Williams Asks for Extension or Trade

[lavar703]

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

What? That doesn't mean Njoku is terrible, it just means they like Hooper better who may or may not be a better player, Hooper definitely doesn't have the upside that Njoku has. He was injured last year and his injury hurt Baker & the Browns offense a lot.

In 2018 Njoku was pretty good in Baker’s rookie year:

56 recs, 639 yds & 4 TDs

Hooper only had 148 more yards & just 2 more TDs last year then what Njoku had in 2018 and Hooper had better QB play.

The difference between the two isn't that great and Njoku is more athletic with more upside than Hooper.

 

And yet, 2019 happened. 

[lavar703]

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Your definition of terrible pretty much covers every player in the league.

And your definition of good has included players like Will Compton and Stacy McGee. 

[turtle28]

7 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

And yet, 2019 happened. 

Njoku was hurt in 2019. What do you want him to do?

The only reason he wasn’t even better in 2019 then he was in 2018 was bc he was hurt.

You can think whatever you want but you’re wild responses really don’t add up lately at all.

[turtle28]

9 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

And your definition of good has included players like Will Compton and Stacy McGee. 

Right, so the truth is that we’re both wrong on that and it’s somewhere in the middle. I’m sure somewhere along the line I called them good and that they could be upgraded but we needed another position more. As for Compton I routinely said he wasn’t a good athlete but his knowledge of the game was very high and his leadership which helped. 

You probably won’t even agree to that though bc in your opinion the world is on fire.

Edited March 27, 2020 by turtle28

[naptownskinsfan]

6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Not sure if I've already posted this here or not...

My understanding is there have been suitors out there for Trent Williams. The trouble is—and I’ll be very clear about this—almost 100% his contract situation. Last year, word circulated that Williams asked the Redskins for quarterback money. And the Redskins found interest over the last few weeks in Williams, only to have suitors push away from the table when apprised of the seven-time Pro Bowl tackle’s financial demands.

Thing is, asking another team for a first- or second-round pick for a player is a lot. You’re giving up a piece of capital that can bring in a young, top player under cost control for the next four or five years—or maybe multiple players, if you trade for, then move the pick. So the player being dealt for has to be good and really valuable to begin with. But if, then, that player wants to break the bank, too? And if he’s in his 30s? Again, it’s a lot. 

That’s not to say Williams may not have a legitimate beef with the team, or that he isn’t worth more than he’s making. It’s just that if he really wants to be traded, he has to realistic about it, and work with the team here, since he’s under contract. If he’s more worried about making top dollar? Then play the year out, and hit the market next March. It’s that simple. 

This is how the trade value system works.  Someone isn't going to give up a high draft pick, and then have to sign Williams to a massive, $20 million a year extension.  So that's first.  Second, he's older, and may only play another 2-4 years.  Third, his track record for staying healthy isn't great and any team signing him needs to have a quality backup knowing he is going to miss games.  

All of that is going against the Redskins getting value back in a trade.  A team could use said draft pick to have a chance at getting someone else for a cheap, four year rookie contract, and spend elsewhere to find a starting tackle, and have filled multiple needs that way, instead of sending a draft pick or two, and giving a huge extension to someone who is older, and not guaranteed to play every game.  

That's also the other team taking a gamble that they draft a guy who pans out.  That takes a good front office and scouting department, as well as coaches to develop the player.  That also means taking a player that isn't as good as Williams is to start instead at tackle.  That's not saying Trent isn't a great player.  He is, but moving forward, his value only declines- he's a depreciating asset, especially once you sign him to the contract he wants.  And when you are looking at the likelihood of a guy maybe playing two more years for you, but maybe drafting a starter at another position who plays for four years, as well as signing another tackle to a 3-4 year deal that's a league average starter, that's a better idea to the front office, who will still have money left over from not paying Williams a huge extension on the downside of his career. 

Again, that's not saying Trent isn't a great player.  But he has a set value right now that other teams are willing to pay with everything that goes into him, and it's not what we all think it is.  Also, I feel that there isn't a huge market for Williams.  Because he may only play for a few more seasons, his value isn't going to be to a team rebuilding.  The teams that may want him and could pay the most are teams who are playoff-bound and have those aspirations year in and year out.  Heck, they may only want Williams for one year given their salary cap situations- those teams usually have other star players under contract and would find it difficult to give Williams the money he wants.  So that means likely taking a draft pick that ends up being at the lower end of a round, which has less value, which is likely where the third and a player rumor is coming from.  

[naptownskinsfan]

5 hours ago, lavar703 said:

Is having one year of tackle play worth it versus 4 years of another player probably 10+ years younger than Trent? I’ll take the 3rd rounder. 

This is exactly what other NFL teams are working through in their minds.  It also doesn't help that things about his tumor diagnosis aren't adding up, so what kind of player are they really adding to their locker room mix is a thought going through their minds, as well as the injury history, his age and contract demands.  

[naptownskinsfan]

4 hours ago, Skins212689 said:

He's going to Seattle to start not ride the bench. They will ethier resign him or get the same pick We could've acquired had Rivera just let him play this season out. It will be higher than a 5th round pick! 

He's not going to ride the bench, and I hate using the word starter now at a few positions, especially corner, as teams run a lot of nickel packages more than their base defense, and rotate guys around quite a bit.  Just look at how much slot corners are being paid, including Kendall Fuller, and you'll see that teams are valuing that.  

In any case, I've heard from some Seahawks fans that Griffen plays hurt and is usually on the injured list, and similar things about Tre Flowers.  They could also have a trade brewing.  What's really interesting is that they have a lot of height in those three.  Flowers is 6-3, Dunbar 6-2 and Griffin 6-0, and none of them profile as slot guys.  

both Griffin and Dunbar are in the last year of their deals, and I would imagine only one gets extended.  So they are pitted against each other in a sense.  However, comp picks have a very complex formula, and depending on who they sign, it could impact getting something, if anything, for anyone who walks.  It's not like baseball where a player with a Qualifying Offer gets a pick in return, it's very complicated and it will impact the Redskins with who we signed this off-season, even though no one is an elite player.  @e16bball might be able to explain it better.  

[naptownskinsfan]

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

Then why would they even offer Njoku to us? Why not a 3rd and a 5th. The fact that Njoku is mentioned at all should say he has value, to both, the Redskins and Browns. 

There were trade rumors last off-season, when Dorsey was still there, about them trading Njoku.  He would be a pretty good piece to get added to a deal as a reclamation project of sorts.  We also don't know what goes on in the locker room, and whether or not he and Mayfield (or others) got along with him, or vice-versa.  He definitely looks like a change of scenery guy.  

Also, just because they signed Hooper, doesn't necessarily mean they are considering dealing Njoku either.  They could be stockpiling tight ends, and wanting to install a similar offense to when the Patriots had Gronk and Hernandez running together.  

[turtle28]

17 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

He's not going to ride the bench, and I hate using the word starter now at a few positions, especially corner, as teams run a lot of nickel packages more than their base defense, and rotate guys around quite a bit.  Just look at how much slot corners are being paid, including Kendall Fuller, and you'll see that teams are valuing that.  

In any case, I've heard from some Seahawks fans that Griffen plays hurt and is usually on the injured list, and similar things about Tre Flowers.  They could also have a trade brewing.  What's really interesting is that they have a lot of height in those three.  Flowers is 6-3, Dunbar 6-2 and Griffin 6-0, and none of them profile as slot guys.  

both Griffin and Dunbar are in the last year of their deals, and I would imagine only one gets extended.  So they are pitted against each other in a sense.  However, comp picks have a very complex formula, and depending on who they sign, it could impact getting something, if anything, for anyone who walks.  It's not like baseball where a player with a Qualifying Offer gets a pick in return, it's very complicated and it will impact the Redskins with who we signed this off-season, even though no one is an elite player.  @e16bball might be able to explain it better.  

Griffin plays hurt, Flowers plays hurt and Dunbar doesn’t play hurt. Seems like he’ll fit in there.

[naptownskinsfan]

Just now, turtle28 said:

Griffin plays hurt, Flowers plays hurt and Dunbar doesn’t play hurt. Seems like he’ll fit in there.

I know, my joke to those Seattle fans are that by adding Dunbar, they will get two full seasons out of three players.  

[turtle28]

3 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I know, my joke to those Seattle fans are that by adding Dunbar, they will get two full seasons out of three players.  

That’s hilarious! Spot on!

[e16bball]

12 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

However, comp picks have a very complex formula, and depending on who they sign, it could impact getting something, if anything, for anyone who walks.  It's not like baseball where a player with a Qualifying Offer gets a pick in return, it's very complicated and it will impact the Redskins with who we signed this off-season, even though no one is an elite player.  @e16bball might be able to explain it better.  

The best way to visualize it is the way the OverTheCap does their cancellation chart. It is a nice way of demonstrating the manner in which signing players cancels out the picks you would otherwise get for players you lose. 

Check That Out HERE

Scroll down to the Redskins, and you can see that we would have gotten a 4th for Flowers, a 6th for Keenum, and a 7th for McCoy based on the AAV of the contracts they signed. Which is, nowadays, at least primarily how they determine the comp pick value. 

However, you can also see that those are picks are canceled out because we’ve signed as many (or in this case, more) qualifying FAs as we’ve lost. Flowers is canceled out by Fuller (also 4th round value and equal $10M AAV), Keenum is canceled out by Schweitzer (also 6th round value, $6M AAV compared to $4.5M AAV), and McCoy is canceled out by Pierre-Louis (also 7th round value). 

You can also see the three other qualifying FAs that we signed (S. Davis, L. Thomas, C. Latimer). They’re all available to cancel out future losses. That means that even if Chris Thompson, Donald Penn, and Tony Bergstrom were to go out and sign qualifying FA contracts tomorrow, the Redskins still wouldn’t be in line to get a single comp pick.

 

That’s the short, sweet explanation of how the comp pick system works. And, as an aside, I think it also demonstrates why the “quantity over quality” approach to FA is a really poor one on several levels. Filling these holes with below-average veteran FAs not only costs money, it costs you potential draft picks. You could fill those same holes with similar quality by relying on late round picks or waiting for roster cuts. 

[turtle28]

34 minutes ago, e16bball said:

The best way to visualize it is the way the OverTheCap does their cancellation chart. It is a nice way of demonstrating the manner in which signing players cancels out the picks you would otherwise get for players you lose. 

Check That Out HERE

Scroll down to the Redskins, and you can see that we would have gotten a 4th for Flowers, a 6th for Keenum, and a 7th for McCoy based on the AAV of the contracts they signed. Which is, nowadays, at least primarily how they determine the comp pick value. 

However, you can also see that those are picks are canceled out because we’ve signed as many (or in this case, more) qualifying FAs as we’ve lost. Flowers is canceled out by Fuller (also 4th round value and equal $10M AAV), Keenum is canceled out by Schweitzer (also 6th round value, $6M AAV compared to $4.5M AAV), and McCoy is canceled out by Pierre-Louis (also 7th round value). 

You can also see the three other qualifying FAs that we signed (S. Davis, L. Thomas, C. Latimer). They’re all available to cancel out future losses. That means that even if Chris Thompson, Donald Penn, and Tony Bergstrom were to go out and sign qualifying FA contracts tomorrow, the Redskins still wouldn’t be in line to get a single comp pick.

 

That’s the short, sweet explanation of how the comp pick system works. And, as an aside, I think it also demonstrates why the “quantity over quality” approach to FA is a really poor one on several levels. Filling these holes with below-average veteran FAs not only costs money, it costs you potential draft picks. You could fill those same holes with similar quality by relying on late round picks or waiting for roster cuts. 

Or keeping our own free agents right? 

Like we could have kept Chris Thompson instead of signing McKinzzy.

We could have re-signed Tony Bergstrom.

I really think Fuller, Pierre Louis and Thomas Davis are worth their signings even if we lost a comp pick but the rest we could have done w/o and could’ve found late round draft picks, UDFAs or in house candidates that we are developing to replace the players we are losing instead of signing cheap vet FAs and losing this comp picks next year bc of that.

Oh well, can’t change it now. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by turtle28

[turtle28]

 

[Thaiphoon]

13 hours ago, lavar703 said:

Is having one year of tackle play worth it versus 4 years of another player probably 10+ years younger than Trent? I’ll take the 3rd rounder. 

If we can get a 3rd, he's gone.