Perry Riley re-signs 3 yrs $13M

[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.