Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Washington Redskins All-Decade Team Roster - Now Accepting Calls From Jeff George

Kevin and I did not really get too much into the "end of the year/end of the decade" madness that ensued a month or so ago. We had a few attempts to pull together some "lists", but the whole exercise of listing the "Greatest" this and "Most Awesome" that did not really do it for me. I have been mulling over this All-Decade team idea for at least a month and I just didn't want to do a Greatest Hits list of players at each position. Mostly because that has been kind of how they have tried to build our teams here through the years in real life. Also, because if you look pretty hard at our last decade's worth of rosters, you find yourself staring at a sad situation at some positions.

So in building the All-Decade Team of the 2000's for the Redskins, I want to do it in a more realistic team-building fashion. Here is what I am thinking (after the jump):

Star-divide

1) Identify an offensive and defensive style to build this team around before making some of the more integral roster decisions.

2) We are going to care about character, locker room leadership and work ethic (as they were perceived to be by all of us over the last 10 years.)

3) We will build a 53-man roster one position at a time, leaving two or three spots open at the end for us all to debate the inclusion of an extra running back , or an extra wide receiver, or an extra lineman, etc.

4) Every guy who played for the Redskins from 2000-2009 is eligible and will be considered as equally as possible. I think we will find ourselves forced to consider guys who either called it quits soon into the decade, or came here very recently.

Today's discussion is the kind of discussion we wish our front office would have had 10 years ago: What kind of team is this going to be?

What I want to know is what kind of offense are we going to run? What kind of defense will be our base defense? Are we going to run or pass more? Are we going to blitz a lot, a little, or rarely? Once we come to a quasi-consensus on these things, we can start picking guys who we think will fit in and maximize our strategies and philosophies. Chime in and feel free to talk specific players but keep in mind we will not be debating who is in or who is out until we actually get to that roster position.

In this way, I am hoping we will carve out an All-Decade Team that we will feel good about and one that we can say is an actual "team"--something at least a few of the teams in the 2000's failed to become.

One player who already has a spot:

Freeseantaylor_medium

Comment 75 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I am thinking we go with the more balanced offensive approach.

It seems when we were really good at running the ball, we could get stopped by a team that dedicated to stopping the run. When all we did was pass, we were easy to stop as well. We have to have big receivers and a punishing back.

Also…Brad Johnson played in 2000, and to me is probably our man for this kind of offense.

by Sugar on Jan 26, 2010 9:41 AM EST reply actions  

I think we get the Brad Johnson of 2000

He actually had a better year in 1999, but the guy we would get would be capable of throwing any pattern we wanted to call.

I remember playing Madden back in 2000 and having to listen to Madden call Brad “an athletic quarterback” constantly (didn’t he also talk about his basketball skills?) Then on Sundays in real life, he did not exactly look like Michael Vick.

by Sugar on Jan 26, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Now that you mention it

He did ramble on about Brad playing basketball. Picking from our QBs of the 2000’s is a depressing task—given how bad they’ve looked. Johnson, statistically, is probably our best bet. I can’t help but think about Brunell’s record setting consecutive completions, though. What was it, 24? Can we pick Brunell and have him be pre-knee surgery Brunell?

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions  

I prefer flexible to balanced....

I have a problem with the way the word balanced is used in the league today. If the Eagles run 60 plays in a game and 30 of them are runs and 30 of them are passes, the announcer say they’re running a balanced offense. Let’s be real, the Eagles running game is a joke. To me, the team’s effectiveness at running the ball can be measured in the red zone; if a team can’t run effectively in the red zone they can’t run.
What I mean by flexible is the team is capable of both running and passing effectively. To be considered effective in the passing game I think you have to be able to complete those third and longs around 40 or 50% of the time, and I don’t mean by playing screens or dink and dunk passes.
ultimately it comes down to execution. The pinnacle of execution is exemplified when the opposing team and everybody watching knows what the play is going to be and still can’t stop it; think Green Bay power sweep of the 60s or Jerome Bettis off tackle for 2 yards and a touchdown. This can only be accomplished with excellent game planning, coaching and players executing at a high-level.
I could give a hoot about “game changers” or “franchise” players, I just want to see my Redskins play and execute football at a very high level as a team.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions  

You're definitely right about the Eagles and balance

its telling that when they get to where they need to convert a 4th and inches, they usually throw for it.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

illegal procedure

you mentioned a player

15 yard penalty! :P

by aFan4Life on Jan 26, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions  

On defense, I am a lot more open to suggestion.

I want guys who can get to the QB and I want corners who can catch.

We should be able to field a nasty defensive unit.

by Sugar on Jan 26, 2010 9:42 AM EST reply actions  

We used to have corners that could blitz too

I want to blitz alot. Someone should come from somewhere on every down.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions  

I think selecting the all decade cornerbacks

is a no-brainer, Darrell Green and Champ Bailey.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 10:44 AM EST up reply actions  

I was gonna say Shawn Springs and Bailey

but Green didn’t stop playing til ‘02 so you’re right.

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

I think we go 3-4

Even though the Redskins have never gone 3-4 before (is that acceptable – I’m not sure I get the rules).

And I think we go with an offense that passes more than it runs – some kind of precursor to the spread.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 9:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I can get on board with a pass-happy offense

I think my main wish is to either:
a) have a pass-happy offense with a rushing threat that has to be respected
or
b) a run-oriented offense with a passing game that can’t be overlooked by any defense.

by Sugar on Jan 26, 2010 10:12 AM EST up reply actions  

I think for RB it has to be Portis

Although I always like Stephen Davis more.

And WRs should be Moss and Coles. TE is Cooley.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions  

No Trung Canidate?

We have 53 slots, why not a 2 back rotation with Davis and Portis?

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

agreed

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Think style/philosophy first...

that will impact some of our decisions.

by Sugar on Jan 26, 2010 10:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Given the strength of our potential backs

and possibly not having the greatest recieving corps, I think we should be run-first. We’re also going to have Jansen and Randy Thomas (in their prime) holding down the right side, and we all remember how those guys could steam roll.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

so

can we agree that the offensive philosophy should be run-oriented that will ultimately set up the pass?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

It was what the Redskins

have done most effectively the last decade. Our line was built for it, back when they were decent, sorta.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

definitely

run first and often. Steamroll the opponent, beat them up in the trenches, and leave them gasping for breath on every play. Then you fire up the passing game to stick the dagger in the heart and let them know they are nothing more than the mouse getting played by the Cat before being eaten.
I loved hearing those diesel horns at RFK and watching the Riggo drill.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

with that being said

someone mentioned a two back system should be used, with Stephen Davis and Clinton Portis.

That combo sounds like money to me.

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Stephen Davis

as your workhorse 1st and 2nd down back, with Portis coming in on 3rd down because he can pass block but (in his prime) was a threat to break one long. There would just be no breaks for the opposing D.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

beautiful

and to think if there’d never been a Spurrier, we might’ve been able to pull it off

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions  

But weren't the 2000s

the rise of the passing offenses? Wouldn’t we want to have been a leader in that evolution?

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

with who?

Santana Moss and who else?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Bah!

be the innovator and dictate to the rest of the league, or be unimaginative and just copy what everybody else is doing. Championship teams that are pass happy are few,the Rams this decade. Pass happy pretenders are many, Dan Fouts, Chargers, Dan Marino, Dolphins, Jim Kelly bills just to name a few.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions  

The Rams running game also demanded respect

Marshall Faulk was good at taking handoffs as well as catching passes out of the backfield.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

true

but their running game didn’t beat a team up, and I can’t see those Rams consistently punching the ball into the end zone from the 5 yard line.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Christ

Is Coles really the best we had besides Moss this entire decade?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

The really scary thing

is that Coles is every bit as good as Moss.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

Coles was fast

when we had him/traded him away.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Coles showed me nothing

while he was here

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:19 AM EST up reply actions  

That's because

Joe Gibbs 2.0 threw nothing but screen passes, but Coles was more suited for the vertical passing game.

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions  

with that being said

are we going off what we these guys actually did here, or what we believed they could have done when they were here?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Well if that's your argument

Coles made the pro bowl for us. What other Pro Bowl reciever did we have? Hmm?

by CarverM on Jan 26, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

why would we use the pro bowl as a

barometer for success? We were JUST talking about London Fletcher and how this is his first Pro Bowl in his ENTIRE career and he still only got in because someone else wasn’t going.

And besides all that, why should we have to midgets as our starting receiver corps?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions  

remember the Smurfs!

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

no, I'm not old enough

to remember the smurfs, I wasn’t even born then. But I do know who they are.

But you’ve got to admit that the game changed in 20 plus years. You’ve gotta have that big guy that can go across the middle as well (Cooley not withstanding).

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

no, I don't have to admit that

 I watched it for 20 years and I don’t think it has changed that much. And Gary Clark was fearless going across the middle, going across the middle revolves around heart, not size. TO is a big guy, and I’ve seen alligator arms on him more times than I can count.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions  

it hasn't changed that much

if anything it’s easier on receivers now with all of the new restrictions on contact down the field so if anything those guys would be even better.

by aFan4Life on Jan 26, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I do!

and I loved watching them play!

by aFan4Life on Jan 26, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

exactly what I was alluding to earlier

when I said

Christ

Is Coles really the best we had besides Moss this entire decade?

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Moss made the pro bowl in 2005

That’s it.

For all intents and purposes, Coles and Moss have been just as effective as each other, albeit with different styles. You couldn’t choose one over the other.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

And if I were forced to at gunpoint

It would have to be Coles. His stats are better.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

I'll go with Moss

simply for the damage he’s done to the Cowboys

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm going off what I've seen when he was here

not what I think he can do. Was it Coles’ fault that Gibbs got a hard-on for the screen pass? No

But that doesn’t change the fact that 2154yds is less than 2273yds.

SpottieOttieDopaliscious

by Rekka on Jan 26, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Who is going to be the coach?

Schottenheimer? Oh man…and the K is going to be a tough one. I’m actually thinking Gano.

"It was one of those things where everyone in the building was suddenly excited again," Cerrato said. "And all the women in the building were the most excited. They couldn't believe we were getting the guy from "Dancing With the Stars."

by Kevin Ewoldt on Jan 26, 2010 10:27 AM EST reply actions  

read the last paragraph

“What I want to know is what kind of offense are we going to run? What kind of defense will be our base defense? Are we going to run or pass more? Are we going to blitz a lot, a little, or rarely? Once we come to a quasi-consensus on these things, we can start picking guys who we think will fit in and maximize our strategies and philosophies.”

MY choice is to have a “flexible” offense as Skins Fan 77 mentioned With a power running game and a passing attack that isn’t afraid to go down the field. No WCO for me…ugh, I’ve had enough of that in the last year. On defense I’m going with a 4-3 because we haven’t had a NT which means the 3-4 would be a disaster. I want an aggressive defense that goes for turnovers and sacks. Yes that means giving up the big play once in a while but I can live with that side effect.

by aFan4Life on Jan 26, 2010 10:47 AM EST reply actions  

on defense I would like to see

what I think is the classic championship defense, stop the run dead cold and force your opponent to pass. This is why I think the 43 is a better defense, it’s much more consistent at stopping the run. Once you have force your opponent into a pass orientation, you can unleash the front seven at the quarterback, and let your secondary make plays for you.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 10:50 AM EST reply actions  

But if you play to your strengths

as you should, then I can think of 2 OLB’s who would be lethal in a 3-4 base.

by Mr. E on Jan 26, 2010 9:53 PM EST up reply actions  

and on special teams

I’m satisfied with good solid consistency. I don’t think a team needs a game changer or “lethal weapon” in the return game. I do think you have to be able to shut down the teams that do have one though. Your kick returner’s and punt returner’s should never, ever, ever fumble, and run north and south much more frequently than East and West.
 You need a punter who can win you the field position game and a kicker who is automatic from 40 yards on in. You don’t need a kicker who can kick further than 40 yards in my opinion.

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 26, 2010 10:59 AM EST reply actions  

I'm quitting this thread in protest

because it brings back too many bad memories and is too depressing. I really don’t want to debate the relative merits of Casey Rabach and Corey Raymer.

On the bright side: ETHAN ALBRIGHT should be pictured next to Sean Taylor.

by Skinsmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:31 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

-10

A great decade to remember-NOT

by dr WNC on Jan 26, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

My question is......?

Would our team of the decade beat the Lions, Browns, Raiders, Chiefs teams of the decade?
  Vegas? What are the odds?
Let’s see: Vinny Cerrato vs. Matt Millen
                    Daniel Snyder vs. Al Davis
                    Jim Zorn vs. Lane Kiffen

OMG: This just might be too depressing an undertaking to even contemplate!

by johnnydee83 on Jan 26, 2010 11:41 AM EST reply actions  

Offense

has to be run oriented because we just don’t have the weapons to make a passing team. On an all-decade team status, Brad Johnson Moss and Coles are going to be near the bottom of the league, but when you toss in our OL and RB’s you can see some potential.

by Mr. E on Jan 26, 2010 9:54 PM EST reply actions  

Defense

should be a 3-4.

Really, we might have one of the best all-decade defenses in the league. Monster secondary, top notch LB’s that fit the scheme and an above average DL. This will be the strength of our team and should definitely be an attacking, aggressive unit.

by Mr. E on Jan 26, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Who would be the NT?

The NT is considered the most vital position in a 3-4 defense and we’ve never had 1. And before you say it, it is not realistic to expect a 4-3 DT to just change positions and be just as effective. A 4-3 DT is not the same as a 3-4 NT.

It’s been said a hundred times by a dozen different people but the incorrect notion that a DL is a DL keeps coming back to haunt us.

by aFan4Life on Jan 27, 2010 8:49 AM EST up reply actions  

I have a hard time with

picking our Class of 2000-2009 based on a defensive scheme we have never employed. Maybe it’s just me.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Jan 27, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Because

this is fantasy, not real life, and lavar and rak would be perfect. Not to mention P Diddy has also always been more of a 3-4 DE.

by Mr. E on Jan 30, 2010 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

umm

You act like every guy playing nose tackle in the pros played it his entire pro career and in college. It’s DT, not much of a difference. Line up over the center or line up in a gap, wow, I don’t know how they would ever figure it out.

by Mr. E on Jan 30, 2010 6:38 PM EST up reply actions  

We need to be run first!

Think about the talent the Skins have had this decade, we lack at the quarterback AND wide receiver position. Now think about the RB talent we have had, Terry Allen, Stephen Davis, and Clinton Portis! Its pretty clear to me that the offense for sure needs to be run first. As far as the defense goes, just keep keep it a nice balanced 4-3.

by skins2848 on Jan 27, 2010 12:21 AM EST reply actions  

Terry Allen just missed the cut

played for us last in 1998, but we still have Stephen Davis and Portis (and Trung Canidate. Ha.)

by CarverM on Jan 27, 2010 8:58 AM EST up reply actions  

I do recall us

being well-Trung at one time.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Jan 27, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Media Requests please email hogshaven@gmail.com

Managers

Superbowl_small Kevin Ewoldt

Riggins_small Ken Meringolo

Editors

Sb_small Parks Smith

Small Steve Shoup

Chalkboard_football-opt403x300o00s403x300_small UkRedskin

Washington_redskins_helmet_small Redskins News

Authors

Badshirt2__2__small fatpickle

Family_in_disney_small Tiller56

Rg3super_small HTTR4LIFE

Hh_small Ronnie Adkins