London Fletcher re-signs with Redskins

[Ruhskins]

I think people need to see this from Fletch's perspective, this is probably his last contract as an NFL player, he should be looking to get paid. I am okay with the money paid, b/c he brings so much to the team.

Sent from my Samsung Epic 4G using Taptalk

[skinsnut]

Think of the cost of NOT signing fletcher....not just in terms of dollars but wins and losses....more time playing defense means less time to score, fatigue on defense, worse production...etc....and none of this factors in that he essentially is the general on the field adjusting the d....it would be a SIGNIFICANT LOSS if we went cheap and lost him, borderline stupid

[REDSKINS4ever]

Fletcher deserved the type of deal he was hoping for. His productivity may increase in 2012. It would have been a huge void if the team and Fletcher had not come to an agreement. Then the front office would have gotten desperate and sent a conditional draft pick to the Jets for Bart Scott since the position requires someone with understanding and experience of it.

[redskins forever]

finally omg i thought he was gone.... heart of the team

[whistler]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

Fletcher deserved the type of deal he was hoping for. His productivity may increase in 2012. It would have been a huge void if the team and Fletcher had not come to an agreement. Then the front office would have gotten desperate and sent a conditional draft pick to the Jets for Bart Scott since the position requires someone with understanding and experience of it.

Ok...who are the skins going to forfiet (or ask for a serious pay reduction)now that LF got his deal. Cooley? Moss? Orakpo? TWilliams? Every action causes a reaction...especially with their salary cap situation.

Remember everybody is replacable even LF.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by whistler

Ok...who are the skins going to forfiet (or ask for a serious pay reduction)now that LF got his deal. Cooley? Moss? Orakpo? TWilliams? Every action causes a reaction...especially with their salary cap situation.

Remember everybody is replacable even LF.

IMO restructuring TW and/or Orakpo doesn't seem like a terrible burden to keep Fletcher. As has been said, his leadership and field presence alone brings a value that is not directly tied to field performance. Tie that with leading the league in tackles and his consecutive games numbers and it seems a no brainier that he has earned what he got. Since no one knows the future I think its safe to say it may end up being a cap issue in year 2 or 3 but we have overcome FAR worse deals (cough cough Adam) for far lesser players.

Bottomline this was a good move regardless of what shanahan critics might say.

Sent from my SpringBoard using Tapatalk 2

[whistler]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

IMO restructuring TW and/or Orakpo doesn't seem like a terrible burden to keep Fletcher. As has been said, his leadership and field presence alone brings a value that is not directly tied to field performance. Tie that with leading the league in tackles and his consecutive games numbers and it seems a no brainier that he has earned what he got. Since no one knows the future I think its safe to say it may end up being a cap issue in year 2 or 3 but we have overcome FAR worse deals (cough cough Adam) for far lesser players.

Bottomline this was a good move regardless of what shanahan critics might say.

Sent from my SpringBoard using Tapatalk 2

Remember they have to be willing to restructure!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by whistler

Remember they have to be willing to restructure!

I thought contract restructures were pretty player-friendly. Anyone that knows about this more care to elaborate?

[whistler]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I thought contract restructures were pretty player-friendly. Anyone that knows about this more care to elaborate?

They usually are. However in this case the skins are not able to make player friendly restructures because if they are player friendly they are not team friendly. With the cap problems the skins have that would not be workable. That would mean pay-cuts. The LF signing means good-bye Cooley and others or take a pay-cut (can you say veterans minimum).

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by whistler

They usually are. However in this case the skins are not able to make player friendly restructures because if they are player friendly they are not team friendly. With the cap problems the skins have that would not be workable. That would mean pay-cuts. The LF signing means good-bye Cooley and others or take a pay-cut (can you say veterans minimum).

Making the assumption that something negative will accompany the Fletcher signing without....any real info to support it is just more of the same....tired ass "sky is falling" rhetoric......

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Critical signing, since an abnormally high percentage of Fletcher's responsibility in this upcoming season is going to come in the offseason, where we know he's healthy and ready to run the defense around him.

As for actual on field performance, I think his best days as a Redskin are probably behind him. But the Redskins never got a Plan B in the fold, and so even a hobbled 37-year old Fletcher saves us from the alternative and probably prevents Perry Riley from being exposed as a coverage liability a bit longer.

You need to get laid, desperately.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by whistler

They usually are. However in this case the skins are not able to make player friendly restructures because if they are player friendly they are not team friendly. With the cap problems the skins have that would not be workable. That would mean pay-cuts. The LF signing means good-bye Cooley and others or take a pay-cut (can you say veterans minimum).

I know I won't get everything right, but I was under the impression that when a player is asked to restructure their contract, it typically entails lowering their base-salary to give the team cap room and turning that money into guaranteed money. Although the cap room helps, to me it seems that it is slightly more beneficial for the player. I believe the only time it is not beneficial for the player is when they are asked to take a pay cut.

In terms of cutting players to get more space, right now the biggest benefit would come from cutting Hall, who would give us about 5 mil in space. The benefits of cutting Cooley would be about 1.6 mil. Right now, I think the best course of action for the team would be to restructure contracts, instead of releasing players and creating additional holes/needs.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by whistler

Ok...who are the skins going to forfiet (or ask for a serious pay reduction)now that LF got his deal. Cooley? Moss? Orakpo? TWilliams? Every action causes a reaction...especially with their salary cap situation.

Remember everybody is replacable even LF.

Unless the deal was unable to be reached is what I said. But the Redskins and Fletcher struck a deal. Bart Scott is one of the few players that I could think of with plenty of experience and knowledge of the inside linebacker position in a 3-4 defense. I said nothing at all about sending players to the NYJ for Scott had the Redskins and Fletcher not come to terms to an agreement. I simply speculated about sending an unconditional draft choice(4th rd or 5th rd) to the Jets for Scott. But now that London has re-signed, trading a conditional draft choice to the Jets for Scott doesn't need to happen now.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Making the assumption that something negative will accompany the Fletcher signing without....any real info to support it is just more of the same....tired ass "sky is falling" rhetoric......

Yup, let's wait and see how the deal is structured.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Making the assumption that something negative will accompany the Fletcher signing without....any real info to support it is just more of the same....tired ass "sky is falling" rhetoric......

But the sky IS FALLING!!!!!!!