The Writing is on the Wall; Now Go Get Your Decoder Pin
by Tiller56 on Mar 5, 2010 6:29 PM EST
Email
PrintLooks like the Front Offine and Staff are starting to put some pieces of the puzzle together. The re-signing of Rabach, and Williams shown the staff has at least SOME hope in the current linemen we have on the roster. It has been rumored that Chad Clifton was visiting the Redskins, and if he is signed, I'm sure they will put him at LT, and assume he hold that position down for 2 maybe 3 years. If Clifton isn't signed, I'm sure they are looking at other LT options in FA to come in and provide an immediate stop-gap. Rabach's extension assures him of being the starting C going into the 2010 season, and barring injury, or a complete collapse in play, probably into 2011 as well. Mike Williams was probably signed as a back-up RT or to come in and compete as a starter at RG. Heyer, I believe, is still good enough to start at RT. I don't believe he is suited to play LT. Reinhardt has got to given some consideration to start at RG, but will, and should be pushed hard. Dock, of course is a lock at RG.
Now that we have released Todd Collins, we are in great need of another QB on the roster. Grossman has been mentioned as someone who the Redskins are eyeing to come in as a back-up, or even stop-gap if a rookie is drafted.
So, this brings me to the point of my post. The writing is on the wall. The Shanny's clearly want to put their own stamp on this football team, and that Stamp is goint to be Oklahoma's Sam Bradford. Campbell will not be playing football for the Redskins in 2010. There will be a trade involving him. The most likely scenerio will be a sign-and-trade situation. This will happen before the Draft....
If the staff was going to spend the #4 overall pick on a LT, we wouldn't see them courting guys like Clifton. It doesn't make sense to draft a franchise LT, and let him sit for a year or two. When a team spends a high draft pick on an LT, that player plays right away, no questions. It definitly wouldn't make sense to draft a RT at the #4 pick, as there isn't one worth that high of a pick, and not to mention, we can get a RT in the 2nd rd if we need one badly.
So read the writing on the wall. There will be a QB selected at #4, UNLESS we trade back. There probable will, and should, be a OL drafted in the second and well as the 4th. I will aslo assume a young RB is brought in via the draft to compete with Portis and AA.
I almost feel bad for Campbell, and the way he has been used and treated by he previous staff, but I think we can all agree that a fresh start would be the best thing for JC and the Redskins.
226 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Before I finish this post...
Heyer, I believe, is still good enough to start at RT.
Still? I didn’t realize he was ever good enough to start at anything on an NFL line.
I believe Heyer is a descent RT.
He beat Jansen outright for the starting RT job two years ago, and all while under the tutledge of one of the best O-Line coaches in the NFL. He looked bad at LT, but I believe he can be a solid starter on the right for us.
I am certainly not saying he’s an all-pro, but not many linemen are.
heyer is nothing but a backup
tony pashos would be a solid move at this point in time, and should be signed. He’d probably end up being the day one starter on the right side depending on who else we brought in.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
I agree Rekka, I too like Pashos,
but Heyer won’t kill us if he is surrounded by some talent. He could actually fit in rather nicely.
I'm 6'2 165 and I think I could compete with Heyer
"I am excited about starting 2009. We are looking forward to an outstanding year. We're on our way. We have a lot of healthy players this year." - Vinny Cerrato
by Kevin Ewoldt on Mar 6, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
Heyer was horrible last year
I mean in a should never be starting again borderline NFL player kinda way.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 6, 2010 2:44 AM EST up reply actions
Jim Zorn also had Randle El returning punts
Tiller:
Jim Zorn made a lot of questionable personnel decisions last year. Also once Jon Jansen got the RT job back (two years ago) he proved he never should have lost it. Our running game significantly improved with Jansen in the lineup. Heyer hasn’t proved that he can be more than a back up. And if you don’t see that then obviously you didn’t watch those games last year.
He beat a what, 33 year old guy
who had had two broken thumbs…. beating out Jansen at that point in his career wasn’t exactly like slaying Goliath or anything… If I remember correctly they basically just picked Heyer because they knew Jansen didn’t have much left. They even moved Jansen to back-up center before cutting him.
Yeah
Didn’t Jansen lose his starting role on the Lions?
by Nobetterthenbob on Mar 6, 2010 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, me too
Writing on the wall cannot happen until
if the staff was going to spend the #4 overall pick on a LT, we wouldn’t see them courting guys like Clifton.
They can court all day but until someone is signed, the writing is not ready to be read…
Although if they sign a tackle, I’m with you 100%
Looking at Offensive linemen is not the same as signing any of them
And they’re not only looking at LTs. That means they could sign a vet to shore up one position on the line (after all, only Rabach and Dockery are “guaranteed” starting jobs next year) and still draft a franchise LT.
OR they could draft a college tackle to play RT while he learns the game and eventually move to LT.
OR they could draft a non-LT college O-lineman.
OR they could sign a veteran LT, figure out the right side of the line through other free agency signings or 2nd round or later picks, and still not draft a QB. They may go the path of drafting the best player available.
OR they could draft a QB and keep Campbell to play one more year for the team while the rookie gets prepared to take over.
OR they could draft any of the above-mentioned alternatives with the #4 pick, then draft a QB in the 2nd round who they intend to take at least a year to develop. Or a QB in a later round with the idea that he might turn out to be a gem.
OR they could intend to trade Campbell, but not get a good enough offer, and keep him, knowing he’s a good asset.
My point is that there is nothing set in stone yet. The fact that the team is looking at offensive linemen shouldn’t be a reason for Jason Campbell to pick up the want ads. Any starting QB working with a line like ours would be ecstatic to know that his new bosses are looking at all available options to fix that line.
Also, for clarity’s sake, there is no sign-and-trade in the NFL. That’s strictly an NBA move. The Redskins currently hold rights to JC (even though he’s not technically under contract to play for them) and they would trade those rights for various assets, at which point the new team would sign JC to whatever contract gets negotiated.
Not true about the sign-and-trade.
The Redskins would sign JC to an extension dictated by the team that wants to trade for his rights. That team would then trade for JC, thus picking up the current contract that the Redskins just signed him to. It is a very fickle and moot point, but that is how it is done, hence the name sign-and-trade.
OK, what I'm saying is that that doesn't happen in the NFL.
It only happens in the NBA because it’s outlined in the NBA’s CBA as a way for teams to get value from players who are leaving. I understand what the name means and how it’s done, what I’m saying is that it doesn’t exist in the NFL. The reason it exists in the NBA is because the team that is trading away that player has the right to sign him to more years and more dollars than any other team in the league. But, if they don’t intend to keep him and another team wants him for longer than they’re allowed to sign him for, the player’s original team will facilitate that move by signing the player to the max or near-max contract and then trade him to the new team (for compensation).
Even if it did exist in the NFL, the Redskins wouldn’t have to do it. A sign-and-trade is used on a player who you don’t have under contract anymore. While Jason Campbell isn’t signed to a playing contract right now, the Redskins hold exclusive rights to him as a restricted free agent. Any team that wants him has to outbid the Redskins and give the team compensation, or they have to trade with the Redskins for Campbell’s contract rights. After that trade, Jason Campbell would still be a restricted free agent until he signed a contract with his new team.
That is absolutely how it works in the NFL. It might be a moot point, but I know I’m right lol
just got that big mental image of the property of the national football league verbage i see everywhere. all i can say is anything with an antitrust exemption sucks- lol including health care :-)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
kseandolye, when have you known the Redskins to bring someone in one the First Day of FA,
if they are not seriuos about signing them? Again, I’m just saying, read the writing on the wall, thats it.
you're forgetting that there's a new regime in town tiller
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
we're all trying to
I just can’t see clifton as a SOLID move with his age. maybe as a stop gap but not as the “man” going into the season.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
He is considered the premier LT in UFA.
That has to say something that the Redskins are persuing him.
I don’t really agree with it, i’m just trying to interpret what they are trying to do.
as we all are
it’s frustrating in the offseason, huh?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
Apparently they weren't all that serious about signing him
And good thing, too. Being the best available left tackle in a year when a bunch of subpar left tackles are making up the free agency market doesn’t all of a sudden make you better. We’re talking about the Green Bay offensive line here. They give up about as many sacks as the Redskins line.
I believe it was pretty serious.
I believe he may have used the Redskins offer to persuade GB to re-sign him.
well, i think they do want to sign these guys. but they are not like vinny that will just offer offer offer until he bites. i remember shanahan getting the better of us on a trade or two- lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 11:05 PM EST up reply actions
wow really?
so it’s not at all possible for them to want to have a contingency plan in place just in case Okung isn’t there at #4? Even when they’ve stated repeatedly that they are going to be ready for any and every scenario?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
Rekka, common, you know as well as I do that if the Skins sign Clifton, he is no contingency plan.
He is going to want a pretty penny, and you don’t give that kind of money to a contingency plan.
signing a 33 yr old LT
coming off an injury, bookending one of the top 3 worst offensive lines, to a pretty penny would be pretty Ceratto-esque as well.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
True,
But he is the best pass-protecting LT in FA this year. I know that isn’t saying much, but it should tell us something towards the way the staff is leaning.
yea
I can definitely say a hallelujah to them actually putting thought into our offensive line.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
who else is available?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
Elvis still thinks Hamilton has his stuff.
He is probably over the hill, but a good back up player. Since he knows the zone blocking scheme he could be an on field coach as well.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
It will be awhile for Pitts.
Pitts is in rehab from ACL surgery and has just begun jogging. He would not pass a physical at this point. Do the Skins sign a player and put him on PUP (physically unable to perform)? Pitts will probably be ready before September but what happens in the meantime?
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
Hadnot visited the Broncos
but he did not sign. He was viewed as a potential center replacement. http://www.milehighreport.com/2010/3/5/1358403/free-agent-profile-rex-hadnot
I haven’t seen any sign of him being scheduled to visit the Skins.
Forget about Ben Hamilton. He was beat out by Russ Hockstein as the starter by the end of last season.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 7, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
It could be a bad assumption
But based on the 3 year deal
Center Casey Rabach, who was due to become an unrestricted free agent at midnight, signed a three-year contract worth $12.3 million.
and the pickup of Kory Lichtensteiger it appears the Redskins are set at the center position, still on the team Williams and Montgomery as other potential centers. 4-centers signed who in the case of Williams and Montgomery may be able to play guard too
At some point a position has to be designated as set to start the season, Center appears to be one of those positions to me
I do not understand why Hadnot has not been called.
Hicks is already signed, and Hadnot would have been a better long-term solution. It really makes no sense now for Hadnot to come here.
Hadnot is mainly a right guard
that has played center.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 7, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
didn't think about that but good point
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
You want to know how crazy this S%@! is to me,
I went to bed last night watching NFL network. At midnight, I woke up and put the ESPN FA special on, and seriously, no lying. I was up every hour checking the wire to see who was signed.
I actually woke up happy and relieved to see we had not signed anyone. I was so afraid I was going to wake up and see we signed Peppers.
Just turned on Twitter
Put a notification on Twitter, and was so happy to sleep through the night without waking up…
and i a good day
Sleeping is wonderful
by dr WNC on Mar 5, 2010 9:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
clifton signed with the packers
according to pft.
Did you just see the deal the Ravens got for Boldin?
They only gave up 3rd and 4th rd picks, and recieved one of the premeir WR’s in the league plus a 5th rounder.
Newsome is a genius.
Gandy, the LT from Arizona is avaliable as a FA.
he is coming off injury, but has been a solid starter for the last 5 years. 2 with Buffalo and 3 with Arizona. I wonder if he will be targeted.
Clifton is reported to be
resigned by GB at $20m or 4 times their original offer to him.
I don't think this is really a sign at all
As it shows, we can court many OLinemen, but only be trying to get a RT and RG, as we definitely failed to get one of the better LTs on the field. It is definitely a position to continue to address in the draft (coughcoughOkung)
Big O, I'm just thinking that the staff may have tipped their hand a little
when it was made public that they were after Clifton. As I responded earlier, I don’t think he was planned to be brought here as a contingency plan.
At Clifton's age of 33
contingency had to be a big factor beyond 2012.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
If I was voted GM for a day,
and that day just happened to be Thursday, April 22nd(1st day of the draft), I would Draft Sam Bradford, hands down.
FA - few LTs
As I notice the lack of action in FA, I’m getting a little worried, although the heavy thinkers say they have a plan. I remember the Post article about how few FA O-linemen there are. We could get boxed in to fixing the O-line in the draft. That would virtually require that we take Okung and other O-linemen with our picks, and forget about a QB (except maybe a late rounder). So we’d go into the season with JC, maybe Grossman and Colt.
O-line
Under that scenario, the starting O-line would be (LT) Okung, (LG) Dockery, © Rabach, (RG) Williams and (RT) Jones, Heyer or (I hope) Pashos (or some other free agent).
Offense, Defense
The failure to get (or go after) any big defense guys, and cutting Griffin (the most likely NT), suggests to me that they are not going to go to a 3-4 this year (fine with me). And keeping JC and not getting any big receivers suggests they’re going to be a run first team. All sort of conservative, no big changes – a little better on both offense and defense. Hold them to 17, score 24 – opposite of last year.
Donnio, wouldn't read too much into that with not signing anyone on D yet.
We currently have the pieces to run eith the 3-4 or the 4-3, so I wouldn’t be too worried. Right now the NT is the key if we want to run the 3-4, but I expect the D this year to be a Hybrid, where the 1 and 2 technique DT will be interchangable. We will prob institute a form of the 3-4 when the NT(Haynesworth) will be asked to shade the gap, and be more of a penetrator than a clogger. Until we get a true NT(maybe by next year), look for the D to be a hybrid.
I really think the HYBRID would work well.
It knocks the Offense off their game plan. PLus with the DEs that we have it could be a good mix for us.
" IF YoU Are aRUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
Our 4th pick wont be what you think
Rams are going for Bradford
Lions like I’ve been saying is going Okung
Bucs most likely will get suh
i think we go DT with the 4th pick and get mcoy
I wrote this in a previous post too mr snyder.
I believe this could be a strong possibility, but as Johnny wrote recently, the Rams are in a state of flux, and may not be able to handle the #1 overall pick. Johnny suggested a trade scenerio with the Rams involving JC. I don’t know if it will shake out that way, but it is a possibility that the Rams will move out of 1, or offer us a trade for JC.
I do believe that if the Shanny’s really want Bradford, and Allen and Snyder are all in aggreance, that it will happen one way or another.
Trade with Rams
If they want Bradford, they can afford to lose JC, and we could have the best of both worlds – a promising QB and use the top picks for O-line, especially Okung. To get a really high pick (Rams or others) we could give up JC and something else, like from defense (which is more or less loaded). There could also be some other combination (not including JC) that would interest the Rams (purely for example, two of Rogers, Landry, McIntosh, Malcolm Kelly, Brennan…?) As suggested above, the Rams might not want to pay what would be required to sign a number one pick, whereas Dan might be willing to (considering how much he saved by not getting Peppers). There are a lot of possibilities for trading both up and down, although down would be unlikely if we really wanted both Bradford and Okung – we couldn’t give up any high pick.
I think so, but it's a risky bet since Bradford looks like a 1.
Several other teams will also want Bradford, but the skins can offer JC, who is better than any other QB they would get except Bradford of course. This is going to be crazy heading towards the draft. So many teams in desperate need of a QB, and only 2 to fight over.
I think you are right mr.snyder, shouldn't have doubted you.
I thought for sure that Schwartz would go D-line, but it is definately tipping towards Okung.
Good call on your part.
i m beginning to think you are correcto mr snyderhireme. and i would rather have mccoy since he does not have a recent injury
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
I would not be surprised if Suh falls.
Tampa still runs the Tampa 2 defense, which McCoy is perfect for. I have been reading that the Bucs have McCoy rated higher than Suh.
I think you write really well and make your points concisely
But I’m always left baffled because you take one piece of information, stretch one possible meaning to the furthest extent and present it as a rock solid fact when it’s merely conjecture. I mean that in a respectful way but you always leave me shaking my head.
Bay, some of it is done intentially to generate the most passionate discussion as possible.
If you notice, even with LJP, some of the best posts are when people truely go out on a limb to express their opinions.
Anyways, thank you for the kind words : )
Tiller, Don't put me in this one, keep your dukes (hands) up. You are taking a lot of blows on this post. LOL
Ok, let me step back in the corner and watch the azz kicking from a distance. (peace)
LJP stays out on the limb with his OPINIONS... ""I dont know, Maybe you missed it"" God when I see that quote on here it makes me wanna destroy my computer screen...
If you are gonna post something you should maybe have some proof to back it.. Its fine to state your opinion (however a stretch it may be), but label it as your opinion. Don’t try and shape your ideas as fact when they are the furthest thing from it. If someone provides factual evidence that disprooves your claims, except it and realize that you were wrong. Dont attack the person that corrects you. Don’t change or retool your argument to make yourself sound more legitimate. The truth is you could look stupid to someone that knows better.
Tiller this is not aimed at you at all.
" IF YoU Are aRUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
LJP had a good feel for Cribbs.
Cleveland gave him the big contract. We will have to see how than pans out in the regular season. Is he more in the long run than a special teamer? Don’t take this to mean I buy into most of what LJP says, even though he starts some good discussions which is Tiller’s point of putting his head on the chopping block.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
He starts arguments... which is good and fun.... All in the same he does not need to scamper around here like someone cares about how big the comments list is.
" IF YoU Are aRUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
I get the whole discussion starting aspect
I just think that could be accomplished as effectively and allow for more broad discussion of possible implications if it was approached a little differently. With a qualifier or two or acknowledgement of the other possibilities we can explore the implications without someone having to point out that you glossed over alot of stuff in order to have a more rounded discussion. Again I mean that respectfully and think you are a good writer. Apologies for the rather unsolicited advice.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 6, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Jefferson, Why is it that some people (Milcmann) is always checking out how big my comment list is. He is the same guy that checks out another mans private part when standing at a bathroom stall. I don't care about how big his list. Why does he care so
much about mine? He spends so much time trying to disprove every point I make it keeps him from trying to make some. (2 head butts and a wedgie while standing at the bathroom stall to milc)
How old are you?
Let me ask you something BOY? Would you be man enough to say that in person. If you had the balls to say something like to me in person you would surely be chewing the gravel of your own teeth.
I am able to comment on every statement you make because you reply to every statement on this board. I give two shits about you and or how many people argue with you on your posts.
I called you BOY earlier because only a child would make a comment like that. Thanks though for showing everyone here how big of a D-bag you really are.
" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
A FOOL?
Adult like? What would you know about being adult?
" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
Because he wants his face broken by a toilet bowl. Then I would get arrested for assulting a minor. He has to be about 12.
" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "
thats what people do on these fan sites- lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
it still looks like two drafts to fix this to me
that is all I can read from this. looking at the roster, we have only 2 players from the 2003 and 2004 draft, which should be our guys in their prime years (27-30). They should be the guys winning games for us, supported by the older vets and younger guys. It does not look like we have the guys in their prime and we just cut the older vet guys. Running out and signing older high priced vets is not going to help, it will just continue the mistakes of the past. Right now it looks like Shanny and Allen are going to take next year as a down/rebuilding year (blame it on vinny) and get another high pick with all 7 picks in hand. Year two they will try to turn things around and be winning in year three. I wish I knew what they are planning for at qb, as they have plenty of options still. Things can change, but this is what makes the most sense to me right now.
Maybe in a few weeks I will agree with you.
Give the organization a few weeks to pick up some more OL before the draft as well as a few other positions of lesser need. It is a good observation that the Team has an age imbalance that came about by not building and maintaining a roster over a period of years.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
Is anyone opposed to moving Haynesworth to DE???
We talk a lot about him playing NT, but I see him being more effective as a DE in the 3-4. Strong, good feet, can turn a tackle inside with ease…
I say line him up at DE in the 3-4 and put your best tackling LB behind him. And focus on getting a NT…a big “I bet you can’t move me with a bulldozer” NT…(Maybe we can con Tony Sarigusa out of retirement)
Cash, if you are talking 5 tech DE, I think it is great.
He will prob be more disruptive there than he would be playing the 3.
5 tech will result in less Double Teams.
You know why I love the 3-4,
as a LB you can key the G’s. It make run recognization so easy. Guard blocks down, fill the hole, as you prob have a FB coming in your face. If the G pulls, follow him. If the G takes a reach move to attack you at linebacker, beat him to the spot(which any NFL linebacker can easily do). I loved playing LB in the 3-4. It helped eliminate being out of position.
In the 4-3 your reading progressions. QB, to FB, to TB. It is easier for LB’s to get caught out of position, as one false step can cause a lane to open up.
Love the 3-4
Really interesting “inside football” comment. Thanks.
Of course you were getting out of position
if you were reading players in the backfield. I’ve never heard of a good 4-3 using such keys.
Carver, if you are a LB in the 4-3, and your DT's are playing heads up or shaded on the G, who would you think you would read?
If there is a FB, they would be your first read, if no FB, it goes from QB to TB.
The G is the only linemen a LB should ever read, and if that G is covered or shaded by a DT, it makes it a little hard to read them.
How good are they really.
The Skins D looks OK to me maybe good enough to get into the playoffs, only if the offense can control the clock and not turn over the ball and score some points maybe some teams will not want to play us. But we already know scoring has been a problem last few years. Possible causes have come to mind from the posts and some ways to rectify the problem. In the past few years we have drafted for the D side of the ball and it looks good. Now the O side of the ball needs to be attended too. The HOGS have to be rebuilt getting more picks and all sounds good but no-way a QB at this point when this years draft is loaded with a gold mine of O-lineman young and hungry for a shot. It may take a year or two but at least you will have a core of talent to build off of. We have to realize that we have to draft right this year and next for any success to come out of it. I was worried about drafting a QB and he turns out to be another Heath Schuler so I am not sold on any QB till the line is the best.
It's almost like when you have a new baby, and you get a puppy soon after for the family.
You want that puppy to grow up with the new baby, so they are used to one another, and will become best friends. That puppy will do anything for the baby, including even protecting him/her from fun loving parents who are just playing/rough-housing around.
This is how I want our QB/LT situation to be like. Draft Bradford 1st(the new baby), then draft a LT in the 2nd(the new puppy). They are roomates, they “grow up” together. That “new puppy” will do anything to protect that “new baby”. Because they came in together in the same draft class, they have that special bond that can only be found anongst certain animal species.
Sometimes if you get the puppy first, and that puppy is used to having all the attention form the family, that when the new baby arrives the puppy becomes jealous and does certain things around the house to mark their territory. Sometimes the puppy may even bit the new baby.
I'd rather the Oline grows up together
so it won’t matter who is in the backfield, they will have a rapport and can trust one another to get the job done. This is how the Hogs operated.
Yes, it is important for the o-line to operate as a unit.
It can be partial, on one side or the other, but all 5 together is the best. Yet it is likely take more than one season to get all the pieces together. Based on Football Outsiders, the peculiar thing was that the Skins ranked #5 in the NFL on runs to the right off tackle. Explain that!
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
All 5 in 2 drafts
these guys will still be close enough together in age to accomplish the same effect. As long as you establish a nucleus in the first draft. I don’t think this can be done effectively if you spend your most valuable pick on a QB instead of the stud tackle. We need that cornerstone.
Thats why I believe, like Jeff said, it will take at least 2 drafts to get back to respectability.
If JC is simply tendered for 1 more year, he is likely to be allowed to become a FA in 2011(I know other things can happen to keep him around). So why not already have that QB on the roster and learning in game situations, so by the time year 3 rolls around, and we should become competitive, our QB is a little more seasoned.
I don't see the appeal
of a skinny QB from a spread offense who didn’t make it out of college before sustaining multiple shoulder injuries.
He was 6-4 236 at the combine. Thats pretty good size.
He took a shot that could have happened to any QB. You can’t hold that against him. The kid had on of the best statistical years in the history of the big 12 in 2008, oh and by the way, also ran away with the heisman.
He did run a pro style offense in 2007(his redshirted fresh year, and first as a starter)and did very well. Some people seem to forget this.
The Big 12 hasn't put out many successful QBs in recent memory, either
and of course the Heisman is a good indicator of how successful a QB will be in the NFL. I don’t want us to have an ‘adequate’ line and a flashy QB. We need a dominant line and an adequate QB. Football is won in the trenches.
This all comes down to our conflict of philosophies.
You want to find a great QB to lead an average team to victory. I want to make a great line that an average QB can lead to victory. I guess it depends on what you value in the game, I guess.
by CarverM on Mar 6, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Another point
if you have an adequate QB and a great line, if one of the linemen is injured, your offense can still function well with a decent backup. If you have a mediocre line/offense relying on a superstar QB, guess what happens when the superstar QB gets hurt – nothing. As in no offense, since most teams, including ours don’t pay for two talented QBs.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I agree with you Carver.
I have had this exact same discussion with others. I see and understand both sides, but I just feel it is better to build a great O-line first. Then we can get the superstar QB.
There is no way I'm saying to ignore our OL in this years draft.
I just feel, because the draft is so deep in linemen, that we can afford to go away from LT with the 1st pick, and still get a quality T in the second.
I know the arguement can be made in the opposite direction as well, because if in fact the draft is that deep with O-linemen, why not grab 2 early, and fill in other positions in later rounds.
The only reason I don’t like that theory is because who knows where we will be picking next year in the draft. Usually the top QB’s go high in the 1st rd. If we don’t grab a highly rated QB this year, when we are picking this high, we may miss out on getting that elite talent for the future.
Top-rated QB in the draft
doesn’t necessarily equate to top-rated QB in the NFL either. I don’t buy QB draft hype.
I’d prefer we draft Okung at #4, but if he isn’t there, and Bradford is, then I wouldn’t be mad at a Bradford pick. Also, I don’t see how the whole “don’t know where we’re gonna pick next year” argument works. Most people who use that argument (not saying you) believe that its JC’s fault we’re picking at #4, and if that’s true, then if we keep JC (which I support) we will be picking at #4 or higher next year. If I missed something please point it out.
I'm more apt to accept a LeFevour
because he won’t cost us a dominant left tackle. There’s also a greater chance of him actually being able to hold the clipboard and learn for a year or two, whereas if we spend the money to get the top-rated QB then people will be calling for him to start week 1. Such QB controversies are silly and take away from what’s truly important in the game of football.
Prob is, just like the QB, how do you know a 1st rd LT is going to be dominate.
Jefferson did a post on 1st rd QB’s vs later rd QB’s, and 1st rd OT’s vs later rd OT’s, and what he found was that there is a greater rist for a later rd QB to be a bust than a later rd OT to be a bust. This is saying that teams should draft a QB higher, and you can take your chances with OT’s later as there is a lower risk that they will become bust vs later rd QB’s.
Fine then.
We get our line right in this years draft and next, then in 2012 we can take the best QB in April.
Thats fine,
but what if were not in position to select that high next year. I surely don’t want to have to trade away any future picks to move up in next years draft. Why not just grab our guy now, while were picking this high, and grab our LT in the 2nd, and a G/C in the 4th.
Then next year, we can grab another OT and another G.
We agree it’s going to be a 2 year process eithe way, right?
There is no Okung in the 2nd round.
I didn’t say that we take our QB next year anyway. We’re still getting our team together next year, then in 2012 we don’t have any glaring needs and can risk more resources to find the guy we want behind center. Our team has too many holes now to spend our 1st round draft pick on a guy who you don’t want to start right away. We can get Okung and he can come in and make our team better on day 1. Bradford could come in and start on day 1, but do you really want to throw your $35million investment (with injury history) to the wolves behind an offensive line unit that has never played together?
Here's my issue with FA vs the Draft.
There are linemen(both LT’s and RT’s), that are better than what we have currently, who can be signed as FA’s. I do not believe however there are any QB’s avaliable as FA’s who I consider heads and tails above Campbell.
I believe QB is a position we certainly need an upgrade to. Since there are no FA’s worthy of signing to come in and take over, the only other spot to look(besides a trade) is the draft.
This is my biggest issue.
And a rookie QB
is a wild card. How do you know anyone you take at 4 will be an upgrade? The biggest hinderance to any QBs performance in this offense is going to be the protection, not their actual skills.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you on that.
I’m just proposing a scenerio where Redskins fans can have their cake and eat it to:
Breakdown – Trade campbell for a 2nd in 2010.
Draft Bradford with the 4th pick.
Draft Charles Brown or Ducasse in the 2nd to play LT
Draft a RB with the additional 2nd
Draft a C/G in the 4th.
In FA’s bring in Pashos on the right. Re-sign Levi to compete at LT with the Rookie. Sign Hadnot, or another veteran to play LG.
Wouldn’t you agree our line would be improved in this scenerio? We have also addresses the QB, and RB issue as well.
Now come 2011. We can draft to fill in holes, or to upgrade at certain positions. There will aslo be a ton of those 5th year linemen, who were not elligable to become FA’s this year, that will be chomping at the bit to sign with a new team next year.
I, on the other hand,
think Campbell will excel next year behind an upgraded line with an improved running game. We will see the pocket being moved around alot with slide protection, QB roll-outs and play-action. The reads will be simpler and our play-callers will be able to create mismatches and opportunities to utilize our weapons to a level we could only dream of in 2008 and 2009.
He played behind a descent O-Line in 2007 and 2008.
He didn’t play extremely well either of those 2 years. I know the line had some injury problems in the second half of 2008, but it was still better that we had last year.
2008?
He set the franchise record for pass attempts without an interception during the 1st half of 2008 when our offensive line was decent.
But when the line went downhill, so did JC.
This just goes to show how average he really is. Others around him are needed for him to be good, not the other way around
So why couldn't Bradford will his team to victory in the 2009 National Championship
if great QBs can win it by themselves?
Common, we may not be on the same page,
but at least we were reading the same book. You just jumped from an auto-biography to a romance novel.
Haha
ok I’ll admit that one was out there. At this point I’ll just agree to disagree because there’s no way I’m going to be sold on Bradford and there’s no way I’m going to convince you he’s not our guy.
Definitely.
Just hope my thoughts made sense, there is a bit of a disconnect between my fingers and my brain today.
I def. respect you opinions,
and enjoy discussing football with someone who backs up their opinion with tangible facts.
Excellent Discussion
Thanks Carver and Tiller
I would tend to go with Tiller but overall and very well thought a presented case by both and with Allen/Shanahan running the show the Redskins could go either route and be more successful than the last 10 yeas
Just like you are not sold on Bradford, I am not sold on Okung.
I think he is good, just not sure he is good enough to be our pick at #4. Here’s a scenerio for you:
If Okung isn’t there when we draft, but Bradford is, would you then like to see Bradford become a Redskin?
If Bradford isn’t there at #4 but Okung is, I wouldn’t be upset if we drafted him. I would perfer to trade back, but if we ended up taking Okung, I certainly wouldn’t be pissed.
You'd rather take a guy
that hasn’t played football in a year and has admitted his arm is at 85% than the consensus top LT in the draft. Okung dominated in college and he answered his critics by posting very impressive numbers at the combine. He is, in all respects, about as good as a LT prospect as you can hope for in any given year. I mean, the man shut down Brian Orakpo, and we’ve seen what he is capable of at the NFL level.
Okung isn't even close in talent to the recent LT that have come out in the past few years.
If he came out last year(as a junior), he would have been behind Smith, Monroe and ole Fatty from Alabama. He is not even close to Jake Long or Joe Thomas.
Okung is good, but he didn’t face the best defenses in college. If he had those accolades in the SEC or Big 10, I would have more respect for him. I aslo believe he has peaked in potential.
Okung is good, but he didn’t face the best defenses in college
Lets change this a little bit to make another point. OK State is Big 12, right? Same conference as Oklahoma?….
Bradford is good, but he didn’t face the best defenses in college
Actually, the defensive lines in the Big12 were very good, including Oklahoma and Nebraska who have two decent DL prospects in the draft this year you may have heard of.
Bradford shattered records, Okung didn't make too many mistakes.
Do you want mediocracity or greatness?
Tell me what record you expected a great OT to break in college?
Come on man, its just the attention paid to the position. You’re nitpicking details here. Bradford played against the same defenses that Okung played against. When he was placed against an elite pass rusher like Orakpo—he shut him down. Do you expect every great olinemen to look like Tony Mandarich in college or something to be worthy of the #4 pick?
I don't need Tony Mandrich.
I do however think he has peaked in talent. if he is so damn good, why did he not choose to enter the draft last year.
I’ll tell you why; because he wouldn’t have been picked in the top 15.
He very well may be considered the best of an average class talent wise, but that doesn’t mean he is worthy of the #4 overall pick.
I think our team should pick
the guy who improves our team the most with the #4 pick, not who the scouts deem worthy of our #4 pick. QB isn’t the most glaring need on this roster, thus making Bradford not worthy of our #4 pick, in my opinion.
See, but I view our QB as a pretty big problem.
And I believe it is a problem that can only be fixed in the draft.
Please stay out of this conversation
Tiller and Carver are making sense, you, LJP, muck it up with non-sense JC a top 10 QB, Williams better than Okung
Come-on!
Dr, The only thing Okung has over Williams is upper body strength. That can be corrected by him staying on the bench press and in the weight room.
Since you are a Dr. and know it all, compare Williams and Campbells combine numbers. We can not compare Okungs since he DNP in most of the workouts. 40 yd dash Campbell 4.85, Williams 4.88 / vertical Williams 34.5, Campbell 32.0 /
Broad Jump Williams 9’ 5" (Campbell was not even in the top ten) / 20 yd shuttle williams 4.63, Campbell 4.69/
Bench Press Okung 38 reps, Campbell 34 ( williams was not in the top ten)
If you look at the numbers and game film it does not take a rocket scientist to tell that Trent Williams will be a super stud if he works on his upper body strength. Trent has a great base and sets his blocks with his base. Okung sets his blocks with his arms and has questionable leg strength. Both Williams and Okung or well coached though.
I can agree with Carver on this one
Okung would be a mistake to pass up on. We have a huge, gaping hole at LT. I mean, we might as well put Clinton Portis there then let Stephon Heyer get blazed another year there. But, it kills me that half of you guys are still saying that QB is a big problem! I can agree with LJP on this, I think JC will crack the top 10 this year. Matt Schaub is an injury prone, scared QB who put up insane numbers in Kyle Shanahan’s system. Jay Cutler is a wimp behind a mediocre o-line and mediocre receiving core. Jason Campbell played average football behind a terrible o-line and through a inconsistent receiving corps. Giving Campbell a good O-line and developing Thomas/Davis/Kelly/Mitchell is only gonna improve things. How can you possibly say let’s grab a QB when Campbell is easily better then half of the QBs in the league? I’d be happy to give you a list of where Campbell is too, because I think there are 16, inarguably worse quarterbacks minimum. It is just rediculous. If Jason Campbell was playing for Oakland, everyone would agree it was Al Davis’ neglect of the O-line, but because he is here in Washington, some of you guys just lose your head and immediately blame him. You guys need to learn a thing or two about football, because I’m gonna tell you something today: it starts on the line. O-line and d-line dictate a whole season, because skill positions in the NFL are so close talent wise (Quinton Ganther had a 100 yard game and was signed as a 4th string RB), while the line play is much more stretched out talent wise. We could start Todd Collins, Ladell Betts, ARE, and Todd Yoder behind a great o-line and go over .500, but put Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Chris Johnson, and Antonio Gates behind a bad O-line, and none of them look good at all.
1mm%agree
we’ve won 3 superbowls with below avg to avg qbs!!!!
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
Agree too and
Then Campbell is not in the Top-10, being average to below
The Redskins have not won in awhile, maybe something better than just an average QB is needed but then I remember Dilfer, so yeah it’s possible but with an above average QB the possibilities increase.
This #'s thing keeps coming up when people are comparing JC to other QB's in the league.
The #‘s do show that campbell has improved admist all the oline trouble we had last year. I’ll give you that. But people always say that #‘s don’t lie. So if we go by that, he is average. 16th ranked out of 32. To take a fair comparison you really need to look outside the box, and compae him to a similar QB in a similar situation. I did this a few months ago, but comparing him to Aaron Rodgers. Go back to the archives, and re-read that post. Compare the numbers of the two QB’s, both of whom by the way had terrible O-lines(Rodgers was sacked more than JC). One LEAD his team to the playoffs, and had numbers that were off the charts, the other couldn’t even lead us to a come-back victory, neverless the playoffs.
So go ahead and poke some more holes in my agruement, and i’ll turn around an poke more holes in yours. This #‘s comparison isn’t going to work. It just goes to show he is right where the numbers say he is; RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
It is not similar
You are making one huge mistake here. You forget how many times Campbell threw while he was under pressure/hit. Rodgers didn’t get pressured as much. Often Rodgers would get the chance to roll out and avoid the pressure when Campbell would have multiple D-linemen that forced him to quickly get rid of the ball inside the pocket. Campbell tried to never take a sack, and did a great job. Rodgers was much more willing to take sacks.
Rodgers also had a better receiving corps.
And, yeah, Campbell is right in the middle. I completely agree. But what do you upgrade first? One of the worst o-lines, or just an average QB? I upgrade the dire need. I understand why you want to upgrade QB, but I would leave that for next year.
Well, as you have seen in recent days,
It appears the staff is trying to upgrade the line via FA. A LG was already signed to come in and compete for a starting spot. It looks likely that at RT may also be signed. We have already tried to sign a LT, and I’m sure there are others that the staff will be considering, so maybe Shanny is realizing the same thing that many Redskins fan have been clammoring for for the last 2 year. JC is not the answer, and a QB is looking likely in the draft.
All this aside, we have agreeded to agree on one thing; Campbell is average.
And that's where ytou contradict yourself. Kinda glad you brought it up.
Rogers is heralded “inspite of”. Campbell is blamed no matter what. Stat for stat, they’re even, even though Campbell was working with less. Using your theory, Green Bay should be attempting to trade Rogers, but we know that’s not the case.
And yes, that team made the playoffs. But that team is not in the NFC East and there’s no excuse for not making the playoffs when you play the Bears and Lions twice.
Cash, the QB is always blamed when things go wrong,
and heralded when things go right. Thats just the nature of the NFL, not something I am just making up to support my own opinion.
You do know, by the way, that I have been, and still am, a fan of JC. I just believe that both he and the Redskins both need a fresh start.
It’s like when you buy a new puppy, and don’t spend enough time training him. After a while he will get the idea go go sit by the door when he needs to go out, but he still will shit on the floor from time to time. It may not be his fault everytime he shits on the floor. He may have been left in the house alone too long, or the owners may have fed him table scraps that gave him the runs, but either way the owners are going to be mad at, and blame the dog; not themselves.
the bottom line is that there is no qb worthy of a top 4 pick in this draft. the #4 pick last year got a 6-year, $60mm contract with $34mm guaranteed. he was a linebacker. if we draft a qb this year at #4, it is reasonable to assume that he will get at least as good a deal as that. so who do you propose giving it to- the guy who did not even play last year or the guy who played in the same system and put up similar numbers as highly rated and first round pick brady quinn who has done nothing but stink the entire three years he has been in the league. his qb rating this year, last year and for his entire career has been right around 65. JC is near 90 right now. the other qbs in free agency that are available are worse except brett favre whom the redskins have zero chance of signing. the only possible exception i can think you can throw out there is donovan mcnabb and i dont see the eagles trading him to us. so given all that, why is there even much of a debate? those two qbs might be franchise guys one day, but they are not worth $34mm to find out, much less $60+mm.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
having said that, i think the skins are wise to appear interested in possibly drafting a qb at #4 to see if we can elicit a trade down and get some more picks. then we can realistically draft two solid tackles and a rb or defensive lineman which we all of a sudden need since we decided to switch defenses.
if we trade cooley for a pick, then we can use the four first and second round picks to really tighten up the franchise for what they want to do.
though truthfully, i think we would have been a playoff or near playoff team drafting the two tackles we need, filling out the other needs with later round draft picks and free agents and playing smash mouth football running two tight end sets with JC playing a traditional drop back qb and our two young receivers stepping up under the new coaching staff.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't that Snyder's, Allen's and Shanny's job to decide?
You may feel that Bradford isn’t worth that kind of money, other may feel he is. Fact is, he is going to get franchise QB money from some team. Will it be the Skins? Gotta wait a month-and-a-half to see.
exactly…we do agree !!!
it is their job to decide and our job to speculate and play arm chair gm :-)
bradford is very very very likely going #1 to st louis; it is my opinion he is not a top 4 pick, it’s ok not to agree with me, but it is at a min a leap of faith to guarantee a qb coming off a shoulder that was injured twice in the same season and required season ending surgery $35mm when you also do not have either starting tackle. ok so one can be picked up in the 2nd round. (which is why i said they have to trade either cooley or hope they get a second rounder min some other way).
allen et al, is in a tough situation because people stopped coming to the games last year. and that changes everything. because you can not raise prices (revenues) with a declining fan base. i dont think snyder has really paid for his mistakes in the past because he has been able to increase revenues every year- until now. usually, that means a new qb in our situation so i wont be surprised if we get clausen (or bradford if avail). i think they should have returned to redskin football and marketed it that way. russ grimm might have been the right choice but i think snyder is done with first time coaches for a while.
but st louis’ front office is in a diff situation. they’ve sucked several years in a row and passed on a qb every year, including sanchez who went on to have a pretty good season for the playoff jets. making it worse, the people they did draft underperformed. now they find themself the worse team in the league and their qb is broken. they have to produce a qb this year or they will be cerratoed. and they will select bradford, imho
just doing my job :-) usually the first pick is signed before the draft begins so we will know.
there is no question clausen is not a top 4 pick because he is too similar to brady quinn that was drafted 22nd and has stunk. but i think they want him to market the start of a new era (hope- which is what snyder has sold since he arrived- lol)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, yes, yeeeesssss!!
Why don’t these people get it. QB is like our 5th or 6th greatest need. You would literally have to draft the next Manning/Brady/Brees to make a significant upgrade to the QB position – a huge risk in money and draft space. Steven Hawking (on full batteries for his wheelchair) would be an improvement to the OLine. Go with bang for the buck and fix our highest need first. This is a weak QB draft.
Even if we do well next year and have to pick a QB late in the 1st round, odds are he will be better than Bradford or Clausen.
But wait, if we do well with JC next year – the pressure is off to find the next Brady/Manning anyway, so we won’t need that top 5 QB pick . We can get an equivalent talent to Bradford in a later round under a rookie cap. If he doesn’t pan out, get another one or two until we find our hero QB.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
JC - similar,etc
If we get a first round pick for JC, we might be able to get both Okung and Bradford (or similar talent). Does the lack of offers so far suggest nobody will bid on JC at the current tender?
Donnio, I don't believe we will recieve a first for JC.
I think the tender was placed on him to protect the Redskins. The trade option looks more likely, and i think a 2nd and maybe later rd pick could get the deal done. I still put the Rams and Bills as the 2 teams most likely to want the trade, with the Rams being the ideal trade partner because it gives us a more realistic shot of getting Charles Brown at #33.
seattle is really desperate for a qb and looks like they are losing their first round pick to get marshall. STL is drafting bradford, 75% sure. i will give clausen a 25% chance. but their front office has to deliver on a qb this year or they are fired. little doubt about that. if i were them, i would grab bradford and campbell just in case to keep my job—- lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
the tender is actually for a 2nd round pick because of some arcane rule. and the skins will probably let him go for a third rounder if they draft a first round qb.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
it was reported that because the redskins tendered some players at levels higher than they were drafted, then other players had their tender reduced by one round. they said campbell and rogers are both 2nd round tenders to compensate for the higher round tenders others received. wish i had a link for you but i dont. i looked and could not find where i read it. i dont know the rule or if it is true. but we will know if we receive a first round pick for JC!
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
golston and doughty were tendered 2nd round picks and were both drafted in the 6th round. so what they said was because we overtendered those players, everyone else gets bumped back a round to compensate. but i cant find those articles anymore so maybe they were pulled because it is not true. … hopefully that is the case. i dont know just passing along what i heard. certainly would be nice if we get a 1st rounder for losing a starter
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
Okung or Bradford? Last Chance for a QB?
Tiller made an important point recently: We have the # 4 pick this year, and everybody expects us to do considerably better next year, resulting in a lower first round pick in 2011 – 15th or lower. But top QBs usually go very high, like under 5. Top linemen go throughout the first round or even a little later. So this may be the only year we have a high enough pick to get a top QB – our last chance to draft a really promising QB. Last chance for a QB, many chances for OTs – seems pretty conclusive. Of course, all this is if we can’t get another first round pick for JC, giving us the best of all worlds.
I don't get how
we could get good enough to lose a chance at a top 5 pick if we keep JC. I’m a JC fan, but just about everyone who thinks we need to draft a QB now thinks its his fault we’re picking #4 in the first place. If that’s true, then if we keep JC another year we’ll be picking in the top 5 again next draft, and then we can get a better QB than the ones in this draft.
Last chance?
Nice point – that if we keep JC, we will stay weak, and thus get another chance at a good QB. I think we should get somebody better than JC, but I don’t blame him alone for the 2009 disaster – he was just one of several factors. I would suggest that we’re likely to be considerably better in 2010, even with JC at QB, because of new coaches, an upgraded O-line, improved receivers, and a more aggressive defense. Tougher schedule, however. Anyway, I hope for 8-8 or better, meaning something like 15th or lower in the draft, too low to get one of the top QBs.
we are not going 8-8 next year if we start a rookie qb, that is for sure :(
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
lol- good one! i still blame the line more than campbell. he had no time or chance last year. he is still a question mark on some levels, but i agree the lack of leadership is a concern. then again, no one suggested dilfer was a leader- lol
it would be nice if we gave campbell a shot and drafted some promising kid that did not cost an arm and a leg and actually gave him a couple years to develop into something better than JC.
the guy from missouri we dropped and houston picked up was our best qb in preseason! lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
last chance
Same thing – if we take a QB this year, we don’t need a high pick next year, because we won’t be looking for a QB (so can take a lineman anywhere in the first round).
well, tackle is the problem. you can always find serviceable guards and centers. but there is a good chance tackles will be light next year because this draft is sooo deep at the position this year. it’s just how it works. better to grab them when they are around and the qb selection is weak. the best college qb/pro prospect will still be in college next year!
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't it the goal to get considerably better?
If we are drafting in the 20-30 slot, we have gotten considerably better with JC as QB. Why would you need to move up to Top 5 for a QB when JC had to have played much better to get us so low in the draft? Please stop contradicting yourselves. This is a twisted version of the we can get a 1st and 4th rounder for JC because we believe he sucks. Well, if we can, by definition someone else believes otherwise. This year, it is imperative to think, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
Next year and/or the year after, things will have changed and we will not have outsmarted ourselves this year based on pure conjecture.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Mechanics of RFA
Do they have to wait a week to trade JC? What if somebody bids before the deadline, while they’re trying to work out a trade? They can’t withdraw the tender, because then they wouldn’t own him, right? So they’d just let him go, or match and keep him, then trade him, I guess.
with the lions and bucs set at qb and two qbs to choose from, i think the redskins would trade JC if they could. they clearly are not sold on him. i think buf and sea really need qbs and are possible candidates. maybe we will get that safety from buf after all?
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:39 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- From Cam to RGIII, and the weird psychology of draft analysis
- UCLA comes down with a case of Tebowmania
- Ellen tries to get Kate Upton to confirm Mark Sanchez is her boyfriend
- Sore loser Bully Ray spits beer in the face of Brandon Jacobs
- Anthony Shadid followed the Green Bay Packers, with love, from a distance
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
