O-Line and ST questions

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by aprius

1. They can void the contract and re-do it that way. No penalty.

Ummmm...no they can't. The CBA specifically forbids reworking a rookie's contract until one year from signing. Besides simply voiding the contract is not reworking his deal...it is cutting him which makes him a free agent so he could sign anywhere. There is no way they are going to cut their first round draft pick from last year. Also they'd have to have pretty strong contract language to cut him BEFORE he has been found guilty of any crime.

[diehardskin2982]

Like Greg Williams I'm still a Sean Taylor Fan... We as fans don't understand everything and we trully don't know what happened on June 1st at all. I do however find it odd that Taylor has been processed and charged on a lessor offence, but there hasn't been a real investigation into who fired the shots at Taylor's Denali.

In the South, there is corruption in the law system.. I feel the district attorney thinks that he has found a big fish and is gonna milk the case for all the money they he can get.

I see all these post like Sean Taylor is Lucifer or something and i just have to say "get off his back". He had a DUI charge that got dismissed, and he trying to live his life. I know one thing for shore, that he brought stability to our secondary and he is the most talented player on the D hands down... so please stop hatin

[Daseal]

First of all, why can't we leave an offensive line together for a while. We needed an obvious upgrade at Center, let's let these guys gel some. Continuity is key. Regardless of what many people think, I'm just happy to have a coaching staff that will at least give the organization some stability. I hope when Gibbs is ready to step down, he's able to hand the reins to Greg Williams, let's hire from within!

As far as Taylor, I think he'll wise up eventually. This is the type of charge that will probably either scare him straight, or send him into a downward spiral. This is going to be a critical year for him.

[PSUskinsfan11]

Ross Verba is a locker room cancer. The Browns got rid of him because of his attitude. There is no way in hell he is going to see the contract that he is trying to get. The only team semi interested in him is the Texans and I think I could start at tackle for them right now. Verba would not get the money he is looking for from us and he would not even challenge Samuels or Jansen for a starting spot so he would never sign with us anyway. Also, I am not 100% sold on Dockery but he has shown improvement and he is still very young. Why was he even brought up in conversation with Verba anyway? Verba=tackle Dockery=guard. In reguards to o-line depth Wilson and Molinaro are both young guys that the staff seem to like so why bring in a big contract when we could use the money at another spot. Gragg is a good DT but he is not a major upgrade over Noble or Salave'a so why waste time bringing someone else in to learn the system.

[aprius]

Originally Posted by PSUskinsfan11

Why was he even brought up in conversation with Verba anyway? Verba=tackle Dockery=guard. In reguards to o-line depth Wilson and Molinaro are both young guys that the staff seem to like so why bring in a big contract when we could use the money at another spot. Gragg is a good DT but he is not a major upgrade over Noble or Salave'a so why waste time bringing someone else in to learn the system.

Please note that it says O-line questions at the title....Last I heard, OG was still on the O-line.
Scott Gragg besides having double letters at the end of his first and last names is also noted for being an OT not a DT.....hence the title of this thread.

:cool-smil

[PSUskinsfan11]

Originally Posted by aprius

Please note that it says O-line questions at the title....Last I heard, OG was still on the O-line.
Scott Gragg besides having double letters at the end of his first and last names is also noted for being an OT not a DT.....hence the title of this thread.

If you were talking about o-line depth and brought up signing Verba or Gragg, who are both tackles, where does Dockery come into play? Also I confused Scott Gragg for Kelly Gregg the DT from the Ravens, sorry for the confusion.

[mooby]

i don't even know why we are having a discussion about the o-line. our o-line is solid if healthy, the only one with any questions is derrick dockery, but we need to give him some time. and if he performs poorly we have the ageless wonder in ray brown. our o-line can be one of the best in the league if we give it some time.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by aprius

Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?
Gragg is a very good backup and Verba is an excellent starter at Tackle.

For one, I've never even heard of Scott Gragg. Two, we already have decent depth on the o-line. Three, what good does a starting Tackle do? I'd rather not pay for a starting tackle that sits on the bench (because he's not going to see the field as long as Samuels and Jansen are healthy.

Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?
Heck, you could void it on a morality clause or insubordination or a thousand other reasons..

1. I don't think the skins want to completely throw any hope away of keeping ST for the long haul, and this would effectively cause nothing but hurt feelings and bad blood between ST and the skins.
2. ST wouldn't renegotiate for a lower contract.
3. We can't renegotiate the contract yet anyway (see SC's post).
4. We've already paid ST the bulk of his contract (7.2 million signing bonus.....so renegotiating now doesn't make sense).

I dont have a good feeling about the trial.
I think he will get probation.
I think he will not be playing this year in any uniform..

All reports seem to indicate that this case won't effect the '05 season. And if you have a bad feeling about the trial, then you shouldn't count on probation. IF the trial goes poorly, and IF he's convicted of what he's been charged with he's looking at 3 years minimum.

I hope they write into all contracts that players are not allowed to use or own guns or lethal weapons.
Guns and knives keep getting players into trouble.
They should also write into every contract that it is void if the player is CHARGED with a felony (not convicted), DUI or possession of drugs and all signing bonuses must be returned..

While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions.

[wolfeskins]

guns don't kill people.

people kill people.

[aprius]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

For one, I've never even heard of Scott Gragg. Two, we already have decent depth on the o-line. Three, what good does a starting Tackle do? I'd rather not pay for a starting tackle that sits on the bench (because he's not going to see the field as long as Samuels and Jansen are healthy.

Verba would be a great addition because Samuels has not played up to potential for 2 or 3 years now and may never again. Gragg would give us a proven backup at tackle.
After that if we had one good starting guard to take Dockery's place and a proven back up center and guard and we would have our o-line complete.

1. I don't think the skins want to completely throw any hope away of keeping ST for the long haul, and this would effectively cause nothing but hurt feelings and bad blood between ST and the skins.
ST has never worried about the feelings of the coaches or teammates or FO. Dont worry about bad blood. It is already there.
2. ST wouldn't renegotiate for a lower contract. He will after the trial.
3. We can't renegotiate the contract yet anyway (see SC's post). Not without voiding it....which we could do right now.
4. We've already paid ST the bulk of his contract (7.2 million signing bonus.....so renegotiating now doesn't make sense). He will repay a large portion of that.



All reports seem to indicate that this case won't effect the '05 season. And if you have a bad feeling about the trial, then you shouldn't count on probation. IF the trial goes poorly, and IF he's convicted of what he's been charged with he's looking at 3 years minimum.

3 years of probation, community service, jail, suspended, combination of all of those.....
I just feel like ST is going to have a very hard life.
He sure is setting himself up for it.



While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions.

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by aprius

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

Next you are going to tell us that business can smack all the female employees on the ass, and not be charged with sexual harrasment... A business can not use sex, religion, nationality, or color as gounds to hire or fire a person. If they do it is called discrimination.

Also, this idea that the catholic church "hires" their priests is insane. The catholic church does not hire their priests, these men are ordained in to the faith. A life of poverty is what they accept when they are ordained as priests. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. Gov has no say as to who can or can not be priests. Like you said, "separation of church and state."

[SmootSmack]

Let's settle down fellas or else let's lock this thread.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by aprius

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

First off, I've seriously had enough of your bad mouthing members of this board. You're asking people what they are smoking and referring to their arguments as stupid simply because you don't agree with them. Either learn how to discuss matters as a rational adult or get the hell off this site. Tone it down and learn how to act. Anyone can be ballsy in a chat room.......but it doesn't prove anything.

As to you're argument, I guess I'll have to repeat what I said since you seem to have a hard time listening to what people are saying.

"While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions."

I thought that statement was self-explanatory, but I guess not. What I said there is that I fully support placing restrictions on players' actions on and off the field. Pro atheletes are professionals, and they should be expected to act as such. HOWEVER, you are talking about an athelete agreeing to be penalized without ANY finding of wrongdoing whatsoever. I am well aware that the constitution does not apply to private contracts, but I seriously doubt that any athelete would voluntarily enter into a contract that penalizes him for doing absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that the constitution guarantees due process should tell you something about just how serious a right it is that you think players will be so willing to contract away. Being arrested is a far cry from being guilty of a crime.

Same analysis applies for the right to bear arms. Can a business restrict you from carrying a gun to work? Absolutely. But no business, occupation, profession, etc. that I know of has ever restricted an individual from exercising his or her constitutional right to bear arms outside of the work environment. Regardless of whether two private individuals can contract for that restriction (which they can), I simply cannot imagine players or the NFLPA agreeing to such clauses.

As to your arguments:
1. There is no constitutional right to not be fired for a rumor. In fact, I assume that your job was not subject to an employment contract. As such, it would be an "employment at will". In an employment at will, an employer may fire you for any reason or for no reason at all, as long as that reason is not discriminatory or violative of a constitutional right. If they had fired you because of your age, race, religion, sex, etc. (one of the inalienable rights), then you would have had a cause of action against them.

2. While a business may maintain a certain dress code, that right is not without limitations. For example, an employer can not restrict you from wearing what you must for religious reasons. They can not require you to remove religious garb to comply with the dress code.

3. The fact that you actually said: "Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely" only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. The first scenario involving religion is a blatant violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second scenario could be a violation of of the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) if the employer is refusing to hire, or is firing an individual over the age of 40 in favor of a younger person. If you are referring to the NBA's policy, then yes, an employer can discriminate based on age if the age is under 40 because an individual is not part of a protected class until reaching the age of 40.

4. As to the catholic church: It has already been correctly stated that governments cannot restrict the free practice of religion. As such, the catholic church is free to exclude women from the priesthood ONLY BECAUSE it is a religious institution. If it was IBM or Comcast refusing to hire or promote women, again, you'd be setting forth a scenario where the law would step in and punish the employer.

Trust me when I say you should not assume that you know more about the constitution or employment law than me or anyone else on this site. If you need me to go down the hall and have one of our labor and employment partners confirm the accuracy of my above statements, just let me know.

And in the future, if you don't want people telling you "Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?" and "Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?", the I suggest you don't ask the question. What exactly was the point of starting this thread with those questions if you are not going to be open to a host of reasonable explanations by the members of this site? And you call other people "stupid"? I have a kettle I'd like to introduce you to.

[MTK]

aprius, If Dockery was so "awful" last year why did they not look to replace him this year??

In comparison, we painfully needed an upgrade at center and look what happened, we signed a center right out of the gate when free agency began.

Why did we not do the same for left guard?

Answer that question and you'll have your answer as to what the coaching staff thinks of Dockery.

[SmootSmack]

You're pretty convinced that our O-Line is a major weakness , aren't you Aprius?