We’ll have plenty of room to re-sign our own players

[turtle28]

On 2/21/2019 at 2:39 PM, Woz said:

Also, @turtle28, do not quote stuff from paywalled articles. If it isn't publicly accessible, you cannot quote it here. Period.

 

 

I have no idea what this means.

[turtle28]

21 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

And I'd rather let someone overpay for a solid, but not spectacular guy.  Someone always overpays pass-rushers in FA, and I don't think we need to be the team that starts.  

The issue is that if you lose PSmith, then there’s no guarantee that you can sign or draft a player who’s even as good as him to replace him, it’s the Orakpo argument all over again, who, we still haven’t upgraded since we didn’t re-sign him in 2014.

[turtle28]

@Woz I most certainly said/thought that Anderson was drafted to be a LOLB - that’s where he played at Alabama - and that he’d be Ryan Kerrigan’s back up. So, since we already had Trent Murphy as Kerrigan’s back up, I didn’t think it made much sense to draft him but, I guess they thought they weren’t going to be able to keep Murphy after he had such a good 2016 season.

I didn’t then, and still don’t see him as an option as a ROLB bc he doesn’t have a quick first step or a lot of speed coming off the edge. He’s a better fit as a LOLB, and I’ve said that forever and a day.

The reason I like Anderson is because he is an overall good football player but I do agree with those that say we took him too high. Although, we’ll never know if he would’ve fallen to us in round 3, if we had waited.

[Woz]

On 2/23/2019 at 1:22 PM, turtle28 said:

I have no idea what this means.

If a website requires you to pay to read their articles, do not quote from the articles. That's theft.

[Woz]

On 2/23/2019 at 1:30 PM, turtle28 said:

@Woz I most certainly said/thought that Anderson was drafted to be a LOLB - that’s where he played at Alabama - and that he’d be Ryan Kerrigan’s back up

That's nice. That's not where he's played with Washington.

On 2/23/2019 at 1:30 PM, turtle28 said:

So, since we already had Trent Murphy as Kerrigan’s back up, I didn’t think it made much sense to draft him but, I guess they thought they weren’t going to be able to keep Murphy after he had such a good 2016 season.

... which kind of implies Washington thought of him as a ROLB as well.

On 2/23/2019 at 1:30 PM, turtle28 said:

I didn’t then, and still don’t see him as an option as a ROLB bc he doesn’t have a quick first step or a lot of speed coming off the edge. He’s a better fit as a LOLB, and I’ve said that forever and a day.

His lack of quick first step/speed off the edge kind of makes him a liability at LOLB too.

I thought he was a horrible draft pick entirely when he was drafted (as I have said many times before, Zac Cunningham was right there for the taking!). I pointed to the fact that his 3 Sigma numbers had him as the next to last linebacker in terms of raw athleticism.

Until shown otherwise, he was a complete bust of a pick and having him on the roster should not sway the front office from treating him as anything more than a placeholder for a better player.

On 2/23/2019 at 1:30 PM, turtle28 said:

The reason I like Anderson is because he is an overall good football player but I do agree with those that say we took him too high. Although, we’ll never know if he would’ve fallen to us in round 3, if we had waited.

I'll disagree that he's an overall good football player, but maybe I'm wrong on that front. What is more obvious is that he is not a good outside linebacker. Otherwise, the coaching staff would have done more to get him on the field over spare part players like Pernell McPhee.

[Woz]

On 2/23/2019 at 11:24 AM, lavar703 said:

I'd love to have Crowder back but all I care about is re-signing Peterson. There's just no way Guice is going to be ready and I'd bring back AP to be the starter while Guice is slowly brought on. 

Only if the price is right. Certainly not for a long term contract (and long term is more than two years, preferably with the second year auto voiding).

[turtle28]

3 hours ago, Woz said:

If a website requires you to pay to read their articles, do not quote from the articles. That's theft.

Theft? That’s a bit harsh. I pay for their services 

[turtle28]

I just can’t do this anymore! Ryan Anderson is most definitely playing at LOLB when’s he’s on the field. Wtf!

I don’t think I ever recall him lining up at ROLB. I could give two craps what it says on the depth chart. Ive seen him like up at LOLB only.

[lavar703]

4 hours ago, Woz said:

Only if the price is right. Certainly not for a long term contract (and long term is more than two years, preferably with the second year auto voiding).

I was assuming it would be a two-year deal at most. 

[bigdog44]

4 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Theft? That’s a bit harsh. I pay for their services 

You better lawyer up 🤣🤣🤣

[MikeT14]

15 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Theft? That’s a bit harsh. I pay for their services 

We don't. And I am certainly not going to pay for the Athletic. 

[Woz]

23 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Theft? That’s a bit harsh. I pay for their services 

Okay perhaps a bit too harsh, but you paying for their services does not give you the right to distribute their works. If you quote an entire article or a substantial part of it, they potentially lose revenue (I might sign up with them to find out what it was about).

 

Basically:

• If it is your own work, you can post it in its entirety (but you cannot link to it as that would be using FF to promote your own site).
• If it is not your own work but is publicly accessible, quote no more than 3 relevant paragraphs or 10% of the work, whichever is smaller. Due to their tiny nature, any microblog (i.e. tweets) can be published in their entirety. In either case, link to where you found it.
• If it is not your own work and requires a subscription, do not quote from it. Period. Linking to it is fine.

[Thaiphoon]

On 2/26/2019 at 4:42 PM, turtle28 said:

Theft? That’s a bit harsh. I pay for their services 

But no one else here does. You're only paying once and giving that same service to others who did not pay for it. That's not right.

For example. I'm writing my first three science fiction books. I'll release them on Amazon this year. What happens if someone pays for my book, then takes my entire book and posts it online for people to read, free of charge? I lose out on a ton of potential revenue.

The person who produces the content  is wronged in that situation. 

[Thaiphoon]

2 hours ago, Woz said:

Okay perhaps a bit too harsh, but you paying for their services does not give you the right to distribute their works. If you quote an entire article or a substantial part of it, they potentially lose revenue (I might sign up with them to find out what it was about).

 

Basically:

• If it is your own work, you can post it in its entirety (but you cannot link to it as that would be using FF to promote your own site).
• If it is not your own work but is publicly accessible, quote no more than 3 relevant paragraphs or 10% of the work, whichever is smaller. Due to their tiny nature, any microblog (i.e. tweets) can be published in their entirety. In either case, link to where you found it.
• If it is not your own work and requires a subscription, do not quote from it. Period. Linking to it is fine.

THIS ^^^ 

 

[MikeT14]

12 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

But no one else here does. You're only paying once and giving that same service to others who did not pay for it. That's not right.

For example. I'm writing my first three science fiction books. I'll release them on Amazon this year. What happens if someone pays for my book, then takes my entire book and posts it online for people to read, free of charge? I lose out on a ton of potential revenue.

The person who produces the content  is wronged in that situation. 

Is it in an alternate universe where you don't suffer as a DC sports fan?