Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Setting Expectations

Locker Room Main Forum


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-09-2005, 05:09 PM   #20
hurrykaine
Impact Rookie
 
hurrykaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Age: 52
Posts: 762
Re: Setting Expectations

I think these idiots like Mike Wise are missing the point of the whole thing.

Even if we did have cap space, we wouldn't extend bigger offers to Smoot and Pierce because:

1. You can't have a young-in like Pierce making more money than Marcus Washington, who was our best LB last year, and the only Pro Bowl starter.

2. You can't have a relative young-in like Smootie making more money than Springs, who was clearly the best CB last year.

If Smoot/Pierce were offered more money than their superior counterparts, what message would that send to the latter? I think it would distort incentives even more.

Too bad we lost both these guys, but its best this way given the fact that they weren't willing to accept less than Marcus Washington and Springs. This way, we are building around the people that want to be Redskins, and including only those that want to be here - a la the New England team model. The defense will be fine without them, and we will hopefully draft some defensive players this year, who will help maintain continuity in the defense for atleast the next 3 years.
hurrykaine is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.40457 seconds with 11 queries