrade later.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Well, ok, if your argument is that we could do better than Riley, I don't disagree. This is why Riley did not get near to elite money.

But with one ILB position wide open, keeping him as a starting ILB is hardly our worst move. We can upgrade later.

It's not a terrible move, I just noticed that the Redskins seem to be paying a loser's tax on a lot of these deals. It's probably unavoidable: you still need football players to play a football season, and if that's what they cost, that's what they cost.

So Riley was willing to come back, as a starter. If he had been drafted and developed by a winning org, maybe he's willing to come back in the role that best fits him, and for less money. It's understandable. The Redskins didn't seem to have the option to bring him back under the terms I thought he deserved. It seemed to be a situation where you pay him to start, or he was going to explore other opportunities.

When the Redskins start to draft and develop a lot of Perry Riley's instead of just one, they'll be able to name their price on him. They're a couple years away still.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's not a terrible move, I just noticed that the Redskins seem to be paying a loser's tax on a lot of these deals. It's probably unavoidable: you still need football players to play a football season, and if that's what they cost, that's what they cost.

So Riley was willing to come back, as a starter. If he had been drafted and developed by a winning org, maybe he's willing to come back in the role that best fits him, and for less money. It's understandable. The Redskins didn't seem to have the option to bring him back under the terms I thought he deserved. It seemed to be a situation where you pay him to start, or he was going to explore other opportunities.

When the Redskins start to draft and develop a lot of Perry Riley's instead of just one, they'll be able to name their price on him. They're a couple years away still.

Where is the "loser's tax" on Riley? My argument above is the same whether we finished 13-3 or 3-13.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Where is the "loser's tax" on Riley? My argument above is the same whether we finished 13-3 or 3-13.

The losers tax is 3/13 for a guy who, ideally, wouldn't be making 3/13.

I use the word ideally because in reality, the Redskins took this as far as they could before getting the deal done, and then paid market value.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The losers tax is 3/13 for a guy who, ideally, wouldn't be making 3/13.

I use the word ideally because in reality, the Redskins took this as far as they could before getting the deal done, and then paid market value.

So, they paid market value for a NFL starting ILB (who would be an immediate starter on at least 8-10 other teams), and, in doing so, retained a player who they drafted & developed, showed growth in their system and will be only 26 when the season starts.

Yup. I can see why you wouldn't call that a "good move".

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, they paid market value for a NFL starting ILB (who would be an immediate starter on at least 8-10 other teams), and, in doing so, retained a player who they drafted & developed, showed growth in their system and will be only 26 when the season starts.

Yup. I can see why you wouldn't call that a "good move".

The implication is that there is a performance gap between how they're treating him and how he's playing.

If Riley improves his level of play and is a quality starter for them, that's when he becomes a success for the player development arm of the team. If all you care about his the contract, you can put your checkmark up now. But the playing strong, consistent football still has to be proven.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The implication is that there is a performance gap between how they're treating him and how he's playing.

If Riley improves his level of play and is a quality starter for them, that's when he becomes a success for the player development arm of the team. If all you care about his the contract, you can put your checkmark up now. But the playing strong, consistent football still has to be proven.

... and this is where we apparently disagree. His level of play got him the contract he would have received on the open market. In my opinion, he has shown himself already to be a quality starter and his level of pay reflects that and not a "performance gap". If he continues his current level or improves, the Skins come out ahead by any measure - both in player development and cap management.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The losers tax is 3/13 for a guy who, ideally, wouldn't be making 3/13.

I use the word ideally because in reality, the Redskins took this as far as they could before getting the deal done, and then paid market value.

If we paid market value, then by definition there is no "tax."

C'mon GTripp.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

If we paid market value, then by definition there is no "tax."

C'mon GTripp.

No, you're correct on this one.

The tax in this case isn't the money, it's the playing time that comes with the contract.

I was trying to be clear that I believed (and Joe Redskin believes, and you believe, and CRedskinsRule believes) that he would have gotten something similar on the market...but then he's just a free agent overpay instead of a "signing your own guy so now we're doing it right."

The thing is that his market value is affected by the fact that he's started for us the last two years, but he's had to start for us because we've had no one else. I am saying that on a lot of teams (and I am not disputing the 8-10 teams JR threw out) he wouldn't start and would be playing all the special teams because that's the best use of his abilities.

And I'm not going to say this again: I'm not saying paying market for a LB is a bad thing, even if the market's a little high on the player. I'm comfortable with it. It's just...a move. It's market value for a player. Happy for Perry. Not against this from the Redskins perspective. It sure seems like they're having to go above and beyond on a lot of these deals. Which is fine, too.

FA market value is almost always > the value of the player. Just a reality.

[hutch17]

Riley just tweeted to Keenan Robinson that he was excited about lining up with him next season, I think that they are out of the ILB market until late in the draft or if a stud falls to them, Like Skov in the 3rd round or later.

I love this signing, keeping home grown talent on the team at a resonable price so he doesn't go somewhere else and become a stud (Pierce, Clark) and we fall in love wiht and overpriced free agent who sucks (Adam Archuleta, I am talking to you).