What should they do with RG3

they really need to release Griffin now.

1) give him a chance to sign with another team.

2) everyone is lying on this. clean the cupboard. reset. give folks a chance to recover their character and reputations.

3) they have terminated his future with the Skins. there is no rewind. let him go now.

this is what Gruden wanted. ok. finish it for crying out loud.
 
fansince62 said:
they really need to release Griffin now.

1) give him a chance to sign with another team.

2) everyone is lying on this. clean the cupboard. reset. give folks a chance to recover their character and reputations.

3) they have terminated his future with the Skins. there is no rewind. let him go now.

this is what Gruden wanted. ok. finish it for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

But who do we replace him with ?
Brunell ?
 
fansince62 said:
they really need to release Griffin now.

1) give him a chance to sign with another team.

2) everyone is lying on this. clean the cupboard. reset. give folks a chance to recover their character and reputations.

3) they have terminated his future with the Skins. there is no rewind. let him go now.

this is what Gruden wanted. ok. finish it for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

I thought about this the other day. There is a downside of releasing him. If Griffin goes somewhere and plays this year and plays well, then Gruden will be shown to be the problem. You are correct. There is zero indication it will ever work here. But if he goes somewhere else this year where someone can get the most out of his talents, the coaches here look bad for not making it work and the organization looks worse (if that's even possible at this point) for giving up on him.
 
Kel Varnsen said:
I thought about this the other day. There is a downside of releasing him. If Griffin goes somewhere and plays this year and plays well, then Gruden will be shown to be the problem. You are correct. There is zero indication it will ever work here. But if he goes somewhere else this year where someone can get the most out of his talents, the coaches here look bad for not making it work and the organization looks worse (if that's even possible at this point) for giving up on him.
Click to expand...

I was reading some article today about former name QBs who had large contracts and their teams refused to play them because of similar injury clauses. led to lawsuits.
 
fansince62 said:
I was reading some article today about former name QBs who had large contracts and their teams refused to play them because of similar injury clauses. led to lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Did the QB's win their suits, any precedents set?
 
When the option was picked up, I'm sure they went over "worst case scenarios", and decided, that if it happened that way, they could handle the cap hit. So, keeping him, if that's what happens, has already been factored in.

Knowing that our younger line will struggle at times, it's more than possible that all 3 QB's get playing time this season. Due to injury, if nothing else. All 3 know the system. If the drama can be handled, keeping all 3 is the way to go. hell, now that the spotlight is back on Kirk again, he may piss his pants like he did the last time he was deemed "the man". Up to this point, he's had zero pressure on him. I believe it was part of the plan. Naming Robert the starter earlier, allowed for Kirk, and Colt, to spend their second year in the system with no pressure, or scrutiny. Which neither handled well, last year. Robert has been in the spotlight since he was 11yrs old. They knew he could handle it. And, it gave him the best shot at winning the job. Well, he didn't. maybe getting to spend a season or 2 out of the direct sunlight of 24hr scrutiny, he can develop his pro game, and regain some of his early promise. We'll see.

No doubt, this would be the trickiest route to take. But, as I thought yesterday, at some point, we have to become strong enough to handle these kinds of things. If everyone puts their Big Boy pants on, it can be managed.
 
fansince62 said:
I was reading some article today about former name QBs who had large contracts and their teams refused to play them because of similar injury clauses. led to lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Was this before or after the current CBA? Serious question... I don't know and wonder if there's some vehicle in there for exactly this situation.

Nick
 
I don't see a reason to just cut Griffin at this time unless it was advantageous to do so. Think about it for a second, if you were the GM/ Owner for a team that would like to swoop up Griffin, why would you be willing to give anything for him if you thought you could get him on the waiver wire for free? The capology of the deal is where it gets tricky for the seller and the buyer. Maybe there is a plan to salvage something out of the deal and it might take until the trading deadline to show itself. If that's the case I can see waiting.
 
Cycleans said:
I don't see a reason to just cut Griffin at this time unless it was advantageous to do so. Think about it for a second, if you were the GM/ Owner for a team that would like to swoop up Griffin, why would you be willing to give anything for him if you thought you could get him on the waiver wire for free? The capology of the deal is where it gets tricky for the seller and the buyer. Maybe there is a plan to salvage something out of the deal and it might take until the trading deadline to show itself. If that's the case I can see waiting.
Click to expand...

Speaking as the same GM (McCloughan) would you want to subject your team to dealing with that? Every press conference if Cousin's struggles in the slightest is going to be about if people think Griff should be starting, or if Griff should get snaps with the 1st team. In addition to that, what happens if Griffin dislocates his ankle in practice and needs surgery... that $3.4 mil just turned into $19.4 mil.
 
Cycleans said:
I don't see a reason to just cut Griffin at this time unless it was advantageous to do so. Think about it for a second, if you were the GM/ Owner for a team that would like to swoop up Griffin, why would you be willing to give anything for him if you thought you could get him on the waiver wire for free? The capology of the deal is where it gets tricky for the seller and the buyer. Maybe there is a plan to salvage something out of the deal and it might take until the trading deadline to show itself. If that's the case I can see waiting.
Click to expand...

Biggest reason is to avoid possible distractions. Robert's very presence can be a distraction, whether in the media or other ways. Second biggest is to let him catch on elsewhere. There's no sense in keeping him around now that the team "is Kirk's."

He'll be gone by Spring, anyway, to avoid paying the option year.

Nick
 
I'm giving Scott M. the benefit of doubt...The guy hasn't been with us through one preseason. He's supposedly good at his job...I'm suggesting there has been a plan in place from a "worst case scenario" on Griffin before they extended his contract. The rest is just media bluster. I could be mistaken...maybe they all felt Griffin was a sure thing and just extended the deal...? I'm going to wait and see how this plays out before jumping to conclusions. I can imagine there are some discussions going on with other owners. The concussion protocol is certainly causing some delay. "He needs to be cleared to play before dropping/trading him?"
 
TomE said:
Did the QB's win their suits, any precedents set?
Click to expand...

Steve McNair. Link:McNair visits Titans, doesn't have animosity over parting

...Tennessee wouldn't let McNair work out in its building that spring because it feared an injury would put the franchise on the hook for $23.46 million against the salary cap...An arbitrator who heard the NFL Players Association's grievance ruled that the team violated his contract...
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney and I am sure there are those here that disagree, but being locked out and not being allowed to practice are essentially the same - avoiding payout because of injury. So there is a precedent and the Redskins would be wise not to test it.
 
When did anyone go overboard?(blustery claims that McL was in charge.) I think it was common knowledge that he was hired to be that guy.
tr1 said:
Then, the team needs to quit blustering that McL is in charge...because, obviously, he wasn't...the Danny was.

Again.
Click to expand...
 
tr1 said:
Then, the team needs to quit blustering that McL is in charge...because, obviously, he wasn't...the Danny was.

Again.
Click to expand...
There you go spewing shit you know nothing about, just to take another shot at Snyder.

Again.
 
TomE said:
Did the QB's win their suits, any precedents set?
Click to expand...

can't remember if they settled or not. the gist of it was a labor constraint in which teams were banning players from all activities due to the injury clause - while preventing the player from playing elsewhere. I believe the post is on NFL.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top