Just Bring Dez Bryant In

[Stymietee]

Brown would fit fine for Smith and what did I restate? You want to trade away, likely multiple picks, (A practice that always w/o fail bites us dead in the dookie chute every fickin time) for a player who has exposed himself, at least imo, to be a me-first player. Who put his nose in and his opinion on his team mate's contract business and after a couple rough start to the season. Is already butt-hurt enough to start whining and crying about wanting to be traded on twitter. I don't want to trade for that player or have any part of him.




There's that good guy, bad guy bullshit. I need some clarification of what's a bad guy and a good guy. Or your clarification specifically. If you think the Redskins have drafted/signed nothing, but choir boys in the Snyder era.

And you're wrong about Norman. He certainly was a diva-type, spoke his mind, wanted his brand out there player who was also supposed to be a playmaker. At least that's what Scotty Mac thought when he signed Norman. And he ran his mouth from the time he was signed up into last season. After the dropped INTs, shitty at times coverage and in general shoddy tackling from last year. He needed to STFU.

Its not that the Redskins brass is signing good guy players. The players they think their signing to be ballers just ain't ballin



You mentioned the Pats and with or w/o intent. You compared the Redskins to the Patriots bringing them into the conversation. And it kinda did happen overnight. The Pats weren't on anyone radar the year they won their first title and were underdogs to the Rams. For their first 3 Super Bowls they didn't have any diva type players as I recall. I know Brady had a huge game in the SB against Carolina and maybe he had some big playoff games as well, but was he a diva? Was any Pats player a diva during that time? That's when my fav non-Redskins player, Troy Brown was doin his thing.

New England can take chances now because of what they did back then. We need to build up some clout and do it the right way before we can take and hit on those chances. Acquiring Antonio Brown is not that right way.

Brown would fit fine for Smith and what did I restate? You want to trade away, likely multiple picks, (A practice that always w/o fail bites us dead in the dookie chute every fickin time) for a player who has exposed himself, at least imo, to be a me-first player. Who put his nose in and his opinion on his team mate's contract business and after a couple rough start to the season. Is already butt-hurt enough to start whining and crying about wanting to be traded on twitter. I don't want to trade for that player or have any part of him.

You're either reading something into what I'm writing or restating for a purpose that I'm not yet aware of. Rather than relitigate previous postings, let me point out one of your restatements in this one. In in you state "You want to trade away, likely multiple picks..." referring to Brown. This is pure fantasy!! What I actually wrote is..."Another player and or a conditional draft pick is as far as I would go." Now that likely won't get Brown here but of course all I ever really said about this in the beginning was that I would reach out to Pittsburg to see what they wanted for him. All of this is in this thread, read it for yourself.

There's that good guy, bad guy bullshit. I need some clarification of what's a bad guy and a good guy. Or your clarification specifically. If you think the Redskins have drafted/signed nothing, but choir boys in the Snyder era.

Who ever said anything about a "good guy or bad guy?" Seems to me you're injecting thoughts into what I've written that simply aren't written by me. Weren't we talking about very well defined sports "divas?" We all know what that refers to and no this team haven't drafted only choir boys in the Snyder era, we've either had bad character players who could not ball out, or guys who could play but lacked that edge that comes with being the baddest man on the block. If you don't understand the difference, that's fine, but to infer that Washington at some point in the Snyder era had a player of the pedigree is laughable.


And you're wrong about Norman. He certainly was a diva-type, spoke his mind, wanted his brand out there player who was also supposed to be a playmaker. At least that's what Scotty Mac thought when he signed Norman. And he ran his mouth from the time he was signed up into last season. After the dropped INTs, shitty at times coverage and in general shoddy tackling from last year. He needed to STFU.

I know that you don't think I'm wrong about Norman. In this posting you wrote and I quote..." He certainly was a diva-type..." Excuse me but "diva types" don't have an expiration date. He either is one or as we now agree, was one. Know what that means? He never was!! What we saw of him in Carolina was more likely related to his skirmishes with Beckham because before that he didn't have the reputation that you claim he now has. Beyond that game changers don't bring it during this period of time and play shitty during others. I don't know what some of you see in Norman, but if it's a game changing diva, I suggest that you all look again.


You mentioned the Pats and with or w/o intent. You compared the Redskins to the Patriots bringing them into the conversation. And it kinda did happen overnight. The Pats weren't on anyone radar the year they won their first title and were underdogs to the Rams. For their first 3 Super Bowls they didn't have any diva type players as I recall. I know Brady had a huge game in the SB against Carolina and maybe he had some big playoff games as well, but was he a diva? Was any Pats player a diva during that time? That's when my fav non-Redskins player, Troy Brown was doin his thing.

The ONLY comparison of the Pats and this team by me was in giving an example of their differences. I'm not sure what you're reading or worse how you're interpreting what's written. So you think that the Pats first SB team didn't have these types of players huh? I'll give you some deference on the "diva" mantle, but their first SB championship team had plenty of players who could not play in today's soft game. I liken them to legal football killers, and when they called roll, the names were...Willie McGinest, Richard Seymore, Tedy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Ty Law, and Lawyer Milloy. Tom Brady, Troy Brown and Deion Branch formed one of the most dangerous QB/WR threats in the league at the time, who's lives were made much more easy with real nasty's like Matt Light and Damien Woody and Kenyatta Jones up front. Kick and punt returner Kevin Faulk was their version of Brian Mitchell. NO comparison to Mitchell, but a sure fire threat nonetheless. Again, with the exceptions of McGinest, Bruschi, Law, Milloy, Woody, Jones and Branch I agree no real 'Diva type game changers" The others were game changers with a bit less divatude. I've counted at least 7 nasties and on their 2002 team, and added another 6 game changer types, how many of either do we now have or have had in the Snyder era? (hint: zero)

New England can take chances now because of what they did back then. We need to build up some clout and do it the right way before we can take and hit on those chances. Acquiring Antonio Brown is not that right way.[/QUOTE]
​

They took chances back then too, in fact they got rid of players who didn't fit the Bellichick mode, were OK in the draft and wise in free agency. The only changes that have taken place since then are mostly associated with age, job opportunities, retirements trades and cuts, you know, basic football operations. We have Snyder and his henchmen, we can shout into the dark universe what they "need" to do, Snyder's been here since 1999, where are there any indications of that sustainable "clout" that you speak of? How do you know that there's one way to build this team into a championship force? Beyond those questions, I'm going to ask you this in all sincerity, how do you know that getting Antonio Brown first or in conjunction with the current build won't do the trick? (of course at my asking price or some similar, albeit limited, inquiry)​

​

 

[Breed]

OK. Not multiple picks. Just multiple players

Who ever said anything about a "good guy or bad guy?" Seems to me you're injecting thoughts into what I've written that simply aren't written by me. Weren't we talking about very well defined sports "divas?" We all know what that refers to and no this team haven't drafted only choir boys in the Snyder era, we've either had bad character players who could not ball out, or guys who could play but lacked that edge that comes with being the baddest man on the block. If you don't understand the difference, that's fine, but to infer that Washington at some point in the Snyder era had a player of the pedigree is laughable.

I don't wanna play semantics, but OK. It was you who bought up good guys, twice.

You said you'd offer two draft picks, er, excuse me, 2 players for Brown, I asked why....not meaning to infer anything really....but saying it would be an outright bad move. As Brown is and I quote........

for all his talent, skill, and work ethic, dude is a top tier whiny me first diva.

Nothing about good of bad guys. Dude is a selfish, me-first ass0 of a very high order. Can't win with those dudes.

It was than your next post where you used "good guys" twice.

"good guys rarely finish first" n "go through our supposed good guy roster

When I simply said its not about good guys or bad guys which it isn't. You claimed I tried restating your words which was ridiculous. You did that yourself. Would you like to elaborate further?

I know that you don't think I'm wrong about Norman. In this posting you wrote and I quote..." He certainly was a diva-type..." Excuse me but "diva types" don't have an expiration date. He either is one or as we now agree, was one. Know what that means? He never was!! What we saw of him in Carolina was more likely related to his skirmishes with Beckham because before that he didn't have the reputation that you claim he now has. Beyond that game changers don't bring it during this period of time and play shitty during others. I don't know what some of you see in Norman, but if it's a game changing diva, I suggest that you all look again

Wrong again. Every player has an expiration date and I never claimed Norman was a diva who could ball. Clearly though Scotty Mac thought he was. Just like Joe Gibbs thought Clinton Portis was. Just like Snyder thought Haynesworth was.

The ONLY comparison of the Pats and this team by me was in giving an example of their differences. I'm not sure what you're reading or worse how you're interpreting what's written. So you think that the Pats first SB team didn't have these types of players huh? I'll give you some deference on the "diva" mantle, but their first SB championship team had plenty of players who could not play in today's soft game. I liken them to legal football killers, and when they called roll, the names were...Willie McGinest, Richard Seymore, Tedy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Ty Law, and Lawyer Milloy. Tom Brady, Troy Brown and Deion Branch formed one of the most dangerous QB/WR threats in the league at the time, who's lives were made much more easy with real nasty's like Matt Light and Damien Woody and Kenyatta Jones up front. Kick and punt returner Kevin Faulk was their version of Brian Mitchell. NO comparison to Mitchell, but a sure fire threat nonetheless. Again, with the exceptions of McGinest, Bruschi, Law, Milloy, Woody, Jones and Branch I agree no real 'Diva type game changers" The others were game changers with a bit less divatude. I've counted at least 7 nasties and on their 2002 team, and added another 6 game changer types, how many of either do we now have or have had in the Snyder era? (hint: zero)

Milloy was there for as year. Kevin Faulk couldn't hold B-mitch's jock as a returner and most dangerous QB/WR tandems...just stop it. Their defense was hard-nosed players who grinded. There were no Antonio Browns.

They took chances back then too, in fact they got rid of players who didn't fit the Bellichick mode, were OK in the draft and wise in free agency. The only changes that have taken place since then are mostly associated with age, job opportunities, retirements trades and cuts, you know, basic football operations. We have Snyder and his henchmen, we can shout into the dark universe what they "need" to do, Snyder's been here since 1999, where are there any indications of that sustainable "clout" that you speak of? How do you know that there's one way to build this team into a championship force? Beyond those questions, I'm going to ask you this in all sincerity, how do you know that getting Antonio Brown first or in conjunction with the current build won't do the trick? (of course at my asking price or some similar, albeit limited, inquiry)

I didn't say there was only one way to build a team. I said we have to build my some clout before we can do Josh Gordon for a 5th rd pk type moves that are low risk, high reward for us.

I don't know if Brown won't do the trick. I seriously, very seriously, doubt it though.

​

 

[Stymietee]

WOW!! I didn't say that either!! To be clear, ONE player (not multiple) and a (meaning one) CONDITIONAL pick is all that I would be willing to part with for Brown. C'mon man!!

 

[Breed]

One player (named now) and a conditional pick (named later) is multiple players or a multiple package correct?

 

[Stymietee]

One player (named now) and a conditional pick (named later) is multiple players or a multiple package correct?

Depends on whether you use it as a noun or adjective. You clearly are using it as a noun (a number that can divided by another without a remainder) I'm modifying the same. Oh well!

 

[tomcat1]

Depends on whether you use it as a noun or adjective. You clearly are using it as a noun (a number that can divided by another without a remainder) I'm modifying the same. Oh well!

Sty, Obviously Breed is not comprehending what you wrote even though you words were pretty clear to me.

 

[Stymietee]

Sty, Obviously Breed is not comprehending what you wrote even though you words were pretty clear to me.

Thanks@Tomcat1, Breed is a smart man, I always read his posts and respect his opinions like everyone else. Maybe you're right and it was just one of those times where we couldn't get on the same page. It happens!

 

[Breed]

Depends on whether you use it as a noun or adjective. You clearly are using it as a noun (a number that can divided by another without a remainder) I'm modifying the same. Oh well!

Depends on what? And how can a player and a conditional pick not be seen as 2 pieces for 1 piece? No doubt part of the conditions of said conditional pick will depend on what type of year Brown has correct. The better he performs the higher the conditional pick.

 

[Breed]

Sty, Obviously Breed is not comprehending what you wrote even though you words were pretty clear to me.

By all means........break it down to its last compound for a brotha.

 

[skinsdad62]

a player and a draft pick (conditional ) aint going to happen

 

[tomcat1]

Thanks@Tomcat1, Breed is a smart man, I always read his posts and respect his opinions like everyone else. Maybe you're right and it was just one of those times where we couldn't get on the same page. It happens!

Sty, I never said Breed was not a smart man. All I was saying is that in this particular case he missed some great points you were making left and right.

As long as we are all Redskins fans everything is wonderful to me!

 

[tomcat1]

By all means........break it down to its last compound for a brotha.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

 

[Stymietee]

Depends on what? And how can a player and a conditional pick not be seen as 2 pieces for 1 piece? No doubt part of the conditions of said conditional pick will depend on what type of year Brown has correct. The better he performs the higher the conditional pick.

I mean no harm in doing this but since you asked and stated that I wanted to send MULTIPLE players:

mul·ti·ple
[ˈməltəpəl]
ADJECTIVE

1. having or involving several parts, elements, or members.
   "multiple occupancy" ·
   [more]

NOUN

1. a number that can be divided by another number without a remainder.
   "15, 20, or any other multiple of five"

 

[Stymietee]

a player and a draft pick (conditional ) aint going to happen

I agree, and that is all that I ever said that I would exchange for Brown. It's since been turned into "several" then multiple players and a conditional draft pick, only to be again corrected to corrected into a player and the conditional pick turning into more to get to a charge of several players. Frankly I'm done with it! Time to move on.

 

[Stymietee]

Depends on what? And how can a player and a conditional pick not be seen as 2 pieces for 1 piece? No doubt part of the conditions of said conditional pick will depend on what type of year Brown has correct. The better he performs the higher the conditional pick.

For the record here's my exact statement, I've highlighted a very important part.

"Nope! We are still building and right now Guide is an asset that we cannot afford to part with. Another player and or a conditional draft pick is as far as I would go."

And/or everywhere means that it could be one of them or both. This has gone on for far too long on a hypothetical. Clearly there's some sort of misunderstanding, but rather than continuing this... shit's on me homey.