Rolle Signed?

BossHog · 03-03-2005, 02:19 PM

Yeah. Wilds was allocted to NFL Europe. We'll have to keep an eye on him. Is it just me or did we play a lot of cover-2 zone last year?

celts32 · 03-03-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

Yeah I had figured the plan was go with Harris (if not Smoot) in 2005 then maybe in 2006 you pass the position on to Wilds. Going with Rolle seems like a decision heavily influenced by Gregg Williams, considering their history. So far his decisions seem to have been dead on...but is he due for a letdown?

Exactly this is what I thought the plan was as well. Just becasue you lose an expensive player that doesn't mean you need to replace him with just as expensive a player. If they can afford Rolle than they can afford Smoot also, so what's the point? The Redskins need to replace a loss from within for once instead of heading out to the grocery store like they alwasy do! As mad as I will be if we lose Smoot I will be 10 times madder if they replace him with Rolle. Rolle will be 29 on opening day. That means we get one year of him before he turns 30. CB's start to lose their speed in their early 30's, and a slow CB is not worth a whole lot in the NFL. CB's & RB's are the worst positions to spend money when they hit 30. Signing Rolle is a mistake. CB's like Darrel Green that run fast deep into their 30's are a rare breed. I think this is a mistake.

e16bball · 03-03-2005, 02:28 PM

Boss- I will take your word on Cody. I think we could get him all the way back in the 20s of this draft.

I'm not real excited about the Rolle signing, even though he is definitely better than Smoot at this point. Smoot is a Redskin, and I was under the impression that that meant something to the team these days. The age issue which has been brought up often is a factor as well.

I really don't think starting Harris is an option though. He is purely a nickel corner at this point IMO, and I think the team only came out and said that he could start as a negotiating ploy with Smoot. I could be wrong, but that's how it felt to me. I would really just like to re-sign Smoot. Wilds could take over as the nickel guy in 2006 and eventually replace Springs, I guess.

BossHog · 03-03-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celts32

... Just becasue you lose an expensive player that doesn't mean you need to replace him with just as expensive a player...I think this is a mistake.

When we play OAK at FedsEx field this year, who would you rather have covering Randy Moss and Jerry Porter? Shawn Springs and Samari Rolle or Shawn Springs and Walt Harris? In all fairness, Harris, Rolle, and Rolle are up there in age, but it's clear who's more capable of going against the top WRs in the game.

SmootSmack · 03-03-2005, 02:39 PM

I'd like to have Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot when we play Oakland, when we play Dallas, when we play Philly, when we play KC, when we play San Diego, and so on

BossHog · 03-03-2005, 02:45 PM

We all agree that big dollars shouldn't be invested in an aging CB. We did sign Springs (an aging, ailing CB) last year for a $10 signing bonus. I believe the same, if not more, is due for Rolle. Remember, Bailey said no to the same offer we had on the table that Springs eventually signed. We cannot afford to let Smoot dictate what we'll spend on a player at this position. Not this year. Too many guys have to be 'taken care of'. He should know this organization isn't one to put a team together with salary cap dollars to spare. If he seeks a team who invests more into thier CBs, adios. We're strapped for cash right now because we needed to secure contracts for guys that made Smoot seem to play better. Something has to give.

BossHog · 03-03-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

I'd like to have Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot when we play Oakland, when we play Dallas, when we play Philly, when we play KC, when we play San Diego, and so on

And you probably wanted Smoot and Bailey too this past year, huh? Let it go people. We'll be more than satisfied with whoever is signed.

SkinsRock · 03-03-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

And you probably wanted Smoot and Bailey too this past year, huh? Let it go people. We'll be more than satisfied with whoever is signed.

Actually, most people last year were fine with Bailey leaving....He didn't want to be here! Whereas Smoot has said numerous times that he wants to be a Redskin. From a business standpoint, he is actually being pretty smart in being able to separate his emotions to try to get the best deal he can. I'm sure the Redskins have a plan for if he gets a rich contract offer and goes elsewhere.....whether it be Harris, signing another FA CB, giving Wilds a shot, or drafting a CB.

SmootSmack · 03-03-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossHog

And you probably wanted Smoot and Bailey too this past year, huh? Let it go people. We'll be more than satisfied with whoever is signed.

Actually I was really happy that we got Springs, seeing as to how he was my favorite non-Redskin in the league at the time

BigSKINBauer · 03-03-2005, 03:22 PM

i don't know how much smoot really wants to be here. i mean we ended up offering 11.5 and then he asked for 13.5. I think he is the type of player who will play with the same intensity at what ever club he is with. i am sure he doesn't not want to be here but in other threads people said that if he were offered about 1-2 million more from another team he would stay with us. I think he would take them dollars and again play with that intensity and same amount of leadership. Just because we hear his voice a lot does not mean that he is devoted to stay here.

BigSKINBauer · 03-03-2005, 03:29 PM

i know rolle is better and it hard to argue that he is not. he knows our system which is the most important thing for continuity on defense. i think everyone uses the term continuity to much too i mean we used to use it because of changing defensive cordinators, i mean 6 in 6 years is obviously not continuity. if we get smoot or rolle it will be because our coaching staff feels that they are more worth it. We aren't dumb to get a worse player for more money. Greg williams says he wants rolle and plain and simple that is b/c he is better and Williams knows he is. If we get rolle it will be because of GW and him wanting him. if GW feels that smoot is better he would get him for less money and i guess we will see who GW feels is more worthy to play in this elite "leeeeeet" system

VishsSkins · 03-03-2005, 03:36 PM

I really dont understand why so mny of you are disappointed that we could have possibly signed Rolle. The argument that keeps coming up is that he is too old or we will not have continuity. First of all Rolle, is only 2-3 yrs older than Smoot which is not a big deal even for football players. He could still have a good 5-7 years left in the pros, meaning that we will have him for a long enough time. Smoot cannot be truly considered a loyal Redskin because it seems that he will sign with the team that offers the most money. If he really wanted to be here, he would have taken the $11.5 million, become one of the highest paid cornerbacks, and stayed with our team. Secondly, if you are talking about continuity, Smoot has only been in this defense for a year whereas Rolle has been under Williams for 3. There will be no need for a time to adapt in this system. By sitting around and waiting for Smoot to re-sign, we would definitely loose out on Rolle, possibly being left with nothing if Smoot decides to sign elsewhere. The bottom line is that Rolle is a better player whos presence will greatly increase our strength on defense since we would have 2 #1 CBs. Why pay Rolle more when we could offer the same amount to Smoot? Rolle is better, Williams wants him more, and a corner with the status of Smoot should not get a contract that would potentially put him among the top 5 richest CBs when,frankly, he is not one of the top 5 in the league.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-03-2005, 03:42 PM

I hate that we had to love having Smoot on the team so much. :p

BigSKINBauer · 03-03-2005, 04:03 PM

cbs sportsline put up there top 50 FAs and said they looked at playing ability and age as factors. Rolle was number 1 and smoot 3 and pierce 5 and trotter 40 by the way. not much difference in the rank of smoot and rolle so y not just trust GW in who ever he wants, if they get smoot it will be b/c they want smoot more and if they pay more money to rolle it will DEFINATLY be because he wants Rolle more because he is on a different team and he more costly and is older as everyone feels that is a huge deal i mean randy moss has 7 years in the league i guess he sucks too.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-03-2005, 04:06 PM

Longest run-on EVER.

03-03-2005, 02:19 PM	#31
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: Rolle Signed? Yeah. Wilds was allocted to NFL Europe. We'll have to keep an eye on him. Is it just me or did we play a lot of cover-2 zone last year?

03-03-2005, 02:28 PM	#33
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Rolle Signed? Boss- I will take your word on Cody. I think we could get him all the way back in the 20s of this draft. I'm not real excited about the Rolle signing, even though he is definitely better than Smoot at this point. Smoot is a Redskin, and I was under the impression that that meant something to the team these days. The age issue which has been brought up often is a factor as well. I really don't think starting Harris is an option though. He is purely a nickel corner at this point IMO, and I think the team only came out and said that he could start as a negotiating ploy with Smoot. I could be wrong, but that's how it felt to me. I would really just like to re-sign Smoot. Wilds could take over as the nickel guy in 2006 and eventually replace Springs, I guess.

03-03-2005, 02:39 PM	#35
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Rolle Signed? I'd like to have Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot when we play Oakland, when we play Dallas, when we play Philly, when we play KC, when we play San Diego, and so on __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

03-03-2005, 02:45 PM	#36
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: Rolle Signed? We all agree that big dollars shouldn't be invested in an aging CB. We did sign Springs (an aging, ailing CB) last year for a $10 signing bonus. I believe the same, if not more, is due for Rolle. Remember, Bailey said no to the same offer we had on the table that Springs eventually signed. We cannot afford to let Smoot dictate what we'll spend on a player at this position. Not this year. Too many guys have to be 'taken care of'. He should know this organization isn't one to put a team together with salary cap dollars to spare. If he seeks a team who invests more into thier CBs, adios. We're strapped for cash right now because we needed to secure contracts for guys that made Smoot seem to play better. Something has to give.

03-03-2005, 03:22 PM	#40
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 35 Posts: 5,688	Re: Rolle Signed? i don't know how much smoot really wants to be here. i mean we ended up offering 11.5 and then he asked for 13.5. I think he is the type of player who will play with the same intensity at what ever club he is with. i am sure he doesn't not want to be here but in other threads people said that if he were offered about 1-2 million more from another team he would stay with us. I think he would take them dollars and again play with that intensity and same amount of leadership. Just because we hear his voice a lot does not mean that he is devoted to stay here.

03-03-2005, 03:29 PM	#41
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 35 Posts: 5,688	Re: Rolle Signed? i know rolle is better and it hard to argue that he is not. he knows our system which is the most important thing for continuity on defense. i think everyone uses the term continuity to much too i mean we used to use it because of changing defensive cordinators, i mean 6 in 6 years is obviously not continuity. if we get smoot or rolle it will be because our coaching staff feels that they are more worth it. We aren't dumb to get a worse player for more money. Greg williams says he wants rolle and plain and simple that is b/c he is better and Williams knows he is. If we get rolle it will be because of GW and him wanting him. if GW feels that smoot is better he would get him for less money and i guess we will see who GW feels is more worthy to play in this elite "leeeeeet" system

03-03-2005, 03:36 PM	#42
VishsSkins Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2005 Age: 35 Posts: 173	Re: Rolle Signed? I really dont understand why so mny of you are disappointed that we could have possibly signed Rolle. The argument that keeps coming up is that he is too old or we will not have continuity. First of all Rolle, is only 2-3 yrs older than Smoot which is not a big deal even for football players. He could still have a good 5-7 years left in the pros, meaning that we will have him for a long enough time. Smoot cannot be truly considered a loyal Redskin because it seems that he will sign with the team that offers the most money. If he really wanted to be here, he would have taken the $11.5 million, become one of the highest paid cornerbacks, and stayed with our team. Secondly, if you are talking about continuity, Smoot has only been in this defense for a year whereas Rolle has been under Williams for 3. There will be no need for a time to adapt in this system. By sitting around and waiting for Smoot to re-sign, we would definitely loose out on Rolle, possibly being left with nothing if Smoot decides to sign elsewhere. The bottom line is that Rolle is a better player whos presence will greatly increase our strength on defense since we would have 2 #1 CBs. Why pay Rolle more when we could offer the same amount to Smoot? Rolle is better, Williams wants him more, and a corner with the status of Smoot should not get a contract that would potentially put him among the top 5 richest CBs when,frankly, he is not one of the top 5 in the league.

03-03-2005, 03:42 PM	#43
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 19,218	Re: Rolle Signed? I hate that we had to love having Smoot on the team so much. :p __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-03-2005, 04:03 PM	#44
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 35 Posts: 5,688	Re: Rolle Signed? cbs sportsline put up there top 50 FAs and said they looked at playing ability and age as factors. Rolle was number 1 and smoot 3 and pierce 5 and trotter 40 by the way. not much difference in the rank of smoot and rolle so y not just trust GW in who ever he wants, if they get smoot it will be b/c they want smoot more and if they pay more money to rolle it will DEFINATLY be because he wants Rolle more because he is on a different team and he more costly and is older as everyone feels that is a huge deal i mean randy moss has 7 years in the league i guess he sucks too.

03-03-2005, 04:06 PM	#45
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 19,218	Re: Rolle Signed? Longest run-on EVER. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Rolle Signed?

Locker Room Main Forum