Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 6:30 AM ET, 02/ 3/2011

Haynesworth and Hall may help raise pay for franchised players

By J.I. Halsell
J.I. Halsell

Entering the 2010 uncapped year, the speculation was that teams would use the absence of a salary cap to spend money like never before to acquire players. As it turned out, the absence of a salary floor, the unique rules of the uncapped year, and perhaps, as the NFL Players Association's pending claim contends, collusion among owners, the expected windfalls of the 2010 uncapped year would never fully materialize.

Instead, some clubs, such as the Redskins, used the uncapped year to better manage contracts and lessen the accounting impact on presumed future salary capped years.

In the cases Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall, the Redskins' renegotiation of these contracts resulted in team salary numbers in 2010 of $24.8 million and $18.8 million for Haynesworth and Hall.

Those payouts could provide a substantial financial windfall for Ravens' defensive tackle Haloti Ngata and Bengals cornerback Johnathan Joseph, both of whom stand strong chances of being given the franchise tag by their clubs. In Philadelphia, quarterback Michael Vick also could be franchised this offseason. In analyzing Vick's possible franchising, Brian McIntyre of Mac's Football Blog projects the 2011 franchise tags by position.

Since 2008, the defensive tackle franchise tags have been $6.3 million, $6 million, and $7 million. In 2011, the defensive tackle franchise tag projects to be a whopping $12.7 million, an 81% percent increase over 2010. The franchise tag number for each position represents the average of the top five player salaries at a position for the previous season.

In the case of the 2011 defensive tackle franchise tag, Haynesworth's $24.8 million team salary number, coupled with the team salary numbers of Richard Seymour ($13 million), Shaun Rogers ($9.2 million), Tommie Harris ($8.8 million), and B.J. Raji ($7.9 million) result in an average of $12.7 million.

Historically, the cornerback franchise tag has never exceeded $10 million; in 2011, the it projects to be $14.6 million, a 52% increase over 2010's $9.6 million. Hall's $18.8 million team salary number led all cornerbacks, but the Packers' uncapped leveraging contract extension of Tramon Williams ($15 million team salary) also played a role in the significant increase of the 2011 cornerback franchise tag.

So what does all of this mean? With an uncertain labor future and owners claiming that increased player costs are part of the reason they believe a new collective bargaining agreement is needed, clubs' decisions to preclude players from hitting the open market proves more difficult with the increased cost of the franchise tag.

The irony is that, while many players did not reap the cash benefits of the uncapped year, clubs' leveraging of the uncapped year from an accounting perspective, ultimately will provide a substantial cash windfall for a few franchised players, and could preclude clubs from retaining key free agents.

If they are given the franchise tag, Haloti Ngata and Johnathan Joseph will owe their exceedingly lucrative and guaranteed one-year contracts in part to the efforts of the Redskins.

By J.I. Halsell  | February 3, 2011; 6:30 AM ET
Categories:  Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Washington City Paper responds on conflict with Daniel Snyder
Next: Coin toss: Should they stay or should they go?

Comments

Wow!

Hopefully Bruce Allen can make some good cap moves.

Posted by: iH8dallas | February 3, 2011 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Do hamsters get to vote for the new Insider?

I vote for this guy.

Posted by: Original_etrod | February 3, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

PFT kinda said in passing that we might franchise Santana Moss...I really hope we can get a deal done so it doesn't come to that...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Santana is worth the franchise tag for a year.

Posted by: iH8dallas | February 3, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

On last non-football post for the morning ... any chance we can get the face on the side of the helmet replaced with Dan Snyder's profile? OK to keep the feathers, but no horns please. The Danskins. Awesome.

Posted by: dcsween | February 3, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse

I don't doubt it, ih8...just sayin' I'd rather see us lock him up for 3 years so we don't have to worry about it again next offseason.

Plus, I think he's earned the right to cash in for being one of the precious few playmakers we have on offense. It would be nice to see us pay one of our own guys instead of betting the farm on a guy that made a name for himself in someone else's colors...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse


F Snyder and F Donovan.

Unless you can have money in the negatives, they can't make me more broke than I already am. I'd like to see those bastards try and get blood out of this turnip...

After reading the article in question, it's hard not to co-sign Hess's "boycott $nyder" rants...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 6:46 AM |
-------------

I somehow feel $nyder hasn't in full heard the voice of redskins fans.

all we ask of $nyder is to step aside and let football peeps run the football side of the team. on the business side, pay the electric bill, but don't embarrass your fan base in front of the league and the rest of the world. one thing $nyder has proven to me over the years is money can't buy you happiness, or a winning team.

it's about character and credibility, hiring the right peeps and staying the course. for over a decade, $nyder hasn't accomplished any of these, and it's more than getting old with anyone that bleeds burgundy and gold


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

.....Haloti Ngata and Johnathan Joseph will owe their exceedingly lucrative and guaranteed one-year contracts in part to the efforts of the Redskins.

Washington Redskin Financial Management: the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Amen hess

Posted by: westjr88 | February 3, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

it's about character and credibility...

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 7:35 AM

Unless your name is Belichick, NFL coach of the year. What it's about, hessone, is winning. Except when it's about $nyder or $aving the whale$.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Read the article DIMM-WITTS!!! The Redskins are using the current CBA contract negotiations to re-structure deals that make more fiscal sense. What is wrong with you doomsdayers?? We got Bruce Allen in here and Mike Shanahan, AND Snyder has been SQUEAKY clean as far as football decisions since. You have to give this some time. You are acting like my 4-year old waiting for his breakfast. Hall and Haynesworth were both signed BEFORE this regime, so you B1tching about it is POINTLESS! If I was Snyder, I would sue all of you for pointless, poorly aimed negativity bordering on idocy.

Posted by: wewbank1 | February 3, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Haloti Ngata and Johnathan Joseph


Advice to NFLPA: these two players--and Mike Vick--are excellent reasons why you should concede every point to the Owners, provided they do away with Franchise Tagging.

Franchise Tagging essentially allows a team to block a player from offering his services to the highest bidder--and that point of it is antithetical to the concept of Free Agency.

If Ngata, Vick, Joseph hit the open market, they would well in excess of the amount they'd get from getting F-tagged.

So let the owners put in a cap, and take what they want to share from other revenue streams.

But demand the right to be allowed to leave a team to earn money when the contract is up: the player would make his money that way and the movement would allow people to leave what they might feel are highly negative, non-competitive atmospheres.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

idiocy

Posted by: wewbank1 | February 3, 2011 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Moe, I hear ya dude...but there's no chance these guys would be making $15 million in one season without the franchise tag. The only downside they have in being tagged is the lack of long term security. Otherwise, I fail to see the problem in being paid like the top 5 or 10 players at my position for a year in a system I already know...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

If I was Snyder, I would sue all of you for pointless, poorly aimed negativity bordering on idocy.

Posted by: wewbank1 | February 3, 2011 8:04 AM

If I were Snyder I would draw devil horns on their pictures.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

The time has come to get serious about getting rid of this embarrassing caricature of a owner. I can't even defend this once proud franchise anymore. Lose the tickets, the tee shirts, the affinity card, the jerseys, the hot dogs, the $35 parking.

Mike Shanahan is NOT going to the Super Bowl (or even the NFC championship game) anyway.

Posted by: Pepper5 | February 3, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I fail to see the problem in being paid like the top 5 or 10 players at my position for a year in a system I already know...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 8:08 AM

The downside is the injury risk. They want the new contract with the signing bonus and the guaranteed money which would be a lot more than the $15 million that the team will pay them for the year. If they get seriously injured then they lose a lot.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

PFT kinda said in passing that we might franchise Santana Moss...I really hope we can get a deal done so it doesn't come to that...

Posted by: brownwood26 |

If it's not too late, I say Franchise Jeff George.

Posted by: TheCork | February 3, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

The time has come to get serious about getting rid of this embarrassing caricature of a owner.

Posted by: Pepper5 | February 3, 2011 8:10 AM

Can you tell us which fan base has been successful in "getting rid of its owner"? You know, he bought the team. He wasn't elected.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

If I was Snyder, I would sue all of you for pointless, poorly aimed negativity bordering on idocy.

Posted by: wewbank1

If I were you, I'd pay more attention in English class and remedial spelling.

Also, if I were a rich man, yadda yedda yadda heya hoo.

Posted by: TheCork | February 3, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

why did we ever let APierce get away......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 8:20 AM | Report abuse

beep-beep

They want the new contract with the signing bonus and the guaranteed money which would be a lot more than the $15 million that the team will pay them for the year.


Thanks, beep.

If the owners-players agree to an NBA-style slotted rookie salary scale, then the players should ask for the removal of the F-Tag.

A guy like Ngata would be seriously paid given the prevalence of 3-4 defenses and the need for dominating interior lineman.

Ngata is worth the money Haynesworth hasn't earned, but under the present system, he can't get it as the ravens can block him from selling his services in the open market...

...which is a very salient point if I run the NFLPA.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The downside is the injury risk. They want the new contract with the signing bonus and the guaranteed money which would be a lot more than the $15 million that the team will pay them for the year. If they get seriously injured then they lose a lot.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:12 AM

I get that...but if you can't live off $15 million in one year, then there's no such thing as financial security for that player anyway.

Granted, I'm not a player...but it seems fair for both sides, IMO. The player gets paid like an elite player for a year and the team doesn't have to sink many more long-term millions into a guy they're obviously not sure about. I mean, how fair is it if that same player gets hurt and the team is on the hook for 3 times as much money simply because of a long-term contract?

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

...which is a very salient point if I run the NFLPA.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:21 AM

If you run the NFLPA you represent -- what? 2200 active players, plus or minus? Of the 2200, only 10 or 12 get the franchise tag, and those 10 or 12 are the richest. That's why you won't go to the mat in bargaining for these guys, just like you won't go to the mat bargaining for the 15 or 20 rookies who will be hurt by a rookie salary scale.

The franchise tag is a legitimate concern, but it's not a deal-breaker like the 18-game schedule is.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

beantown

why did we ever let APierce get away


All snarkiness aside, Chris Clemons and the 11 sacks he got for the Seahawks this past season is the one we should be asked about.

Clemons essentially was a special teamer for us.

And his performance, again, makes you wonder if we might have some other young linebacker, de-end type ridin' the pine when field time is what he truly needs.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Mike Shanahan is NOT going to the Super Bowl (or even the NFC championship game) anyway.

Posted by: Pepper5 | February 3, 2011 8:10 AM

That's the spirit!

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Going on two days now and no one is defending the indefensible. I'm really starting to worry about Barno.

Posted by: mack1 | February 3, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse


The time has come to get serious about getting rid of this embarrassing caricature of a owner.

Posted by: Pepper5 | February 3, 2011 8:10 AM

Can you tell us which fan base has been successful in "getting rid of its owner"? You know, he bought the team. He wasn't elected.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

It's the NFL management committee who needs to do that. It ain't likely. The only recourse to fans is a financial boycott. That, or get in the streets ala EGYPT.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 3, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Ngata is worth the money Haynesworth hasn't earned, but under the present system, he can't get it as the ravens can block him from selling his services in the open market...

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:21 AM


To be fair, based on the Ravens' track record and the player involved, I'd think that in a normal year (i.e.-one not dominated by labor unrest) a deal with Ngata would already be done and the franchise talk would be non-existent. Because of the uncapped year, there's more UFAs than in years past and since teams can't realistically be asked to re-sign 10-20 UFAs before the start of the new league year, the franchise tag will get more use than it would normally. Just another by-product of the lack of a CBA, IMO...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I get that...but if you can't live off $15 million in one year, then there's no such thing as financial security for that player anyway.

Granted, I'm not a player...but it seems fair for both sides, IMO. The player gets paid like an elite player for a year and the team doesn't have to sink many more long-term millions into a guy they're obviously not sure about. I mean, how fair is it if that same player gets hurt and the team is on the hook for 3 times as much money simply because of a long-term contract?

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 8:27 AM

You're a piece of work. First you say "I can't see the downside." Then when I explain the downside you respond with "Okay, it's a downside, but why can't they live on $15 million?" and turn the argument to fairness.

In terms of fairness, is it fair that one team can sign them for $15 million and prevent them from going to another team that would pay them $30 million plus in guaranteed money?

Anyway, fairness is irrelevant here. It's a negotiated contract between a union and its employer. The union caved on the interests of a few players for the benefit of the others. The franchise tag was a concession by the union in order to get something else -- who knows what, perhaps free agency itself -- for the other players.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

So the current CBA covers franchise tags for 2011? If there's no season, does that cover 2012, or would teams just be tossing money after players who won't play?

Posted by: WorstSeat | February 3, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The franchise tag is a legitimate concern, but it's not a deal-breaker like the 18-game schedule is.


You're right about the 18 game season as the owners I've heard speak oon the concpet shy away from the idea of paying more for more play.

The 18 game season makes sense to everyone, but the idea bifurcates into two opposing portions: player injury issues/concerns and pay for play.

The irony?: in the fight to add 2 games to the season, next Fall the owners mmight be faced with a shortened season.

I side with the players on this one: pay for extra play and let me hit the market to freely earn as much as I want, I didn't ask my team to draft me, and they shouldn't be able to block me from moving to where I want to go.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Players feel the franchise tag is a slap in the face. They want the long-term deal with a large guarantee rather than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for one year.

Word has it that the Redskins will apply their franchise tag on Roydell Williams unless they can hammer out a long-term deal as soon as the new CBA signed.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 3, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

...but if you can't live off $15 million in one year...

Charlie Sheen is proof that some people might not be able to.

A hooker says Sheen spent $500,000 on coke and coochie over the past couple of months.

Why?: she says she told him, "If you want to play, you gotta pay."

Half a mil is a lotta playing around.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I didn't ask my team to draft me, and they shouldn't be able to block me from moving to where I want to go.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse


But the player did ask to be part of the drafting process, and they know what that entails.

Which makes me wonder...

If they impose a rookie salary scale for the draft, what's to prevent someone like Andrew Luck from deciding NOT to enter the draft next year, and simply begin to market himself as a free agent?

He would have the freedom to bargain with any team he wants for his services.

I wonder if something in the CBA can prevent this from happening, but I doubt it.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm guessing Chuck Sheen made well over Alberts entire contract last year.

Interesting that 2 of the 5 franchised players last season were placekickers.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I just can't understand why are they

entertaining the idea of a 18 game schedule

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 3, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

NFL senior vice president and general counsel Peter Rucco, who is one of the league's in-house CBA wonks, said today that the league has told teams they can apply the tags in a 14-day window beginning Feb. 10.

It's safe to say these teams will use that luxury with these players:

Ravens: Ngata, Eagles: Vick, Patriots: Logan Mankins, Bengals: Johnathan Joseph

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 3, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Word has it that the Redskins will apply their franchise tag on Roydell Williams unless they can hammer out a long-term deal as soon as the new CBA signed.


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 3, 2011 8:54 AM

LOL...then what will we do with Byron Westbrook?

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

what's to prevent someone like Andrew Luck from deciding NOT to enter the draft next year, and simply begin to market himself as a free agent?

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 8:57 AM |

Because the owners agree among themselves not to hire him. That's why they have the anti-trust exemption -- so they can act as a monopoly and not compete among themselves for players. You enter the league through the draft or you don't enter the league.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I just can't understand why are they

entertaining the idea of a 18 game schedule

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 3, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

More regular season games = more eyeballs on the TV = more revenue from TV ads = more lucrative contracts w/ TV networks.

More regular season games = more butts in stadium = more concessions being purchased = more $$ in the owners pockets

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Wow, they somehow found a way to get another story about Fat Al Haynesworth in even with all the juicy news about how simpleton of an owner we have.

Posted by: Devo2 | February 3, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Where are you watching The Game?
By Washington Post editors

The Maryland vs Duke game?

The Comcast Center.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 2, 2011 8:43 AM


How did that work out? Did you get a good parking space? Did you stay 'til the end or leave at halftime? I heard that the Blue Devils drew devil horns on the Merryland team. Maybe you can sue.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

If Egyptians can use Facebook and Twitter to organize a impromptu revolt on it's government, why can't we use Facebook, Twitter, and now the Post to influence the minority owners into forcing Synder aside. One the grounds of incompetence and fiduciary irresponsibility.

I don't know...stranger things could happen. You know...like the Redskins winning a Superbowl in the near future.

Posted by: Devo2 | February 3, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I heard that the Blue Devils drew devil horns on the Merryland team. Maybe you can sue.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:09 AM

Might be difficult comparing a 3rd grade drawing to the holocaust in court. What hurts my chances even more is that I'm Irish..

As for Duke: They were lights out from 3 and MD just refused to defend the perimeter.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 3, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

More regular season games = more eyeballs on the TV = more revenue from TV ads = more lucrative contracts w/ TV networks.

More regular season games = more butts in stadium = more concessions being purchased = more $$ in the owners pockets

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:08 AM


I agree with you 100% but i just can not see the players agreeing to that so I hate to say it but it may be a shortened season coming up

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 3, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

That's why you won't go to the mat in bargaining for these guys, just like you won't go to the mat bargaining for the 15 or 20 rookies who will be hurt by a rookie salary scale.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:27 AM

The NFLPA should welcome a rookie salary scale because it would leave a larger percentage of a team's salary cap number for veterans. A lot of guys get squeezed out of a year or two at the end of their careers...or are forced to go somewhere else and settle for the scraps some team has left under the cap.
A kid who has never played a down in the NFL shouldn't have $40 million guaranteed money at the expense of the 6 or 7 year vet who is still productive.
I know that the best players available can still find work...somewhere. But when there is a cap...huge guaranteed money for rookies leaves less for the vets. If the system made the back half of your career the time to get paid, we'd see even more motivated younger players...and better football.

Posted by: MColeman51 | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 8:57 AM |

Because the owners agree among themselves not to hire him. That's why they have the anti-trust exemption -- so they can act as a monopoly and not compete among themselves for players. You enter the league through the draft or you don't enter the league.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Sure, that would be the only safeguard against something like that.

But I was thinking more along the lines of whether there is something that can be legally binding in an agreement to prevent that - as opposed to a "gentleman's agreement" between owners.

Right now the top players wouldn't do it b/c the salaries for rookies drafted high in the draft are robust, and it's an incentive for the best prospects to not only join the draft process, but really sell themselves out to the process.

If that financial incentive is limited (and by how much), I wonder how many top prospects might spend a year with a UFL team under the tutelage of some ex-NFL coaches, and then start negotiating as a free agent when they are "one and done".

If enough good prospects go that route, I can't imagine the NFL black-balling them indefinitely.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I think that the owners' argument in the pay for play debate is that, since there will be 2 fewer preseason games, the players are not playing more games than they are now, just more meaningful games.

This argument is bs but lots of bs arguments have worked before.

Posted by: Original_etrod | February 3, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

dies, if Mankins gets tagged, that will be U-G-L-Y, he and BKraft already don't like/trust/hate each other over how he's been treated.....he wont show up for the first half of the season i'd bet...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:08 AM


I agree with you 100% but i just can not see the players agreeing to that so I hate to say it but it may be a shortened season coming up

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 3, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse


Well, the players aren't agreeing to it right now; but it's another bargaining point that's been put on the table. They can concede an 18 game schedule if it means getting something back on a different issue such as extending/increasing retirement benefits or raising salaries altogether.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

PFT kinda said in passing that we might franchise Santana Moss...I really hope we can get a deal done so it doesn't come to that...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 7:08 AM | Report abuse

I reallly hope we resign SM, but I don't think we should franchise him. I was unable to get to the referenced site to see what WR franchise tag would be. But if we are going to pay that kind of money, it should be done on a younger UFA.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 3, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

But I was thinking more along the lines of whether there is something that can be legally binding in an agreement to prevent that - as opposed to a "gentleman's agreement" between owners.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM

The NFL League Rules are not "gentlemen's agreements." They are binding rules that are enforceable in court. You don't become an owner without signing on to the League Rules.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

dies, if Mankins gets tagged, that will be U-G-L-Y, he and BKraft already don't like/trust/hate each other over how he's been treated.....he wont show up for the first half of the season i'd bet...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 9:21 AM

Don't worry...Snyder will get Kraft off the hook by giving up 3 1st rounders for Mankins. Crisis averted.

Damn, that Snyder column put me in a bad mood...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 9:33 AM | Report abuse


what good are the nfl record books if the nfl moves to an 18 game regular season ? can one really validate breaking a record that was set during a 14 game regular season in an 18 game season ?


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

What we are seeing here with the inflated franchise tag #'s is likely the result of a half-cocked plan to take over the NFL...a plan hatched in earnest after the 2007 season by Cerrato and Snyder.

Follow me here...

Vinny walks into Snyder's office with a single sheet of paper...no actually make that a cocktail napkin.

On this napkin are 24 number representing the highest paid player at each position in the NFL.

Vinny then describes a scenario in which the Redskins will systematically drive up the average salary by position by an average of 500% over the next 24 months.

He says..."Dan, ya know, even if we don't end up signing all the top guys, they will see their franchise tag prices go through the roof...so when the rest of the team can't afford to sign them anymore... we can step in and have our way..."

Snyder cuts in- "And they we have ME to thank for driving up their contracts! ME...ME...MEEEEEEEE!"

"yes Dan, they will have you to thank, and when TEN can;t afford to franchise Albert Haynesworth, he will see why that happened and bring his talents to Landover."

"Brilliant Vinny boy...BRILLIANT! Now all we need is a paper tiger to hold down the HC spot...a real rube...someone we can really have our way with...any ideas?"


Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

You're right about the 18 game season as the owners I've heard speak oon the concpet shy away from the idea of paying more for more play.

The 18 game season makes sense to everyone, but the idea bifurcates into two opposing portions: player injury issues/concerns and pay for play.

The irony?: in the fight to add 2 games to the season, next Fall the owners mmight be faced with a shortened season.

I side with the players on this one: pay for extra play and let me hit the market to freely earn as much as I want, I didn't ask my team to draft me, and they shouldn't be able to block me from moving to where I want to go.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I understand the injury issue as related to the 18-game schedule. But why not negotiate for 2 other factors relating to the 18 game schedule.

1. add extra players to the roster, and to the active list...say, make the 7 players on the practice squad be available to be active, and increase active list from 45 to 50 for each game.

2. In addition to the bye-week, require each player on roster to have at least one week where they are not active.

This would spread the playing time around a little bit more, adn give players a little extra time off during the season for their bumps and bruises to heal.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 3, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I love how Snyder claims that the WCP is anti-Semitic because of the horns that were drawn on him, making him look like the devil.

You know, they also drew a mustache with a pointy chin-beard/goatee so it seems they are also anti-pirate. Maybe Captain Morgan rum can get in on that legal action too!

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM

The NFL League Rules are not "gentlemen's agreements." They are binding rules that are enforceable in court. You don't become an owner without signing on to the League Rules.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse


OK. So does that mean that the NFL League Rules prevent teams from signing any UFAs off the street?

That happens right now.

THere are plenty of guys who have found their way into the league without going through the draft process. What kind of rule could be fashioned that says a team could not negotiate with one guy but could negotiate with this other guy in the same fashion.

Antonio Gates did not enter the draft - he didn't even play college football.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

2. In addition to the bye-week, require each player on roster to have at least one week where they are not active.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 3, 2011 9:41 AM

The fantasy football gods are not going to like this!

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

frediefritz | February 3, 2011 9:41 AM


So you abolish the practice squad and allow teams to dress all players on game days.

Every player then can play which means you can 'rest' valuable players and increase your in-game rotation at o-line/d-line.

Too, a 63 man roster on game day means fewer regular players are special teamers: another advantage.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Antonio Gates did not enter the draft - he didn't even play college football.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM

And don't forget, Marky Mark made the Eagles squad off the street.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

But I thought a part of the CBA is to have the franchise tag option removed. Therefore this may be a mute point.

Posted by: hammer4 | February 3, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

You guys need look no further than the labor dispute to answer your own questions about UFAs etc.

The league and the players union operate under an agreed upon set of rules. These rules include guidelines for free agency, salary caps, contract parameters, drafts, everything.

A UFA in the street can be signed by any team, but once he is, he is a part of that labor agreement and part of the union.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

WCP is anti-Semitic

Hollering racism does and does not work if:

--you're a black dude who has been caught in some white folk's car and you don't kow them

--you're a Mexican undocumented worker caught with a bale of ganja in the trunk of your Pinto

--you're an old German dude caught modeling your old SS uniform by a young Jewish kid who hopes to buy the Washington Redskins one day

--you're an Ivy league grad banker caught embellizing funds from the local African American Scholarship fund

--you've just killed your blonde wife and you're an NFL HOF'er

...oooops, that one has worked before.

Cross that one off the list, please.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse

mute point.

Posted by: hammer4 | February 3, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Moot. Sorry, can't help it.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

As a life long Redskins fan, I am finding it harder to root for my team because of the thin skinned moron that owns them. He is using his billions to try to ruin a free newspaper and the writer. Even if Snyder looses the case, he will force this writer and the paper to spend piles of money they don't have. I wish the paper had just blacked in some of Snyder's teeth and put a monocle on him instead of drawing the horns and goatee. Perhaps the Redskins have been in crisis since Snyder bought them because of Karma??

Posted by: RedskinJim1 | February 3, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The NFLPA should welcome a rookie salary scale because it would leave a larger percentage of a team's salary cap number for veterans. A lot of guys get squeezed out of a year or two at the end of their careers...or are forced to go somewhere else and settle for the scraps some team has left under the cap.
A kid who has never played a down in the NFL shouldn't have $40 million guaranteed money at the expense of the 6 or 7 year vet who is still productive.
I know that the best players available can still find work...somewhere. But when there is a cap...huge guaranteed money for rookies leaves less for the vets. If the system made the back half of your career the time to get paid, we'd see even more motivated younger players...and better football.

Posted by: MColeman51 | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I agree, MC51. Give the rookies a base salary based on where they are selected, and let them earn bonuses for playing time and various standards, such as receptions or # of plays in season, or some other performance standards. That would allow Luck to get a huge salary if he is playing right away. But it would also keep JRussell from getting a huge contract and doing nothing.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 3, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The NFLPA should welcome a rookie salary scale because it would leave a larger percentage of a team's salary cap number for veterans.

Posted by: MColeman51 | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse


Salary scale is one of the few things that owners and NFLPA agree upon in principle.

The NFLPA will accept a salary scale, and the owners will agree to up their contribution to retired players pension.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Antonio Gates did not enter the draft - he didn't even play college football.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM

Not sure what you mean by "enter the draft." Antonio Gates was draft eligible in 2003. Any team in the league could have drafted him. When none of them drafted him, he was an unrestricted free agent and was free to sign with any team.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

You guys need look no further than the labor dispute to answer your own questions about UFAs etc.

The league and the players union operate under an agreed upon set of rules. These rules include guidelines for free agency, salary caps, contract parameters, drafts, everything.

A UFA in the street can be signed by any team, but once he is, he is a part of that labor agreement and part of the union.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse


I understand that.

The scenario I threw out was this:

In the next CBA there is some kind of salary scale in place for draft picks limiting the contract amount that a high pick can get - i.e. no more $50mill contracts for the Sam Bradfords of the world.

So Andrew Luck decides he does not want to enter the draft. He's going to hit the street and start negotiating with teams on his own as a free agent, because it allows him to control the negotiations, bargain with teams of his choice and possible bargain a better contract than what he'd get as part of the salary scale for the drafted players.

What is to prevent a scenario like that from happening?

Beep said that the owners would not negotiate with the guy b/c he circumvented the draft; and this is by NFL Rule.

I'm saying that the owners could form some kind of gentleman's agreement not to negotiate with the guy, but I don't see a rule that could be fashioned b/c that would basically mean teams are not allowed to negotiate with any UFA.

Right now, prospects don't do this b/c they have incentive to enter the draft and get drafted high b/c the contracts are so robust. But if a salary scale mitigates that incentive, then what would prevent Andrew Luck - or some other prospect - from simply hitting the street as a FA or spending a year in the UFL first and then negotiating outside of the salary scale?

How do you create a rule that says "you can't negotiate with ANdrew Luck, but you can negotiate with these other FAs off the street"?

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Somewhere Mel Gibson threw up reading about that lawsuit.

Posted by: ToddStinkston | February 3, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

A financial boycott of the team is the only way to rid this town of the worst owner in all of football. Stop going to the games. Stop buying the merchandise. Stop paying for parking. Mr. Snyder has already proved he can bankrupt a company and has made seriously bad investments. I would say eventually he will run the rest of the fans off and go broke trying to keep the team afloat.

I say we speed up the process and start the boycott now.

Posted by: jmurray019 | February 3, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

My answer is the same. The "NFL Entry Draft" is part of the labor agreement.

If Luck just said "I'm not entering" it does not matter....he would still get drafted and his rights would be owned by the team that drafted him pursuant to the Labor agreement. So he could not play or sign with any other team in the NFL...he could go to Canada though.

If , after 1 year he did not sign, his rights would go back to the draft...rinse and repeat.


Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Nice, meaningful post for a change. Which brings us to "Who should the Redskins franchise tag this year?" I would have said Rogers until I saw the cost for a CB. Now I say franchise Moss and resign Rogers.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm with you jmurray, I simply REFUSE to be part of the problem, no longer will I be paying to park, nor will I be purchasing beer upon entering the stadium....the revolution has BEGUN!!!

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

A financial boycott of the team is the only way to rid this town of the worst owner in all of football. Stop going to the games. Stop buying the merchandise. Stop paying for parking. Mr. Snyder has already proved he can bankrupt a company and has made seriously bad investments. I would say eventually he will run the rest of the fans off and go broke trying to keep the team afloat.

I say we speed up the process and start the boycott now.

Posted by: jmurray019 | February 3, 2011 10:25 AM |

You people clamoring for Snyder's ouster are flat retarded. You will have a better shot at lobbying potheads to boycott the Grateful Dead than you will getting real Washington fans to boycott their team.

This is a Steinbrenner situation. This is a Castro situation. You may as well get comfortable because Danny won't be dead for a long time and he's still making truckloads of caishe.

Oh yeah, what do DeadHeads say when they run out of weed?

"This music sucks."

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | February 3, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Salary scale is one of the few things that owners and NFLPA agree upon in principle.


A salary scale is of more value to the owners than the players.

But once an elite guy ends his first contract, how does he get paid if he is hamstrung by Franchise Tagging?

So the players should buy into the idea only if they have a way to earn at the end of their first contract: and that's why I'd want the F-Tagging to come to an end.

Limiting rookie money effects how much a superior guy earns on the front end, so players should argue for the right to earn as much as possible once they prove they are of value.

Franchise tagging is a concept that runs against the free enterprise ideal of Free Agency.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

So you abolish the practice squad and allow teams to dress all players on game days.

Every player then can play which means you can 'rest' valuable players and increase your in-game rotation at o-line/d-line.

Too, a 63 man roster on game day means fewer regular players are special teamers: another advantage.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Sort of. We now have 53-man roster, but only 45 are active on any day. I would increase roster to 60(53 + 7 practice squad), and make only a portion of them active on any game day. I proposed 50 active, but that could move around. During season, every player on roster has to be inactive at least one game. Staff can move those players around, based on players that are injured or recovering from injury. But, yes, more active players mean fewer hits per game for everyone on roster. And every player would have at least 2 weeks of per season(bye week, plus one week on inactive list).

Posted by: frediefritz | February 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

If boycotting means I can still watch all the games on television, goto a game or two each season (eat and drink in the parking lot of course) and buy a new jersey at wholesale every 2 to 3 years...I'm in.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

p1funk--

This is why you can't sneak around the NFL draft. This is from the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article XVI, Section 2:


"(d) No player shall be eligible to be employed by an NFL Club until
he has been eligible for selection in an NFL Draft."

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Franchise tagging is a concept that runs against the free enterprise ideal of Free Agency.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I don't know moe...it seems like the tag #'s are getting so high that it would not be all that bad to get hit with it anymore....even more so if the trend continues.

I mean...$13 mil guaranteed for a 1 year deal...It seems like a fair compromise for a delay hitting the market.

I hear what you are saying though.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

so the Skins were basically the sheet the 1st 10 years or so in Washington.

they sucked, really sucked the next 20 years or so

then they were really, really good for the next 20 years or so

and the last 20 years or so they have really sucked.

so what i'm saying is, that we are the end of a 20 year sheety era and that the tides are turning in our favor

i'm telling you, just look at the history of the Redskins, we are actually going to be good here soon, it's the flow of nature, it's going to happen soon, it's in the cards,

i cant sit here and tell you why, it just is

SB33 and ST21

HAIL

Posted by: retroskins14 | February 3, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 9:45 AM

Not sure what you mean by "enter the draft." Antonio Gates was draft eligible in 2003. Any team in the league could have drafted him. When none of them drafted him, he was an unrestricted free agent and was free to sign with any team.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse


I'm pretty sure that "draft eligible" is different from actually entering the draft.

You are "draft eligible" if you are 3 years removed from high school, but that does not mean you necessarily enter the draft.

For instance, Andrew Luck is "draft eligible" this year. He could enter the draft, but he chose not to. Now that the deadline has passed, I'm not sure he can. That doesn't mean a team could draft his rights.

Antonio Gates wasn't even considered in the draft, I think. He scheduled a workout and about 19-20 teams showed up and the CHargers immediately offered him a contract. But the specifics of Gates' scenario isn't the point.

Put it this way:

What's preventing Andrew Luck from finishing his senior year. Deciding NOT to enter himself into the NFL draft. Signing for a year with a UFL team that is emplying an ex-NFL QB coach. Spending a year there. Then hitting the FA market the following year and negotiating his own terms with a team of his choosing?

Are there rules in place to prevent this from happening?

It hasn't been an issue b/c prospects have WANTED to enter the draft.


Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

A financial boycott of the team is the only way to rid this town of the worst owner in all of football.

Posted by: jmurray019 | February 3, 2011 10:25 AM |

He'll never be the worst owner until someone drives a stake through Al Davis's heart.

Can someone please name one sports team where the owner has sold the team in response to a boycott?

A successful "boycott" would simply result in renaming the team: Los Angeles Redskins.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Are there rules in place to prevent this from happening?

It hasn't been an issue b/c prospects have WANTED to enter the draft.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:43 AM

Yes. I posted the reference above @ 10:39:

"(d) No player shall be eligible to be employed by an NFL Club until
he has been eligible for selection in an NFL Draft."

Now drop it.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

What is to prevent a scenario like that from happening?

Because some team would draft him regardless of his desire to "enter" the draft or not, he still has draft eligibility. That team would then own his rights. I was eligible for the draft when I graduated. I was not drafted because I'm not a football player and have no identifiable talent.

Posted by: wireman65 | February 3, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

A successful "boycott" would simply result in renaming the team: Los Angeles Redskins.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM

And a lot more 4pm games. I prefer 1pm games.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

For the 3rd time ;)

If he were done with his college eligibility, he WOULD BE DRAFTED NO MATTER IF HE SAID HE WOULD NOT PLAY.

He would continue to be drafted every year until the league gave up on ever signing or trading him to the team he wanted to play for.

Every time he was drafted his rights would belong to that team, so your scenario would be technically feasible if he held out for 5 years and the league gave up on him and stopped drafting him....then he'd be able to sign where he wants.

Of course, we might as well start theorizing about what would happen if Unicorns started falling from the sky with rainbow necklaces on and midgets riding them.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

p1funk--

This is why you can't sneak around the NFL draft. This is from the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article XVI, Section 2:


"(d) No player shall be eligible to be employed by an NFL Club until
he has been eligible for selection in an NFL Draft."

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse


Right. I guess my question has to do with the definition of "draft eligible".

Does that mean you had fit all the criteria to have entered the draft if you wanted?

Or does it mean that you actually enter the draft?

I think that was put in place to prevent teams from offering contracts to guys out of high-school and creating farm systems (the way they do in European soccer leagues).

I wonder if Maurice CLarett's case hashed some of that out, because that was the opposite scenario - he WANTED to enter the draft, but was not "eligible" because he was not 3 years removed from high school.

Posted by: p1funk | February 3, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

....it seems like the tag #'s are getting so high that it would not be all that bad to get hit with it anymore....

Would youwant to be franchise tagged and remain, say, a bengal/panther/brown, or a free agent who can be, say, a packer/patriot/steeler who makes less money, but experiences more winning?

I'd want money and winning, not a lot of money and losing.

Unless, of course, I was a loser myself.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Funk...

I believe you are draft eligible if:

1.You have exhausted your college eligibility and are alive.

b. You are the required years from high school graduation or age mandated by the league drafting you and notify that league in writing of your intention to enter the draft, and are alive.

Further, if you are not draft eligible, that means you are not eligible to enter the league that year under any circumstance.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Haynesworth and Hall may help raise pay for franchised players

Typical old news RI post. Dudes - we've already seen this shti. Twitching gears to something now, did anybody notice that the pisspot ACC (dateline - Orange Bowl, 1/3/2011; Stan 40, VA Tech 12) landed four teams in ESPN's top 25 recruitinig class? The mighty Big 10 only landed one, OSU. The ACC four:

1. FSU - they may have fertile FL to themselves with the Canes and the Gators in decline.

2. Clemson - this is always a mystery. Clemson continues to recruit top 25 classes and produce 6-6 teams.

3. North Carolina - Butch Davis can recruit. He built a national champ at Miami 10 yrs ago.

4. Virginia - WTF? How did this happen?

Notice that the best team in this pisspot conf, the hokey Hokies, didn't make the top 25. Which is what you would expect.

Posted by: CottonEyeJoe | February 3, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I read you...

What do you make of Mankins though? He's on the premiere franchise in the league.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 3, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I gots to try and get me some explanation to this: it's driving me frak-ward.

From the last thread:
_______________________

Why does Lip_Cock even post up here?

Adds nothing to the blog.

Posted by: iH8dallas | February 2, 2011 10:54 PM | Report abuse


Lip_Cock

Posted by: iH8dallas | February 2, 2011 10:54 PM |
------------

I'm laughing over here hess. good one

Posted by: hessone | February 2, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

____________________________

I'm cornfused: was this an actual slip-up by hess, proving sock-puppetry, or a play on previous accusations of sock-puppetry?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

it's about character and credibility...

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 7:35 AM
----------

What it's about, hessone, is winning.
Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 8:00 AM |
----------

character and credibility creates a winning atmosphere, something that has been missing since $nyder's arrival. remember culture change ? these two words are part of the that change, and without them implimented you'll see more of the same losing seasons of the past and not winning ones in the future.


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

So the players should buy into the idea only if they have a way to earn at the end of their first contract: and that's why I'd want the F-Tagging to come to an end.

Limiting rookie money effects how much a superior guy earns on the front end, so players should argue for the right to earn as much as possible once they prove they are of value.

Franchise tagging is a concept that runs against the free enterprise ideal of Free Agency.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 10:34 AM |

I disagree. The franchise tag guarantees that player gets paid as a top 5 player...higher than #5 yet lower than number 1...that's a good paycheck in anybodies mind. My stipulation would be that you should only be able to franchise a player once.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I'm cornfused: was this an actual slip-up by hess, proving sock-puppetry, or a play on previous accusations of sock-puppetry?

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM

Hess may be many things...but he ain't no sock puppet.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 11:14 AM | Report abuse

What do you make of Mankins though?


Mankins is Example "A" for why players should want Franchise Taggibng to end.

Mankins is on a great team, but feels massively disrepacted by ownership.

And so, as an elite player, he should be aable to enter the market, set his price, and negotiate as he pleases.

But he can't from the way things are presently structured, he can't.

And every year, players scoff at the tagging as, from their point of view, they should be able to set their price and assess other work situations.

The tagging and proposed rookie scale helps the owners, not the players.

So the players should want tagging--or some other such labor controlling technique--removed.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

A successful "boycott" would simply result in renaming the team: Los Angeles Redskins.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM |

LA def needs a NFL fran but it don't make no sense to move a successful fran there. More like move Minn, Jack or Buff.

Posted by: CottonEyeJoe | February 3, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm cornfused: was this an actual slip-up by hess, proving sock-puppetry, or a play on previous accusations of sock-puppetry?


Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM |

Ih8 has said that his last name is also Hess. So it adds fuel to beeps sock puppetry theory.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

character and credibility creates a winning atmosphere

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM |

Blah, blah, blah. Belichick has managed a winning atmosphere without character or credibility. Just got selected again as the NFL Coach of the Year.

Plenty of "character credible guys" who finish well out of it. It's neither necessary nor sufficient. "Nice guys finish last." Etc. SAVE THE WHALES.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse


I'm cornfused: was this an actual slip-up by hess, proving sock-puppetry, or a play on previous accusations of sock-puppetry?


Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM |
---------

ih8's last name is hess. I hope that helps you out, otherwise, I'm confused

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

A wise man told me many years ago that a professional team can only ever be as good as its owner. That has proven to be true in my life, as I have suffered through Pollin, Angelos and now Snyder.

That doesn't mean an owner can't change though, as we saw with Steinbrenner. Even Angelos has loosened his death grip a bit. And maybe Leonsis can break the curse on DC pro sports.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Snyder to get a clue though. For all his stated love of his boyhood football team, he seems to have genuine contempt for the fans.

Posted by: NYPDee | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

hess, now is not the time for words, but rather actions, put your money where your mouth is:

1. stop following the team until &nyder is no longer the owner

2. buy the team and run it in a different manner

3. follow anyone of the 31 other teams in the nfl

I've already started my own personal boycott, what are you going to do??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

A successful "boycott" would simply result in renaming the team: Los Angeles Redskins.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM

That would make them my home team again.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ah, thanks PA and scamp: your ability to read the comments so consistently as to keep it all straight is an inspiration.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

So it adds fuel to beeps sock puppetry theory.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:15 AM


I've gone out of that business. There are no sock puppets on RI. Except Monk811/PlayAction and the only way we can be sure about that is that he's acknowledged that he's posting under two handles. No one else, though.

Maybe that unpleasant guy who comes around in the afternoon/evening under about 20 different handles to attack you and MistaMoe. I'm sure there are 20 people who don't like you, but I can't imagine there is even one who doesn't like MistaMoe.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse


Blah, blah, blah. Belichick has managed a winning atmosphere without character or credibility. Just got selected again as the NFL Coach of the Year.

Plenty of "character credible guys" who finish well out of it. It's neither necessary nor sufficient. "Nice guys finish last." Etc. SAVE THE WHALES.


Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:16 AM |
----------

this one goes out to beep, enjoy !

BOYCOTT $NYDER-READ THE CITY PAPER, BOYCOTT $NYDER-READ THE CITY PAPER, BOYCOTT $NYDER-READ THE CITY PAPER!!!


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

ih8's last name is hess. I hope that helps you out, otherwise, I'm confused

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM


ih8's last name is Dallas. Your first name is hess. You really are confused.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I've gone out of that business. There are no sock puppets on RI. Except Monk811/PlayAction and the only way we can be sure about that is that he's acknowledged that he's posting under two handles. No one else, though.

Maybe that unpleasant guy who comes around in the afternoon/evening under about 20 different handles to attack you and MistaMoe. I'm sure there are 20 people who don't like you, but I can't imagine there is even one who doesn't like MistaMoe.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:21 AM |

He has been found out to be perineum/skinshaveaGM which has a number of other handles that I can't presently remember. He slips up by using several insults that only he would use. Paint your bald spot, scrambly brains, mow your lawn. He apparently finds them funny.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

PFT kinda said in passing that we might franchise Santana Moss...I really hope we can get a deal done so it doesn't come to that...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 3, 2011 7:08 AM |

Didn't realize he was a FA. He ain't worth the tag but the tag would mean the Skins can delay to next yr when they have more picks to draft a WR as opposed to having to give the dude a multi-yr. to keep him around.

Posted by: CottonEyeJoe | February 3, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

this one goes out to beep, enjoy !

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:24 AM

Fingers in ear. La-la-la-la I can't hear you.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

... but I can't imagine there is even one who doesn't like MistaMoe.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:21 AM |

MistaMoe? You mean MistaMoeFo? MistaMoeRon? MistaHoeMoe? MistaHoMoe? MistaMoebyDick? MisterMoeDem? Heh, heh, heh.

Posted by: CottonEyeJoe | February 3, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Except Monk811/PlayAction and the only way we can be sure about that is that he's acknowledged that he's posting under two handles.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:21 AM

Please be sure to dock Monk's paycheck for his absence today beep...thanks

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Snyder is doing what any good boss does: deflecting criticism away from his subordinates. He's cleverly drawing slings and arrows to himself by picking a ridiculous fight with WCP.

That's the only thing that makes sense if I'm to believe all the praise St Joe heaped on him just a couple of days ago as being a wonderful owner to work for.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 3, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

He has been found out to be perineum/skinshaveaGM which has a number of other handles that I can't presently remember.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 3, 2011 11:25 AM

Well has anyone figured out yet who's the regular that's running the PlayAction/Monk811 sock puppets? dcsween's the only one I can think of who's funny enough to run that franchise, but he doesn't seem like a sock puppet sort of guy. Any other ideas?

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Well has anyone figured out yet who's the regular that's running the PlayAction/Monk811 sock puppets?

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:38 AM

If I had to bet the house on it, I'd say hessone (hessone).

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

By J.I. Halsell

Entering the 2010 uncapped year, the speculation was that teams would use the absence of a salary cap to spend money like never before to acquire players. As it turned out, the absence of a salary floor, the unique rules of the uncapped year, and perhaps, as the NFL Players Association's pending claim contends, collusion among owners, the expected windfalls of the 2010 uncapped year would never fully materialize.

It was the restrictions on FA that kept spending down you turd brain. There was no one on the market worth spending any $$$ on except for mebbe one or two Mr. Peepers here or there.

Posted by: CottonEyeJoe | February 3, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

GOD! Every 2 weeks its another stupid story.. another dumb distraction by the owner and staff!!
I just don't understand how someone who made his money in communications could be so dumb when it comes to perception and PR.
I know I'm just rehashing what everybody has said and I agree with it. This man hasn't changed, he's only tried to change the image of him. But when he does isht like this, it just shows the real person behind the image. And the whole league is laughing at us yet again. DAMN its so depressing to be a skins fan.
Like Florida Evans said: damn,Damn, DAMN!!!

Posted by: Predator48 | February 3, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Suh on McNabb...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Shutdown-Corner-Interview-Ndamukong-Suh-Pt?urn=nfl-316428

Shutdown Corner: Of all the sacks you had this last season, which one do you think showed best what Ndamukong Suh(notes) is all about?

Ndamukong Suh: That's a tough question. I think the sack of Tom Brady - to be able to stand up, play off my teammates, and hit him in the edge. That was a great sack, as well as the two sacks I had against Donovan McNabb. I think those two were definitely violent, impressive hits I put on him - a good way to take down a quarterback.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 3, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

...another dumb distraction by the owner

Posted by: Predator48 | February 3, 2011 11:53 AM

At least there's no drunken videos out there of him slamming Gibbs...not yet anyhow.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@Pred,

Let's be clear: Snyder made his money in a very, very small, dead-end, pi$$-soaked alleyway in the seedy underbelly of communications.

(to mix more than a few metaphors)

I think his business record since the beginning of his Skins tenure proves his true capabilities, and I'm not surprised he has perennially shown himself exceptionally unwise in PR matters.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Snyder made his money in a very, very small, dead-end, pi$$-soaked alleyway in the seedy underbelly of communications.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | February 3, 2011 12:00 PM

Can someone please point me in the direction of this alley?

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

ih8's last name is hess. I hope that helps you out, otherwise, I'm confused

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM


ih8's last name is Dallas. Your first name is hess. You really are confused.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:24 AM |
--------------

yes beep, I'm must be confused, I'm a redskin fan

----------

I've already started my own personal boycott, what are you going to do??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 11:17 AM |
----------

gave up my season tickets when the team moved to fedex. I haven't bought a thing that has to do with $nyder directly, across the board, since 2008.

greg, why the hard time, always ? $nyder bought something that was special to me and too many others. he has ruined it in my opinion. I voice my opinion in regards to him, and not the team. unfortunately he owns the team, and the team gets critized due to that fact. I don't have an answer to it all, but I'd rather go without than eat a johnny rocket's burger, I'll assure you that much. just remind yourself that it is only a game and you'll feel better, maybe, who knows


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

If I had to bet the house on it, I'd say hessone (hessone).

Posted by: PlayAction | February 3, 2011 11:48 AM

You'd be a homeless vagrant looking for an alleyway. Whoever's running you does this sock puppet thing with style, panache, humor and originality. hessone is a two-trick pony: SAVE THE WHALES and boycott $nyder. If he were clever he'd switch up to "boycott the whales" and "SAVE $NYDER" from time to time.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse


this one goes out to beep, enjoy !

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 11:24 AM

Fingers in ear. La-la-la-la I can't hear you.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 3, 2011 11:30 AM |
---

uh beep, you read with your eyeballs, not your ears. try covering your eye's the next time

HTTR!!!


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

hess, you need to do more, much more...start protesting outside the gates of fedex...you, and you alone are responsible for your portion of the revolution....chain yourself to the fedex gates, call in a bomb threat from your home phone, Blood alone moves the wheels of history! Have you ever asked yourselves in an hour of meditation, which everyone finds during the day. how long we have been striving for greatness? Not only the years we've been at war, the war of work, but from the moment as a child when we realized that the world could be conquered. It has been a lifetime's struggle A never-ending fight. I say to you and you'll understand that it is a privilege to fight!

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse


I say to you and you'll understand that it is a privilege to fight!


Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 12:22 PM
----------

then knock yourself out greg

it is a privilege to get up every morning and have a wonderful day, and I hope you're having one

Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

No revolution is worth anything unless it can defend itself

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 3, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse


beeps peeps


Posted by: hessone | February 3, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

scottcampbell1975

He (mistamoe) has been found out to be perineum/skinshaveaGM which has a number of other handles that I can't presently remember. He slips up by using several insults that only he would use.

Swing, miss.

Perineum is my mentor as when I first started posting two years ago, he was the only blogga who would 'holla back'.

He, advised me to develop my own style, and sadly, I have failed in that regard.

But I am not 'skins' or 'perineum'.

I am mistamoe, madmoe, and gimmiesummoe.

I decided the different handles would allow me to say the same things wearing different screen name masks.

And as no one ever reads my posts, this strategy, like my poor sense of humor, has failed.

And so, I will adopt another screen name to garner the world's attention:mubarackmoe

And like him, you probably want me to leave, even though I don't want to go.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 3, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

My $0.02: Goodbye, Hayneswothless and McNabb. DHall must stay for the sake of the D.

Reason is that DHall plays the game, AH does not. Hall may be outspoken but he backs it up with action on field. Again, not so with AH.

AH equals headache, distractions, can't/won't play, falls down on job literally, he's too good to play but willing to take the money and sit down ( thought I'd say run, not AH-too much effort).

McNabb: if I'm correct, his contract has zero guaranteed $, too many dirt balls, too set in doing it his way, and we need room for younger, accurate/effective via drafting or a FA QB equals bye McNabb.

Posted by: davedeltawhiskeybravo | February 3, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company