Rolle rumors are false

FRPLG · 03-01-2005, 08:15 AM

I have no clue why we'd spend an extra 3.4 mil on Rolle when we clearly have an option in Smoot. The rumor never made sense to begin with. I mean logically...if we're willing to let Smoot walk over a couple mil and go with Harris then why the hell would we pay extra to get Rolle who is better but isn't SO much better. Our defense was pretty good with Smoot playing CB last year it doesn't seem to me that we need to shell out extra millions to bring in a marginally more talented player. Especially one with character issues. Compared to Smoot talent wise Rolle should get more money but for our team I'd go with the character guy who has fought his heart out for you for 4 years and has been the consumate Redskin. I thin it's time that the Skisn step up meet Smoot half way and gtet the job done. Over pay a little to keep a good guy and a good player rather than going cheap at a critical position. It would send a message to the team that they are committed to the TEAM we have and not some fantasy team.

Schneed10 · 03-01-2005, 08:42 AM

The big reason I think the Rolle rumors are false is because imagine what kind of message it sends to the rest of the players. Think about it, the players all love Fred Smoot. They talk about what a warrior he is and how hard he goes out and plays. And they recognized how hurtin he was when he was playing with that sternum problem. It doesn't send a very good message to stall negotiations by offering $11.5 million bonus, and then turn around and offer $15 million to a player from the outside who hasn't poured his heart and soul into the Redskins. It sends a message that the Redskins value players from the outside more than they value their own. I think Dan Snyder, in the past few years, did not think of the effects such a message might have on the players. But I think Gibbs is aware of these things, and I don't think he would kick around the idea of a $15 million bonus to a free agent when he's not willing to pay his Redskin warrior more than $11.5 million.

Plus it just doesn't make sense. Rolle is real good, but he's older than Fred and Fred is almost as good, if not just as good. If anything, Fred should get paid more because he is younger and has more quality years ahead of him. I just can't see Gibbs taking a look at Rolle, he's trying to build continuity.

I think the Rolle rumor was leaked out on purpose by Rolle's agents; he is said to be negotiating with the Chiefs, and any player who says the Redskins are interested is likely to see his price tag rise a bit.

BossHog · 03-01-2005, 10:34 AM

I had mixed feelings about signing Rolle, mainly because of the money. If we had $15 to spend on a CB, why not resign our own (Smoot). The Washington Times made it seem like the deal was eminent.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2005, 10:42 AM

Such good news to wake up to today.

Carnage · 03-01-2005, 01:31 PM

Folks, lets remember that the only source for this is the Washington Times. I was waiting all day for a reputable source to verify the story.

All hail Rev.Moon!

offiss · 03-01-2005, 01:42 PM

1 of the insider's on the NFL network was saying the same thing last night, he said the guy's he new behind the scenes were saying that the rumor was false as well.

diehardskin2982 · 03-01-2005, 01:46 PM

I'm glad that these rumors were laid to rest because the skins are trying to have continuity this year and stop being used a steping stone for higher contracts. We are on our way to having a great team. I wish coles would see that and get the surgery and stop complaining

BigSKINBauer · 03-01-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think if the difference between what the skins offer and what another team offers is between 1-2 million he'll stay.

i agree but how long do we have to wait? it will prolly not be done today and he could sign with us in FA but how long do we need to wait till we get an answer if we are not willing to spend 13.5 million. i doubt that many teams will pay over 14 million so the differense between the offers will be about 1-2 million.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2005, 04:11 PM

Oh I almost forgot! I bet we'll have something VERY interesting to wake up to tomorrow morning. (For better or for worse)

Gmanc711 · 03-01-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Oh I almost forgot! I bet we'll have something VERY interesting to wake up to tomorrow morning. (For better or for worse)

I have a feeling tommarow will bring us a mixture of both. Just a hunch.

wolfeskins · 03-01-2005, 04:54 PM

i'm dissapointed, i was hoping we were going to get rolle. he's much better than smoot.

MTK · 03-01-2005, 05:06 PM

Peter King was just on FOX radio and he was very high on Rolle, said he could be a big impact guy for somebody.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow what the real truth is surrounding Smoot and Rolle.

monk81 · 03-01-2005, 07:18 PM

Well the Redskins BETTER get the deal done because the Cowboys are waiting. Our paper, SA EXpress-News...it said that although the Cowboys would be concentrating on the offensive line and getting some "hogs" (how dare they use a Redskin nickname )to protect Bledsoe who has the mobility of the statue of Tom Landy outside Texas stadium, other areas of need are mentioned as CORNERBACK.....The Redskins Fred Smoot who might switch sides just to avoid another loss to the Cowboys.......they mentioned RT- Jets Kareem McKenzie, Buffalo's Jonas Jennings, Steelers Oliver Ross. Safety-Bucs Dwight Smith, LB-Steelers Kendall Bell, and Ravens Hartwell, and WR.......and Jones said he said he is willing to spend freely..........

03-01-2005, 08:15 AM	#16
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 10,164	Re: Rolle rumors are false I have no clue why we'd spend an extra 3.4 mil on Rolle when we clearly have an option in Smoot. The rumor never made sense to begin with. I mean logically...if we're willing to let Smoot walk over a couple mil and go with Harris then why the hell would we pay extra to get Rolle who is better but isn't SO much better. Our defense was pretty good with Smoot playing CB last year it doesn't seem to me that we need to shell out extra millions to bring in a marginally more talented player. Especially one with character issues. Compared to Smoot talent wise Rolle should get more money but for our team I'd go with the character guy who has fought his heart out for you for 4 years and has been the consumate Redskin. I thin it's time that the Skisn step up meet Smoot half way and gtet the job done. Over pay a little to keep a good guy and a good player rather than going cheap at a critical position. It would send a message to the team that they are committed to the TEAM we have and not some fantasy team.

03-01-2005, 08:42 AM	#17
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 44 Posts: 12,416	Re: Rolle rumors are false The big reason I think the Rolle rumors are false is because imagine what kind of message it sends to the rest of the players. Think about it, the players all love Fred Smoot. They talk about what a warrior he is and how hard he goes out and plays. And they recognized how hurtin he was when he was playing with that sternum problem. It doesn't send a very good message to stall negotiations by offering $11.5 million bonus, and then turn around and offer $15 million to a player from the outside who hasn't poured his heart and soul into the Redskins. It sends a message that the Redskins value players from the outside more than they value their own. I think Dan Snyder, in the past few years, did not think of the effects such a message might have on the players. But I think Gibbs is aware of these things, and I don't think he would kick around the idea of a $15 million bonus to a free agent when he's not willing to pay his Redskin warrior more than $11.5 million. Plus it just doesn't make sense. Rolle is real good, but he's older than Fred and Fred is almost as good, if not just as good. If anything, Fred should get paid more because he is younger and has more quality years ahead of him. I just can't see Gibbs taking a look at Rolle, he's trying to build continuity. I think the Rolle rumor was leaked out on purpose by Rolle's agents; he is said to be negotiating with the Chiefs, and any player who says the Redskins are interested is likely to see his price tag rise a bit.

03-01-2005, 10:34 AM	#18
BossHog Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 665	Re: Rolle rumors are false I had mixed feelings about signing Rolle, mainly because of the money. If we had $15 to spend on a CB, why not resign our own (Smoot). The Washington Times made it seem like the deal was eminent.

03-01-2005, 10:42 AM	#19
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 19,218	Re: Rolle rumors are false Such good news to wake up to today. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-01-2005, 01:31 PM	#20
Carnage Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 473	Re: Rolle rumors are false Folks, lets remember that the only source for this is the Washington Times. I was waiting all day for a reputable source to verify the story. All hail Rev.Moon!

03-01-2005, 01:42 PM	#21
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 59 Posts: 3,097	Re: Rolle rumors are false 1 of the insider's on the NFL network was saying the same thing last night, he said the guy's he new behind the scenes were saying that the rumor was false as well.

03-01-2005, 01:46 PM	#22
diehardskin2982 Another Year, another mess. Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,581	Re: Rolle rumors are false I'm glad that these rumors were laid to rest because the skins are trying to have continuity this year and stop being used a steping stone for higher contracts. We are on our way to having a great team. I wish coles would see that and get the surgery and stop complaining __________________ That got ugly fast

03-01-2005, 04:11 PM	#24
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 19,218	Re: Rolle rumors are false Oh I almost forgot! I bet we'll have something VERY interesting to wake up to tomorrow morning. (For better or for worse) __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-01-2005, 04:54 PM	#26
wolfeskins The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: chesapeake,va. Posts: 2,160	Re: Rolle rumors are false i'm dissapointed, i was hoping we were going to get rolle. he's much better than smoot.

03-01-2005, 05:06 PM	#27
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 51 Posts: 99,318	Re: Rolle rumors are false Peter King was just on FOX radio and he was very high on Rolle, said he could be a big impact guy for somebody. I guess we'll find out tomorrow what the real truth is surrounding Smoot and Rolle. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

03-01-2005, 07:18 PM	#28
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	Re: Rolle rumors are false Well the Redskins BETTER get the deal done because the Cowboys are waiting. Our paper, SA EXpress-News...it said that although the Cowboys would be concentrating on the offensive line and getting some "hogs" (how dare they use a Redskin nickname )to protect Bledsoe who has the mobility of the statue of Tom Landy outside Texas stadium, other areas of need are mentioned as CORNERBACK.....The Redskins Fred Smoot who might switch sides just to avoid another loss to the Cowboys.......they mentioned RT- Jets Kareem McKenzie, Buffalo's Jonas Jennings, Steelers Oliver Ross. Safety-Bucs Dwight Smith, LB-Steelers Kendall Bell, and Ravens Hartwell, and WR.......and Jones said he said he is willing to spend freely.......... __________________ "It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW

Rolle rumors are false

Locker Room Main Forum