OT: The Football Team formerly known as Redskins - Super Bowl 2025 or bust! [2025-26 Offseason Extravaganza Edition]

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Well to be fair there's not a direct correlation there between team success and that stat. Good and bad teams are spread out all over the place and there's no clear pattern.

But god damn, does it ever look bad. And when you're not a team that's loaded up with top-heavy veteran FA contracts, to have that few 1-2nd rounders making the team every year....just bad drafting.

Right, just having starters doesn't make a team good (Bears), but having almost no starters is a real problem. It means to even have a hope of being good, you'll need to tap into a lot of free agency, or bog trades, which is expensive. And this chart specifically says the starters are with the team that drafted them. Some of that may be a cheap owner who won't pay to resign their own, like we used to be. So they draft good players who leave, like we used to do, occasionally. Or it could also just be a team that's always up against the cap and can't really afford to keep all their solid players.

Bottom line, its a new era in DC and Ron's dreadful drafting is a thing of the past. Yay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ynotcaps
Right, just having starters doesn't make a team good (Bears), but having almost no starters is a real problem. It means to even have a hope of being good, you'll need to tap into a lot of free agency, or bog trades, which is expensive. And this chart specifically says the starters are with the team that drafted them. Some of that may be a cheap owner who won't pay to resign their own, like we used to be. So they draft good players who leave, like we used to do, occasionally. Or it could also just be a team that's always up against the cap and can't really afford to keep all their solid players.

Bottom line, its a new era in DC and Ron's dreadful drafting is a thing of the past. Yay.
And the even more shit part of being at the bottom. Alot of the teams we are on the bottom with trade their picks or are good teams always picking in the late 20s.
When the Skins were pretty much always a top 15 pick if not much higher
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave
Interesting info on M. Garrett trade implications from ESPN.com this a.m.:

"What would the Browns need to do to make a Myles Garrett trade work?

Basically just wait. If the Browns ever do get to the point where they decide to trade Garrett, the only way to make it work cap-wise is to do it after June 1. Unlike with a post-June 1 release -- where you can cut the player in March and designate him a post-June 1 release to help defray cap charges -- a trade actually has to happen after June 1 to allow you to split the cap charge over two years. Trading Garrett now would result in a dead money hit of more than $36 million, much higher than the roughly $19.7 million he'd count against the cap if he were on their 2025 roster.

Waiting until after the draft of course means they can't get 2025 draft picks in return for Garrett, but it's hard to see how they can afford to move him, take on $36 million-plus in dead money and operate the rest of their offseason."

If we could get MG and keep our 1st this year, I'd swing from "ambivalent" to "do it." It would put this season more firmly "in the window."
 
They're not trading him. Just because he asked? He'll calm down when he starts missing paychecks if he holds out.
This is the Browns, so anything could happen, but the smart play is to trade him now (this off-season). His trade value will only decrease as he gets older and FA gets closer. Makes no sense to keep him for the next 2 years during which the team has no path to even mediocrity and then lose him to FA for nothing or, worse yet, franchise him and pay an exorbitant sum for the start of his decline. That would stupid beyond belief.

Again, though, they're the Browns, so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bananas
Meh. He’s got a large salary, and gets hurt ALL THE TIME.

I don’t think he will cost much to acquire (draft picks etc), but he’s too expensive IMO.

100% his deal is getting reworked, but yeah, last 3 years, played 9, 12, 12 games…dangerous when he plays though….
 
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave
This is the Browns, so anything could happen, but the smart play is to trade him now (this off-season). His trade value will only decrease as he gets older and FA gets closer. Makes no sense to keep him for the next 2 years during which the team has no path to even mediocrity and then lose him to FA for nothing or, worse yet, franchise him and pay an exorbitant sum for the start of his decline. That would stupid beyond belief.

Again, though, they're the Browns, so...

Per the article, they'll pay $16.3M MORE this year if they trade him before June 1, than they would pay to keep him and either bench him or play him. There's almost no way they can do that even if they wanted to, which they don't. Sure, Garrett could hold out, but he has a pretty big salary to lose if he does. Even the Browns can't be insane enough to release him outright, but again doing so before June 1, costs them $16.3M more than if he plays all year for them.

So, anything that might possibly happen, won't be until June 1st. By then teams, including the Redskins, will have most of their roster and cap space allocated.

Meh. He’s got a large salary, and gets hurt ALL THE TIME.

I don’t think he will cost much to acquire (draft picks etc), but he’s too expensive IMO.

He's been given permission to seek a trade, so he can talk to other teams about what an extension might look like. If no one is interested in trading for him with his current contract, he'll either concede on an extension or the Rams will cut him outright and his contract vaporizes. Either way, Kupp holds little leverage here until he's a free agent.
 

100% his deal is getting reworked, but yeah, last 3 years, played 9, 12, 12 games…dangerous when he plays though….
Umm. He looked totally cooked after the first few games this season.
 
Umm. He looked totally cooked after the first few games this season.
High ankle sprain is the sort of injury that will affect you all year even if you're healthy enough to play. Having said that, I doubt we're interested.

I'm not surprised there are rumors though. Given that the Commies are now a rising team with a clear need at WR, the team will probably be linked to every WR with a pulse between now and next September, even if it's a bald-faced attempt to raise the price (trade in this case or free agency price in the future).
 
Kupp could put up last year's down stats and still have better numbers than everyone on WFT not named Scary Terry. With just 12 games played.

The only exception is Ertz had 1 more TD than Kupp owing to a late season surge.

Kupp on the cheap would be fine. A stud RB added to the mix would make the offense elite and complete.

edit: skill positions, of course. Always looking to upgrade the OL
 
Last edited:
Not really….
And yeah…..season long nagging injury will impact numbers….

Look at the last six games of game log. It’s abysmal for him in comparison to his historical numbers.

If we use the injury excuse, then he’s really missed the majority of the last two seasons. He’s an aging, depreciating asset on steep decline.

If we can get him for cheap? Sure why not. But that’s it. It’s nothing to get excited about. As Kazer says, we’ll be linked to every WR now for clicks.
 
Look at the last six games of game log. It’s abysmal for him in comparison to his historical numbers.

If we use the injury excuse, then he’s really missed the majority of the last two seasons. He’s an aging, depreciating asset on steep decline.

If we can get him for cheap? Sure why not. But that’s it. It’s nothing to get excited about. As Kazer says, we’ll be linked to every WR now for clicks.

He was hurt, but he produced beyond “being cooked after the first few games”.

I certainly would not pony up a lot…

We’re linked to every WR because we have junk beyond TM.
 
I could honestly argue either way (which is lame.. this is a message board and I should take a HARD stance with no research).

The upside of trading for Kupp is (1) weaponizing the Daniels cap space in the short-term (2) potential for a bounce back a la Adam Thielen (clear decline 2019-2022 and then bounced back with a strong 1,000 yard season in 2023) and (3) it'll probably be cheap (like a 5th round pick?).

The downside of Kupp is basically what Bananas already outlined. He's expensive, old, and injury-prone. Maybe worth the risk if other options fall through, but Kupp would not be my first or second choice. It would not surprise me, however, if Adam Peters has at least inquired (medicals/draft cost).
 
The downside of Kupp is basically what Bananas already outlined. He's expensive, old, and injury-prone.

If that's his downside, then there is no upside. If they wanna take a flier on someone like that in free agency, sure. But trading for someone with that baggage seems silly to me.
 
He's 100% not worth it with his current contract and Cap hit, way too much risk for the potential reward. He's played 9, 12 and 12 games since his MVP Triple Crown season in 2021.

As a free agent with no trade cost and a reasonable incentive based contract, sure, why not.
 
Not really….
And yeah…..season long nagging injury will impact numbers….

There are better options though, for that 17m or whatever he’d be owed. I mean better options at WR….not even thinking overall.

I am in the “pass” camp (not a hard pass, more a subtle one 😂).

That said, we did pretty well with some older “washed up” players this past season. So…..

If they could get him for draft scraps (trade a late pick for an even later pick from the Rams), and only had to pay him sub 10m? Then I’d take a swing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ynotcaps
There are better options though, for that 17m or whatever he’d be owed. I mean better options at WR….not even thinking overall.

I am in the “pass” camp (not a hard pass, more a subtle one 😂).

That said, we did pretty well with some older “washed up” players this past season. So…..

If they could get him for draft scraps (trade a late pick for an even later pick from the Rams), and only had to pay him sub 10m? Then I’d take a swing.
Yeah, it could make sense in a pick-swap scenario.

At this stage he's almost entirely a possession receiver, but that's a clear hole for us, so he'd fill a hole.

In message-board-commitment-terms, I'd say the prospect of CK has me at a "fired-up 'eh.'"
 
There are better options though, for that 17m or whatever he’d be owed. I mean better options at WR….not even thinking overall.

I am in the “pass” camp (not a hard pass, more a subtle one 😂).

That said, we did pretty well with some older “washed up” players this past season. So…..

If they could get him for draft scraps (trade a late pick for an even later pick from the Rams), and only had to pay him sub 10m? Then I’d take a swing.
Yeah I don’t know how they rework this to make it palatable…

 
Yeah I don’t know how they rework this to make it palatable…

Well, that moves me to a "firm 'huh.'"
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad