Quinton Dunbar no OTA's

[turtle28]

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I was pretty clear that my point was I didn't  think Dunny for Diggs was good compensation for the Vikings - or at least I thought I was - and I doubt they'd do that straight up.

So, we’d have to send a draft pick their way plus our only starting worthy corner at the moment. 

That's a no for me.

[e16bball]

1 hour ago, offbyone said:

Hilarious how everyone is so excited that Rivera is talking to Trent Williams but now Dunbar is a bad guy.  We are so finicky in our views on these guys.

I don’t think it’s so much that they’re “bad guys” — although if Trent did use his cancer as a negotiating tool to try to get paid, he’s kind of a jackass. 

But I think what it shows you is where their priorities are. Everyone wants to get paid. Everyone wants to earn what they deserve. That’s true in every walk of life. But football teams win with unselfish players, who are more concerned about winning than they are about their own interests (whether those interests are related to finances or playing time or putting up more stats or what have you). 

I have no problem with guys like Dunbar and Williams seeking contract extensions. But you can do it behind the scenes, through the appropriate channels, instead of trying to blast it out through the media and making it a public spectacle. When your desire to get paid causes you to do divisive, detrimental things to the team — like demand trades or hold out — you become a problem. Is it a coincidence that three of the most disappointing teams in the league (us, LAC, and JAX) happened to be the ones dealing with high profile players who decided to make it about themselves and not the team?

As for consistency between the two situations, the difference (for me at least) is replaceability. I don’t want Trent on the team anymore, but unfortunately I think we need him. We don’t have a good option for replacing him, and quality play at his position is critical for supporting Haskins’s development. Dunbar is a good CB — but he’s replaceable in FA in particular. Hell, we’ve had to replace him in both of his seasons as a starter anyway. He can’t hold us hostage quite the same way Trent can. 

[ripsean21]

21 minutes ago, e16bball said:

I don’t think it’s so much that they’re “bad guys” — although if Trent did use his cancer as a negotiating tool to try to get paid, he’s kind of a jackass. 

But I think what it shows you is where their priorities are. Everyone wants to get paid. Everyone wants to earn what they deserve. That’s true in every walk of life. But football teams win with unselfish players, who are more concerned about winning than they are about their own interests (whether those interests are related to finances or playing time or putting up more stats or what have you). 

I have no problem with guys like Dunbar and Williams seeking contract extensions. But you can do it behind the scenes, through the appropriate channels, instead of trying to blast it out through the media and making it a public spectacle. When your desire to get paid causes you to do divisive, detrimental things to the team — like demand trades or hold out — you become a problem. Is it a coincidence that three of the most disappointing teams in the league (us, LAC, and JAX) happened to be the ones dealing with high profile players who decided to make it about themselves and not the team?

As for consistency between the two situations, the difference (for me at least) is replaceability. I don’t want Trent on the team anymore, but unfortunately I think we need him. We don’t have a good option for replacing him, and quality play at his position is critical for supporting Haskins’s development. Dunbar is a good CB — but he’s replaceable in FA in particular. Hell, we’ve had to replace him in both of his seasons as a starter anyway. He can’t hold us hostage quite the same way Trent can. 

Well said. I’m with you like the staff knows what these players are worth theyve been here. I trust them. The players deserve their money or atleast more but should keep it quiet. Hopefully after this offseason this locker room will shape into the behind the scenes type deal

[LoganF89]

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

I was pretty clear that my point was I didn't  think Dunny for Diggs was good compensation for the Vikings - or at least I thought I was - and I doubt they'd do that straight up.

So, we’d have to send a draft pick their way plus our only starting worthy corner at the moment. 

That's a no for me.

I would do Dunbar and our comp 4th for Stefon Diggs all day! 

1. Vikings are hard against the cap. they will save roughly 10 mil in this deal

2. Vikings have basically nothing at CB bc I dounbt Rhodes, Waynes, or Alexander play there next year

3. Haskins has a relationship with Diggs

4. Reports are Washington wants to add a star Vet WR opposite of Terry

 

if im the vikings and know corner is my week spot and have litterally no money then I would actually do that trade to be honest. they save 10 mil and get a good starting corner and a comp 4th, meanwhile we get a number 1 WR thats young, has a relationship with our young QB, and can go out and sign Bradberry at CB and maybe another vet CB on a cheaper scale like a talib type, or breeland/fuller
 

[turtle28]

44 minutes ago, LoganF89 said:

I would do Dunbar and our comp 4th for Stefon Diggs all day! 

1. Vikings are hard against the cap. they will save roughly 10 mil in this deal

2. Vikings have basically nothing at CB bc I dounbt Rhodes, Waynes, or Alexander play there next year

3. Haskins has a relationship with Diggs

4. Reports are Washington wants to add a star Vet WR opposite of Terry

 

if im the vikings and know corner is my week spot and have litterally no money then I would actually do that trade to be honest. they save 10 mil and get a good starting corner and a comp 4th, meanwhile we get a number 1 WR thats young, has a relationship with our young QB, and can go out and sign Bradberry at CB and maybe another vet CB on a cheaper scale like a talib type, or breeland/fuller
 

I don't think you can trade compensatory picks. I thought I remembered woz or someone telling me that years ago.

Talib? That dudes done. I'd take Breeland or Fuller back though, especially Fuller bc our slot corners have been abysmal w/o him.

[RSkinGM]

12 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I don't think you can trade compensatory picks. I thought I remembered woz or someone telling me that years ago.

Talib? That dudes done. I'd take Breeland or Fuller back though, especially Fuller bc our slot corners have been abysmal w/o him.

I think they changed that rule in 2017 and now allow trading of comp picks.

[LoganF89]

25 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I don't think you can trade compensatory picks. I thought I remembered woz or someone telling me that years ago.

Talib? That dudes done. I'd take Breeland or Fuller back though, especially Fuller bc our slot corners have been abysmal w/o him.

 

12 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

I think they changed that rule in 2017 and now allow trading of comp picks.

i think it was either last year or the year before that they could be traded

@turtle28 if we could do that trade with bradberry and a fuller type signing along with getting trent back,, flowers signed, and scherrf tagged then I think we would be in great shape. your then looking at getting a TE in FA like olson, and perhaps either a FS or LB in FA

after that its Young at #2 and then draft away

Edited February 11, 2020 by LoganF89

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, LoganF89 said:

 

i think it was either last year or the year before that they could be traded

@turtle28 if we could do that trade with bradberry and a fuller type signing along with getting trent back,, flowers signed, and scherrf tagged then I think we would be in great shape. your then looking at getting a TE in FA like olson, and perhaps either a FS or LB in FA

after that its Young at #2 and then draft away

Yeah, if. I would think the Vikings would want more than an oft-injured CB who wants to be overpaid & what basically amounts to a 5th round pick for their pro bowl WR. 

[lavar703]

On what planet can you trade Dunbar for Diggs? The idea of that trade is just absurd. Diggs is 10x the player Dunbar is and that's not a knock on Dunbar but you're talking about a guy who is either elite already or on the cusp of it for a good/decent corner. 

[e16bball]

1 hour ago, lavar703 said:

On what planet can you trade Dunbar for Diggs? The idea of that trade is just absurd. Diggs is 10x the player Dunbar is and that's not a knock on Dunbar but you're talking about a guy who is either elite already or on the cusp of it for a good/decent corner. 

I think there are two major keys that would have to fall into place in order to allow a swap like this to be possible. 

First, the Vikings would have to value the positional exchange, i.e. going from WR to CB. I think there’s a fair chance that will prove to be true. As other have noted in this thread, CB must be right at the top of their needs list. Xavier Rhodes has absolutely cratered over the course of the last two seasons. He’s basically unplayable at this point. Trae Waynes is okay, but he’s always been very inconsistent, and Mackensie Alexander has really mostly just played well in the slot. Moreover, both of those latter two guys are FAs, so at the moment their CB roster basically consists of the hope that Mike Hughes can bounce back from a broken vertebrae — and/or that Rhodes can bounce back from being awful. 

Given that this is considered a historically good WR draft, they might view Diggs as more replaceable. Particularly because they appear to be moving more and more to a classic Shanahan/Kubiak scheme that will focus on running the ball and having some size on the outside.

Second, they’d have to really value Dunbar. I don’t think that’s out of the question either. The guy was a 2nd team All-Pro player per PFF, and he had their 2nd highest CB rating of last year. While I don’t swear by them, they’re never that far off in their ratings that they’d say a guy was elite elite when he was really just okay. He’s a good fit with Minnesota, which likes to employ a lot of man coverage (which I consider to be his specialty). He’s got good size and plays physically, and he creates turnovers, which I also associate with Mike Zimmer’s preferences in CBs.

And just as importantly, he’s extremely affordable for a quality starting CB, which is a crucial aspect of this for Minnesota, as they’re  currently pretty strapped for cap. An unfortunate side effect of giving a solid QB a record deal. Trading Diggs for Dunbar would free up some cap space, even when taking into account the cap hit they’d get when trading Diggs. They’re not going to find a good, starting caliber veteran CB for a 1/$3.4M deal, so he’d be a pretty important addition for a team trying to win right now in the last year of their QB’s contract.

I’d think something like Diggs and a 5th for Dunbar and a 3rd would be in the ballpark. I’d be looking to trade Kerrigan for a 3rd and give them that, so we’d still have a 3rd, two 4ths, and two 5ths to use in the mid-rounds of this draft. It would be interesting at least.

 

[ovfd55]

6 minutes ago, e16bball said:

I think there are two major keys that would have to fall into place in order to allow a swap like this to be possible. 

First, the Vikings would have to value the positional exchange, i.e. going from WR to CB. I think there’s a fair chance that will prove to be true. As other have noted in this thread, CB must be right at the top of their needs list. Xavier Rhodes has absolutely cratered over the course of the last two seasons. He’s basically unplayable at this point. Trae Waynes is okay, but he’s always been very inconsistent, and Mackensie Alexander has really mostly just played well in the slot. Moreover, both of those latter two guys are FAs, so at the moment their CB roster basically consists of the hope that Mike Hughes can bounce back from a broken vertebrae — and/or that Rhodes can bounce back from being awful. 

Given that this is considered a historically good WR draft, they might view Diggs as more replaceable. Particularly because they appear to be moving more and more to a classic Shanahan/Kubiak scheme that will focus on running the ball and having some size on the outside.

Second, they’d have to really value Dunbar. I don’t think that’s out of the question either. The guy was a 2nd team All-Pro player per PFF, and he had their 2nd highest CB rating of last year. While I don’t swear by them, they’re never that far off in their ratings that they’d say a guy was elite elite when he was really just okay. He’s a good fit with Minnesota, which likes to employ a lot of man coverage (which I consider to be his specialty). He’s got good size and plays physically, and he creates turnovers, which I also associate with Mike Zimmer’s preferences in CBs.

And just as importantly, he’s extremely affordable for a quality starting CB, which is a crucial aspect of this for Minnesota, as they’re  currently pretty strapped for cap. An unfortunate side effect of giving a solid QB a record deal. Trading Diggs for Dunbar would free up some cap space, even when taking into account the cap hit they’d get when trading Diggs. They’re not going to find a good, starting caliber veteran CB for a 1/$3.4M deal, so he’d be a pretty important addition for a team trying to win right now in the last year of their QB’s contract.

I’d think something like Diggs and a 5th for Dunbar and a 3rd would be in the ballpark. I’d be looking to trade Kerrigan for a 3rd and give them that, so we’d still have a 3rd, two 4ths, and two 5ths to use in the mid-rounds of this draft. It would be interesting at least.

 

Doubt any of this happens,but if we could we take extra cap back with Diggs to make it more appealing to them say Rhoades or Rudolph or would that be same as them cutting them

[turtle28]

24 minutes ago, ovfd55 said:

Doubt any of this happens,but if we could we take extra cap back with Diggs to make it more appealing to them say Rhoades or Rudolph or would that be same as them cutting them

That's a good idea, and we'd fill a need. Still I'm with ya, I doubt any of this happens. I think the Redskins will call Dunny’s bluff. Unlike TWill, he’s going to miss his paychecks.

[offbyone]

8 hours ago, e16bball said:

I don’t think it’s so much that they’re “bad guys” — although if Trent did use his cancer as a negotiating tool to try to get paid, he’s kind of a jackass. 

But I think what it shows you is where their priorities are. Everyone wants to get paid. Everyone wants to earn what they deserve. That’s true in every walk of life. But football teams win with unselfish players, who are more concerned about winning than they are about their own interests (whether those interests are related to finances or playing time or putting up more stats or what have you). 

I have no problem with guys like Dunbar and Williams seeking contract extensions. But you can do it behind the scenes, through the appropriate channels, instead of trying to blast it out through the media and making it a public spectacle. When your desire to get paid causes you to do divisive, detrimental things to the team — like demand trades or hold out — you become a problem. Is it a coincidence that three of the most disappointing teams in the league (us, LAC, and JAX) happened to be the ones dealing with high profile players who decided to make it about themselves and not the team?

As for consistency between the two situations, the difference (for me at least) is replaceability. I don’t want Trent on the team anymore, but unfortunately I think we need him. We don’t have a good option for replacing him, and quality play at his position is critical for supporting Haskins’s development. Dunbar is a good CB — but he’s replaceable in FA in particular. Hell, we’ve had to replace him in both of his seasons as a starter anyway. He can’t hold us hostage quite the same way Trent can. 

This is the culture problem right here.  If we treat players different because of their importance then we are failing the culture game.  Weren't we all upset when Dan Snyder picked favorites and gave them special treatment?  But it is ok for Rivera to do it?  This is the wrong way to build a team.  

There is no consistency between these situations.  Trent completely blew this team off and left us in the lurch last year all the way into the start of the season.  I think Dunbar's situation is a lot different and apparently he was in negotiations with us for an extension.

[HTTRDynasty]

Seems like Dunbar is walking his requests/demands back:

 

[e16bball]

12 hours ago, offbyone said:

This is the culture problem right here.  If we treat players different because of their importance then we are failing the culture game.  Weren't we all upset when Dan Snyder picked favorites and gave them special treatment?  But it is ok for Rivera to do it?  This is the wrong way to build a team.  

There is no consistency between these situations.  Trent completely blew this team off and left us in the lurch last year all the way into the start of the season.  I think Dunbar's situation is a lot different and apparently he was in negotiations with us for an extension.

I’m not sure what you’re advocating for here. Pay them both? Trade them both? Release them both? Treat them exactly the same — meaning force Dunbar to sit out the entire season before revisiting his situation once we make a comprehensive regime change — because to do otherwise would be inconsistent?

I take your point. I really do. But every personnel decision is made based on a variety of factors, the most important of which are how good the player is and how important he is to the team. If a camp fodder rookie gets arrested for DUI during training camp, he’s probably getting cut before he gets booked. If Terry McLaurin catches a DUI? They’re finding him some counseling and an 8-hour educational class. In the aftermath of Deflategate, just as one example, the Pats immediately suspended the equipment managers in question — but they fought all the way through federal court to keep that other guy from getting suspended. 

The only mindset they need to be consistent about, in my book, is doing what’s best for the Redskins. What if someone offers a great deal for Dunbar (say, late 1st from the Vikings) but all they get is terrible offers for Trent (say, mid 4th from the Browns)? Should they do both deals, simply so they can’t be accused of disparate treatment? Turn them both down?

There has to be some accounting for individualized circumstances. We need quality LT play to help ensure continued development of our young franchise QB. We don’t have many (or any) good options, that I’m aware of, to replace Trent this offseason. I would love to, if possible, so I’m all ears for suggestions. But unless there’s another good option, cutting ties with Trent would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It’s making the team worse to prove a point, even if it admittedly doesn’t send the best message. But with Dunbar, we’d be more able to facilitate his departure because we simply have some actual replacement options in FA at his position.

NOTE: I started writing this before the news came out about Dunbar claiming he didn’t ask for a trade. If that’s true, and he actually does just want a phone call from the team to tell him where he stands, then I don’t think there’s any need to cut him loose either.