Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Santana Clause

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogs of war


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 781
Location: Albuquerque, NM
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:07 pm    Post subject: Santana Clause Reply with quote

Interesting view from CZABE
http://www.czabe.com/dailyczabe.shtml
_________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BaBoyz22


Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 236
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:34 pm    Post subject: Mock Reply with quote

Fabulous Article!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e16bball


Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 14993
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

His point is well-taken, but he is apparently unaware of certain facts regarding the Moss situation, or is trying to gloss over them for the purpose of his article. Hmm, I can't believe it would be the latter... Rolling Eyes

Moss was set to be paid 450k this year. Yes, 450k to be a number one receiver in the NFL. To me, that is a contract that deserves to be fluffed up. I'm sure Czaban realizes this, but it wasn't exactly strong support for his article, so it didn't come up. Also, a new contract was implicit in the trade agreement. Why would we acquire a player just to take a chance on him being a free agent next year? The answer is that we would not, and thus the deal was actually probably more beneficial to us than to Moss.

As I said earlier, his point is well-taken, in that the Redskins have continually paid more money to guys who have proved nothing for the team. I don't like it, but it is a function of the value a type of player has for the team. In turn, the Redskins' history of signing outside players while letting internal players leave is a function of the continually changing coaches and schemes. In the cases he mentions, we let Smoot and Pierce go after they succeeded for us, just to bring in Moss who has proved nothing in DC. The reason is that Smoot and Pierce were successful, IMO, because of the system in which they played, especially in the latter case. We had other options at CB, and MLB is simply a position which does not require a superstar in the Williams system, and thus it was not fiscally wise to pay so much money to retain those players. Moss, on the other hand, fits the team's need for speed, so to speak, at WR, and fits Gibbs's system perfectly. Therefore, we paid him a great deal of money, because the speed he brings is vital, and was not really present on the team as it was last year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group