• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Random Commanders Thoughts

I think we win more games in 2023 with Jackson than we do with Howell
I think Jackson makes us a legit preseason contender in 2023… more than just a wildcard berth

I also think signing Jackson would be very shortsided and we'd be setting ourselves up in a bad way. I seriously don't want this front office spending large sums of capital, whether that be money or draft picks, because it's going to hamstring the next regime. Trading away 2 first round picks and giving Jackson the contract effects the team for the next 5-7 years between draft capital and contractual cost. It would mean that, in all likelyhood (because it's more likely you DONT win a Super Bowl than you do) Rivera would be handing the next HC his starting QB, or forcing multiple lean seasons to overcome it if it doesn't work out.

I'm sorry but i would have to pass on Jackson. I don't think he's the missing piece for this team. The roster around him would get worse over the next 2 - 3 seasons because of what you pay him, and I'm not sure he can carry a team to a Super Bowl.
 
Last edited:
He’s also one of those guys who wants to be the highest paid QB in the league (or right up there). I think that crippled your ability to build the roster you need to (per last nights conversation). Hard pass for me.
 
I think Jackson makes us better on paper and early in the year.

I'm not sure Jackson has the upside of Howell in the passing game long-term. I'm not sure he would be the better QB next year if Howell plays this whole season.
 
Another former Panther brought in by Rivera has been shown the door.

 
I don’t think there is much choice but to tag Payne. With Mathis coming off injury and Young still working his way back, just makes sense to keep him here another year until we are more settled. If someone wants to snipe him from us, even better as we can certainly use the extra draft capital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Om
I'd say the decision to tag Payne needs to be associated with expectations. If you think this team is ready to do something and that Howell, Bienemy, etc. will hit the ground running, then tagging Payne and reworking contracts to stress the salary cap is the way to go. If you think next season is going to be a struggle or development year and you don't think you can keep Payne long term then a tag and trade or just letting him go might be better. I mean is there value to keeping Payne if the team has a ceiling of nine wins? If we knew were going to be 8-8-1 would you have paid Wentz 25 million last year?

I'm conflicted as to how good I think Washington can be next year. If the D can not regress and plays at a high level and the O becomes competent and less predictable then I can see us becoming a playoff team. I can also see a Rivera team coming out sluggish and not playing up to expectations only gaining their footing after the midpoint in the season when it's all but too late.
 
I don’t agree because I don’t believe NFL coaches and GMs (who get fired left and right every postseason) think that way. Rivera and his staff’s seats could not be hotter right now. Yes - they have to consider cap ramifications and how badly they need a player at a certain position vs. what they’ll have to pay for him. But they are always trying to max out talent on the field and win games even if it’s short term. Again - just my opinion.

You tag Payne it’s win-win. You either get him for another season at less than he’d probably make on the open market, or you get compensation.
 
It will be interesting for me to see the progression of the offense as the season plays out. With the introduction of a new system and the expected growing pains associated with a young, inexperienced QB, I would anticipate seeing incremental improvement as the year rolls on. Better in December than in September. Which would be a refreshing change from slow start to mid-season semi-competence to late-season implosion.

This is going to take a healthy dose of patience on the part of the fanbase. Not something that it is particularly known for.
 
Yeah, but if he is hitting the cap for $18 million I'm not sure it's win-win. In that case, with current contracts, will have over $60 million tied up in the defensive line.
 
At worst it’s a 1 year rental until you know for sure that a) Mathis is good and b) what Young is still capable of. There are worse ways to spend the available $$.
 
He will be 32 by the time training camp opens this summer. Not sure there is much to see here.
 
Bezos completely denied the ability to even bid on the Redskins

Why?
 
Bezos completely denied the ability to even bid on the Redskins

Why?
Pettiness is the only possible explanation.

It's such a dumb move. I mean even if you're determined never to let the man buy the team let him bid and drive the price. Nothing says you can't accept the second highest bidder. I think this shows you why Washington was the only professional sports franchise in the United States unable to get a sweet heart stadium deal. In fact, we're the only one that wasn't able to get any kind of stadium deal at all.
 
Guessing your referring to the Bezos reports of being "blocked". Personally, a man who owns the WaPo which was an essential marketer of hating on the Redskins and henceforth pushing the change of the name, the thought of him then owning the team makes me vomit in my mouth. As far as letting him drive up the price, what I've read is nobody has crossed the 6 billion threshold the evil midget wants.
 
Guessing your referring to the Bezos reports of being "blocked". Personally, a man who owns the WaPo which was an essential marketer of hating on the Redskins and henceforth pushing the change of the name, the thought of him then owning the team makes me vomit in my mouth. As far as letting him drive up the price, what I've read is nobody has crossed the 6 billion threshold the evil midget wants.
I had this discussion with my dad each of the last 2 weeks. He doesn’t want Bezos owning for many of the same reasons you suggest. I get that. But at the same time, any owner that buys this team and is approved by the league will have most of the same beliefs as Bezos and will push for many of the same things. It’s the cost of ownership in the NFL. Yes, Bezos owned the Post, but the problems at the Post with this team started long before Bezos bought it. He didn’t come in with a directive to go after the team and force a name change. He didn’t stop it either, so there is some criticism of him that is valid. But the problems existed long before he got there.

There is no going back to the Redskins name. I would expect the league would ask that of any potential buyer that they would not go back to the Redskins. So hoping an owner comes in and reverses that won’t happen. What we should want is someone who can put together a competent football organization that will make the team competitive. And off the field will operate with integrity.
 
Guessing your referring to the Bezos reports of being "blocked". Personally, a man who owns the WaPo which was an essential marketer of hating on the Redskins and henceforth pushing the change of the name, the thought of him then owning the team makes me vomit in my mouth. As far as letting him drive up the price, what I've read is nobody has crossed the 6 billion threshold the evil midget wants.

Sorry - but I think you're crazy. The Washington Post has never hated 'the Redskins'. They hated Snyder - and they had every reason to. Snyder all but declared war on the paper - so to the extent there was animosity, it has been mutually expressed and acted upon over the years. The name was going to change eventually guys. If you want to blame the Post for that, go ahead, but whether you or I believe 'Redskins' had racist connotations (and I don't), we simply live in times where if there's even a hint of impropriety around race, sexual or gender identities, or numerous other sensitive areas, there is going to be an outcry and call for action. I'm not a fan of it any more than you all. But it's hardly the sole purview of the Washington Post.

And Bezos wasn't even associated with the Post until 2013 - so there was decades of animosity and open warfare prior to his history with the newspaper. It's true that it was during Bezos tenure as owner that the Post started zeroing in on all of the allegations of organizational dysfunction and impropriety - but 90% of that happened well prior to Bezos coming to town.
 
Never stated the issues with WaPo only started with Bezos, however the vitriol sure as hell ramped up towards the name once he came on board and it was known for years how he covets owning an NFL team. I put nothing past that man in his attempt to get what he wants. I also have previously stated my disdain for Bezos so I openly admit my bias, also I have read nothing that full confirms any of the "blocked" narrative is actually verified and it might be nothing more than a slow news cycle with them trying to find something to talk about. And I know I'm crazy, my Dr. told me so.
 

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

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top