Redskins free agency: What we've learned from 36 hours of silence
by mmford10 on Mar 6, 2010 12:27 PM EST
180 comments
It's a bit surreal, right? We all had that sinking feeling, that feeling of cautious optimism that we knew wouldn't pan out, that the Redskins would sign Julius Peppers and Karlos Dansby and we'd be the talk of the offseason again.
I sure did. But now, here we are, a day and a half since free agency began, and the Redskins haven't spent a dime on anyone who wasn't on their own roster last season. No Darren Sproles, no Brandon Marshall, no Antrel Rolle. No one.
To be honest, I think Karlos Dansby would have been nice. But for the most part, I think we've done well so far in avoiding those big names. With Larry Foote coming to town -- no chance he doesn't sign with Lou Spanos and Mike Shanahan -- we could add another sure tackler to our front seven and valued character guy to our locker room, and have four starting-quality LB's for the 3-4 (Rak, Mac, Fletch and Foote). If they manage to add Tony Pashos, the right tackle from San Francisco, the Redskins will very quietly have acquired competent two starters, with little fanfare, who both have had success previously under members of our coaching staff (our new o-line coach previously worked with Pashos in SF). When you only have 5 draft picks, this is how you start to build a team. I love these moves (if they happen, of course).
But what does this say about our draft strategy? As I can see it, we have a few gaping, gigantic holes left on our squad. Here's how I think we'll address them. And unlike others on this site, I believe Jason Campbell has nothing to worry about.
Here are the major needs the Redskins currently have, in what I believe is the order based on need. This assumes we land both Pashos and Foote, which both sound fairly realistic.
Starting left tackle -- Chris Samuels' retirement means we have Stephon Heyer and Mike Williams to play the most important spot on the line. Yikes.
Starting/complimenting running back -- Our only running back on the roster is Clinton Portis. No Betts, Cartwright, Ganther, Mason. Probably gonna want another 2 solid runners by the time the season starts.
Starting right guard -- Unless this staff believes in Chad Reinhart (or Mike or Edwin Williams -- go Terps), they will need to upgrade here. I think Mike Williams handled himself decently at the end of the year and Reinhart had flashes of competency, so I place this need below another RB and another LT, because we could survive if we absolutely had to here. That said, we should upgrade here.
Backup/another quarterback -- Jason is the only quarterback who's ever played a down in the NFL on our roster now that Todd Collins has been given his walking papers. Rumor has it Rex Grossman is coming to town, but anyone who's seen him play for extended periods of time (any Chicago residents here? For two years when I went to school there I was exposed to him weekly) know that he is a big arm and a really inaccurate thrower. Not going to challenge Campbell anytime soon, trust me. Conspiracy theorists, go ahead, but realists -- Jason so much more capable than Grossman.
Beyond this I think we need some young depth on the o-line, perhaps another cornerback if Barnes or Tryon don't do the trick, another safety if we don't trust Reed Doughty, Chris Horton and Laron Landry (but I do), and we certainly should be resigning Hunter Smith sometime soon.
Another Redskins fan wrote that Jason Campbell's days are numbered in Washington. Frankly, I think that 36 hours into free agency, it's clear that's not the case.
Our team's biggest need is at left tackle. It's glaringly obvious. We have one guy who can start at QB, and no guys who can start at LT. At #4, we are going to take at LT. Simply put, if the Redskins don't have a good left tackle, we could have Peyton Manning at quarterback and struggle (although that guy Manning is decent), let alone Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford. It's difficult to see any need superseding that of left tackle on this whole team. Who would even play it if the season started today? Stephon Heyer? Yikes.
There's been a lot of talk that the Rams will take Bradford, the Lions will take Suh, the Bucs will take Berry or McCoy, and we will have Russell Okung or another strong LT (Anthony Davis? Trent Williams?) fall into our laps. Frankly, this is the safe and smart choice at the top of the first. If we draft a quarterback over a left tackle, our team has learned nothing. We all know the arguments about the importance of a good o-line. And we all know we haven't addressed it as an organization since the early 2000's. We had the absolute worst line I've ever seen last year, and drafting a rookie quarterback and starting a non-marquee left tackle is not going to change that. I think anyone with a football brain knows that, and we can finally happily say that our GM and coach fit into that category.
If the Redskins are able to plug the LT hole in the first round, the second round's choice also seems fairly obvious. I think there, you have to go with a running back. CJ Spiller will be long gone, but there is a good chance Jahvid Best, Jonathon Dwyer, or some other very capable guys are still there. Shanahan knows RB's, and if there's one good enough here, I'm sure he'll take one. And frankly, I don't see how that doesn't happen unless there's a great QB on the board (doubtful), another lineman Shanny thinks can start right away, or someone else that catches his eye. But frankly, with one RB on the roster who barely played last year, I'm thinking the Redskins are going to take one or even two running backs in this year's draft.
I would also think Shanahan would draft some combination of another quarterback, another o-lineman, a guy who can play 3-4 DE (although I believe, frankly, Daniels is perfect for one and Carter could definitely play the other), another RB, a guy who can return kicks (maybe that guy is also an RB?), and maybe even another WR.
So, for now, let's pick up Foote, Pashos and maybe some proven linemen and move to the draft, where we can really become a better football team within two days of smart drafting.
2 recs |
180 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
+1
I agree with everything you said. I just don’t want Rex coming here. There have to be other backup QBs. I wonder what the reaction to Carlos Rogers outburst will be. I guess the only big name I would like to see is Sharper at FS. Just because he has a proven track record and will want to prove Gregg with an extra “g” something.
Looks like Shanny finally learned his lessons.
No more Patrick Kearnys, Dre Blys, Boss Baileys, ect…
lol
He was the greatest coach the Broncos ever had, but I am glad he was shown the door. I hope he reinvents himself in Washington…so long as they don’t beat the Broncos — ever.
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
We didn't even need Shanahan to do that
beat the Broncos
In all honesty, we could pull a Vinny and draft 4 WRs. If we get Okung at #4, I will be satisfied.
Sigh...
While I appreciate that we’re not trying to be the offseason champs anymore I’m overly concerned about our approach thus far. There are very little options in UFA… especially along the OL. With an uncapped year and the threat of a strike looming the only way we’re gonna get guys lIke Pashos, Foote, etc. is by bidding a little higher than the competition. And thus far we’ve been unwilling to do that. Perhaps Clifton used us for leverage and nothing more but to host Weigman, Clifton, Pashos, etc and not sign a single one of them before leaving town is a bit alarming. We cant possibly fill all our holes with 5 draft picks, we cut 10 players on top of already lacking depth and have multiple needs for depth and/ or starters at LT, RT, RG,NT, ILB, FS, RB, KR, P, QB.
My fear is if we continue to host guys and lowball them or fail to offer contracts then we’ll continue to have more holes than we have the ability to fill them. There’s very few players capable of starting over BMW and Heyer in free agency and we’ve already let (perhaps) the top 3 leave without contract offers in Clifton, Weigman and Pashos. Unless we plan on taking a LT a#4, a RT at #37 and a RB in rd 4 then theres no way, at the rate we’re going, we can fill them all with guys that can start in 2010. Even assuming that’s our plan what do we do for depth and spot starters at QB, RB, FS, NT, etc. We need to be signing FA’s that have some starting experience at multiple positions and in this uncapped year that’s not gonna happen by bringing them in for visits, failing to offer them anything near there asking price and letting them continue on their merry way…just my 2 cents.
The guys we let go COULD come back
It’s very possible some of the guys we let go will come back. After they tested the market and found little interest. And we get em back for much cheaper. I’d like Smoot and Rock C back, Smoot not as a starter. And perhaps a couple of the others.
I would like Smoot to come back
And maybe Randy Thomas… but aside I can respect all the releases. Rock Cartwright can be replaced as a kick returner and he isnt a great running back.
Pashos' salary
Pashos, Tony
Year Team Base Salary…Sign Bonus…Other Bonus…Total Salary…Cap Value…Position
2009 49ers $ 1,200,000 ……$ 0 ………….$ 0……….$ 1,200,000…$ 1,700,000…..OL
2008 Jaguars $ 605,000..$ 6,000,000..$ 2,100,000…$ 2,705,000…$ 4,217,500….OL
Hadnot, Rex
2009 Browns $ 750,000………$ 0……$ 1,050,000….$ 1,800,000…$ 3,550,000
Dockery, Derrick
2009..Skins $ 3,200,000……..$ 0………..$ 7,280…….$ 3,207,280…$ 3,207,280
Hicks, Artis
2009Vikings $ 1,025,000…..$ 0………….$ 5,330……$ 1,030,330…$ 1,030,330 OL
What would it take to sign Pashos? Hicks will be getting about $3 million/year.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 7, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Rex Hadnot
doesn’t seem to be on the radar. There aren’t that many guard and tackles left to interview.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 7, 2010 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
I trust Shanny, esp when it comes to the OL
BMW and Heyer are bad starters and it wouldn’t be hard for Shanny to upgade them.
If Pashos & Clifton wanted more money than their worth, so be it. Neither are worth over paying for.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
by smutsboy1 on Mar 7, 2010 11:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
williams might work at guard. you cant expect a guy whose sat that long and dropped that much weight to play well. he has had another off season to condition himself but he needs some lateral quickness. sometimes, he was blocking air as they ran right by him by six inches :-(
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
i think
we need to trade the fourth pick to any team who wants it for a later first round pick and another second rounder… we should draft a LT with one of the picks and the complement/ future starter at RB with the other… i really like signing foote… i say give jason campbell another season and maybe draft a prospect quarterback in the middle rounds… if not just wait on that till next year
o and
as part of this plan we’d have two second round picks so we could conceivably grab three offensive lineman, two o-line and rb, one o-line one rb and one qb, or whatever bruce allen/ mike shanahan dream up
Just curious as to where you see Andre Carter fitting into our defense,
as you didn’t mention him when you listed the possible LB’s. FWIW, Foote is an ILB in the 3-4.
Carter is the OLB.
I don’t know where McIntosh goes (except to the bench). I wonder if getting Foote will mean they trade Rocky.
Orakpo
Don’t you just put Orakpo on the line as a DE?
Then your LBs are Carter, Foote, Fletcher, McIntosh.
I wish
but I think they are salivating at putting Rak in that DeMarcus Ware/Shawne Merriman/Joey Porter role.
Speaking of, I’m surprised there hasn’t been mention of us nabbing Porter, with the Pittsburgh ties of our LB coach
He's a little small
3-4 DEs are more like 4-3 DTs than DEs. They don’t operate in as much space as 4-3 DEs, so they need to be bigger. That’s why most people are projecting Orakpo and Carter both to be OLBs, where they can use their combination of speed and power best.
O-line
You didn’t mention Levi Jones. Also, nobody thinks of Mike Williams or Heyer as a left tackle. But Big Mike is a pretty good right guard (and maybe backup right tackle). I just read Shanahan’s strong comment about Williams in the Wash Post: “We believe that he’s only scratched the surface of his abilities so far, and look forward to seeing what he can do after a full offseason in our program”. Williams started slow last year. He had lost 100 lbs quickly, then started having stomach troubles in preseason, and I wonder if those things weren’t connected – too much stress. But if Williams does turn out to be a solid right guard, it makes the rebuilding of the O-line a lot easier. Pashos (hopefully) at RT, Okung at LT. Would make the line: (LT) Okung (Jones); (LG) Dockery; © Rabach; (RG) Williams (Rinehart); (RT) Pashos or Jones (Jones or Heyer).
i am not too concerned they failed to sign people they brought in. the coaching staff does not really know what they have and who will/will not fit in well. i think they let go some obvious people to them that did not fit for whatever reason.
they have shown a lot of faith in portis after canning all rbs except aldridge, who was always rumored to be a shanahan favorite. you have to believe that considering their relationship, they have spoken and portis will put in a more honest effort this year. you can always find a plugin running back in his system.
the big disappointment to me would be if they grabbed a qb and failed to also add two quality starting tackles. normally, i think that they know not to do that, but unfortunately, i think they got caught with their pants down thinking they tendered JC for a 1st round pick and in fact it is a 2nd rounder due to some arcane rule. for only a couple dollars more, they could have tendered him for a 2nd and 3rd rounder. because if he goes, #4 pick is a QB and there are no franchise LT after the first round (probably top 2/3rds).
and there are teams that really need a QB and are not in position to get one- seattle is DESPERATE. giving up a 2nd rounder for JC is almost a no brainer for them.
so worse case- we lose JC to Seattle or someone else, and use #4 for QB and do not fill one the LT, RT, or other major need with our two 2nd rounders
Good- #4 LT, 2nd round RT
Better? swap 1st round picks with SEA and get SEA 2nd or 3rd round pick. (we can get LT, RT, and RB)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 1:53 PM EST reply actions
the reason i keep insisting on drafting both a quality LT and RT this year is because this year the draft is especially deep for tackles, which means next year will be light. and you dont want to waste a 1st round pick in 2011 for what is normally a 2nd round talent.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 1:55 PM EST reply actions
It is all well and grand to draft a 1st rd LT.
The 2009 draft had some good tackle prospects. I’m not saying that those 7 tackles picked in the 1st and 2nd rounds are bust. It will take some time for them to out perform the experienced OTs. Oher and Vollmer were the exceptions. Eugene Monroe and Eben Britton ended up below the middle of the pack on Pro Football Focus ratings. William Beatty looked good on the surface, but an article analyzing “pass protection productivity” suggest otherwise – http://profootballfocus.com/articles.php?tab=articles&arc=&id=122 . The two Smiths ended up with injury problems.
The two centers drafted in the 2009 first round did very well.
The only point that I am making is that there are no guaranties.
I do not mind
A lineman taking a couple of years to come along. Yes, having a bust would be awful. But that’s the risk you take. I’ll certainly take the risk of a high pick LT being a bust over the risk of a 30-something-year-old LT breaking down after a year or two and then eating up roster space and money for the next few years. I’ll take the former over the latter simply because we’ve seen so many of those 30+ useless players over the past decade. A bust would be refreshing at this point.
Definitely
Our very own Mike Williams was drafted 1st round, 4th overall by the Bills who were looking for a new franchise LT to solidify the spot long-term (sound familiar?) in 2002. Not exactly a stellar career since then. But for the most part success as an NFL tackle correlates pretty strongly to draft position, so you have a better chance of getting a productive starter from your early-round tackle than you do from other positions. No draft pick is a guaranteed starter, but tackles (and linemen in general) are less of a risk than other positions.
A few ifs...
IF Shanny isn’t convinced that JC is the answer and IF Dr. James Andrews gives a decent report on Colt McCoy’s health and IF McCoy is available at the top of the 2nd rounds, we may see him get picked. A second round pick isn’t cheap, but he isn’t expensive, either. There’s certainly no worry of a massive signing bonus or an excessive number of years on the contract. McCoy doesn’t have a big arm, but he’s amazingly accurate and someone might feel that he could be developed into a competent, even successful starting QB if given the right amount of time. The fact is that we have only one QB at this time (not counting Brennan until the current regime says they’re actually keeping him). While I like Campbell and think he’s the right guy for us (unless the Saints decide they want to go in a new direction), I understand that Shanny might want to see what else he can develop. If he does feel that way, I think McCoy could be a smart way to go, barring his health, etc, etc.
btw
I mention Andrews because he’s our team physician (I’m sure most of you knew that) and because I believe McCoy’s been seeing him for his injury. I might be wrong though. Let me know.
I think you're right
Unfortunately, he’s treating Bradford as well. I woldn’t mind taking a flyer on McCoy if we could somehow pick up an extra 2nd rounder (Rogers anyone….ANYONE??)
Don't remember where I read it, but..
Someone said that the Redskins are willing to take as low as a fourth- or fifth-rounder for Rogers. Probably because he’s made it so evident that he doesn’t want to be here. Still, that’s way low for a guy like him. He had a rough year, but he’s still plenty talented in my opinion.
As far as Bradford and McCoy, I don’t think the fact that Andrews is treating both of them should make a difference for us. All we’re really doing is asking him what he thinks of one or both of them in terms of readiness to get back to playing and long-term ill effects of their respective injuries. Whether he’s ethically allowed to give that opinion or not, I don’t know, but I’m sure Snyder pays him plenty to be ethically gray.
what I meant was
that if Andrews says Bradford is OK, we might take him. Although, I will admit that I think if Andrews OK’s him, he’ll go #1. What scary is, if the Rams DON’T pick him. Then that tells me his arm isn’t OK.
I see what you mean
Of course, the Rams don’t have the same access to Andrews as we do. Ultimately, after pro days and everything, maybe the Rams will be more impressed with Clausen. I’m not sure how plausible that outcome it, but it could happen.
I keep hearing about this...
that the Redskins will have a better idea about the status of McCoy’s and Bradford’s injuries because they’ve seen our team doctor. Wouldn’t that be a pretty blatant violation of doctor-patient confidentiality though? Just because you happen to have a relationship with my doctor doesn’t mean he can give you details about my medical history. Doctors take that stuff pretty seriously, and get in big trouble if they’re caught violating it (even accidentally, like being careless with medical records).
Serious business.
It would not be a problem if the players gave consent
to have their medical records released to the Skins or some other team. What you should not count on is the Skins getting “better” or “different” information than any other team.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
i think it is a given that both bradford and mccoy get the drs clearance. we are too close to the draft for them. if they thought differently or there is even a remote possibility they would not get a pass, they would switch doctors. besides, i never got the impression that those injuries were career threatening.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
I agree on Colt McCoy
would possibly be a steal in the 2nd, his draft has really really fallen in the last few months & he could turn out to be the best of the bunch. Even tho Dr. James Andrews is the Redskins physician doesn’t necessarily mean that we have an inside track on his shoulder or on Bradfords. There is still a patient / doctor confidentiality that transcends our relationship with Dr. Andrews. We will pick up good players after the draft is over, nearly a third of NFL rosters are made up of UDFAs, we just need to be able to coach them, which is really one of both Shannahans strong points. They are both very good teachers & can make good players out of mediocre talent IMO, at least on the offensive side of the ball. I also like the way our FO is handling free agency, they are being wise & careful, not signing out of desperation or need & overpaying over the hill or one year wonders like Vinny “dumbass” Cerratto used to. Nice post mmford, well done & rec.d
more
I agree we dont need another bench wamer QB, grossman needs to not even get on the airplane to visit us. We should cheaply trade JC to the Rams so they go in a diferent direction with the first pick and leave us Braford. A few good moves it would be nice for the skins to make would be go grab Thomas Jones that fills our runningback hole right there then we could draft one also, Foote will be a good addition but so would Morrison from Oakland. The Skins should consider trading Devin Thomas or Malcolm Kelly to Oakland for Michael Bush
Foote is a character guy
and has to be considered over just about anyone from Oakland. I’m glad they are looking for leadership (at least it appears so) as they go through the machinations of filling holes. Also, Foote can be a great coach on the field for the defense and in helping out Rocky in the transition.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
this switch to the 3-4 is just timed poorly. limited draft picks, limited free agency, little holes already to fill on D and big ones on O. that’s all i am saying :-)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
I agree in essence
However it doesn’t make sense to install a tweener defense. You may as well start setting up the defense that you want to run for the next 5 seasons. Let the veterans and the rookies start learning it. I think I can safely say that no one has us pegged for the Superbowl this year. Start the rebuild now.
CB's ?
With all the talk about QB (I’m indifferent, can live with JC) and the OT (GOTTA do lots with that), who’s gonna play CB? Hall + who? Rogers and Smoot are most likely gone and I have never been enthused about Rogers and I think Smoot has lost a couple of steps.
Hopefully
Barnes will make strides this year, and Tryon will be able to hold down the nickel slot. But there are a few serviceable CB’s on the market who, in my opinion, are just as good an option as Rogers, and probably cheaper. And, with the lack of depth there, that’s a position where you could take the blanket approach (i.e. – sign a bunch of guys and let them all battle it out) I’d try to land any mix of guys like Ken Lucas, Will Allen, Philip Buchanon, Leigh Bodden…
I also wouldn’t rule out Dre Bly. Since he almost came here before (you know, when he was good), and it was Shanny who pulled the strings to get him in Denver.
If Barnes does this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAJGmVY48rs&feature=fvw
in the NFL one day then he will turn out to have been worth the pick.
Smoot's already gone
He got cut right before free agency started.
I think many are assuming he could be back on the cheap.
Even play FS, although I don’t think he can play the run as well as we need.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Truthfully
I don’t think we’re in as bad a position as I did before Clifton used us to get more dough from the Packers. 1st of all, I have been saying from the start that we need 3 starting O-linemen, but I think that’s wrong. Rabach will start, as will Dockery, but I am just fine with Williams starting at RG. To tell you the truth, I totally forgot about him. But I think he COULD have a rebirth, what with going through an entire offseason at the guard spot. Then we only need to fill the 2 tackle positions. (I know, I know…ONLY?) I don’t know what’s going on with Levi, but I really wish they’d bring him back. Hell, I’d rather have him than Clifton – he’s younger an cheaper. Then, even if we do draft 2 tackles high, we still have some quality depth.
No matter what happens in free agency, I still hope we draft at least 3 O-linemen, and definitely one with one of our top 2 picks. But what may be lost in all this is the fact that ShanAllen is(are?) doing EXACTLY what we’ve been wanting the front office to do for a LONG time. They are building OVER TIME. Think about it – did we really want to spend $7 mil on Chad Clifton? At first I said yes, but now I think NO. Pashos I’m OK with, as he’s a little younger, and hopefully cheaper. But even if we don’t get him, I’ll be glad that the FO didn’t force a signing. In other words, sign a guy just to be signing someone. I’m also glad they didn’t go with the carpet bombing approach – which is to identify a need, then sign a few guys to fill that ONE need, hoping at least one pans out. (see Brandon Lloyd, ARE)
Nope, I have to say, I am extremely happy with the way free agency has transgressed. And I just love that all the “experts” (mainly that pansy JLC) were wrong in how we were going to come storming out of the gates.
CJ you contradicted yourself.
Of Pashos you said “But even if we don’t get him, I’ll be glad that the FO didn’t force a signing. In other words, sign a guy just to be signing someone. I’m also glad they didn’t go with the carpet bombing approach – which is to identify a need, then sign a few guys to fill that ONE need, hoping at least one pans out.”
Your approach to CB was to bring in a bunch to see if some would pan out. “But there are a few serviceable CB’s on the market who, in my opinion, are just as good an option as Rogers, and probably cheaper. And, with the lack of depth there, that’s a position where you could take the blanket approach (i.e. – sign a bunch of guys and let them all battle it out) I’d try to land any mix of guys like Ken Lucas, Will Allen, Philip Buchanon, Leigh Bodden…” OK you qualified it “with the lack of depth there,” yet there is also lack of depth at OL. Sorry, I don’t want to be on your case too much. ;)
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 6, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
I guess
you could take it that way. But I meant more along the lines of signing a guy for too much money. I don’t think Clifton was worth $7mil in the long run. That would have just been overpaying for a band aid. Pashos would be good for depth, even if he didn’t start. As for the CB’s the difference there is that if we did sign 2, 3, or even 4 of them, it’s likely they would all get playing time, with one of them probably starting depending on the Rogers situation. And I mentioned guys who are ( I think) all under 30, and who have all been above average corners at one point, much like D Hall.
My overall point is, we still need to field 22 guys, and I think we’d still like to be competitive this year. Yes we need depth at CB AND OL, but again, like I said, the corners are at least serviceable. You would be hard pressed to find 3-4 “serviceable” O linemen in free agency, and definitely not all under 30.
once again
Its time for Danny to break out the checkbook GO GET THOMAS JONES pleaseeeeeeeeeeee.
lol
Yes, let’s go older at RB.
No, Clinton is a better player, and I believe Shanahan is gonna quiet him down and get him working hard. I take Clinton over Jones any day.
based on what?
Thomas Jones was great last year. Clinton looked like a corpse.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 6, 2010 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Right
Let’s forget that one year before Clinton could do everything, and let’s remember that everyone looked like a corpse under Zorn. Shanahan is reviving the spirits of the team, and I’ll bet you Clinton will be working a lot harder then he normally does. I think he’d definitely do better then Jones would.
Several RB's looked better under Zorn did than Portis did.....So basically your saying he can turn back the clock
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 6, 2010 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
Jones
Has fresher legs then Portis. Jones hasnt been used nearly as much and portis has had 2 knee surgeries. He’s much slower and has lost his burst. If Portis isnt hurting by week 6 I’d be suprised but I also did not say get rid of CP it would be nice to have them spell each other and give them shared time in the backfield. We need our run game back and Jones would do it until we can wit for Ingram to come out in the draft
maybe but it is kinda nice to field a team where everybody is not in their thirties and seemingly has less than three years left
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
Portis is better than Jones.
100%. Just needs some new motivation and to get back to his one-cut zone-running scheme.
Jones isn't worth a veteran contract
One RB in the twilight of his career is enough, thx
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
by smutsboy1 on Mar 7, 2010 11:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
We can get a more serviceable back in Round 7
than Thomas and he would likely replace CP by game 1 unless CP shows the necessary dedication to get back in form. At his age, it is more than getting back into shape, it will have to include regaining lost skills. Not sure many RBs can (or have ever) do that.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
they are certainly buying jones at the top! the line is the concern. there is no excuse for waiting two years to build a line to be rebuilt when we have 5 draft picks, including #4 and #22, free agency, two starters in place and a couple backups already on the roster. you can not win with a crappy O line- period. we have servicable players at other positions of need. we dont have serviceable tackles.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
Because we have Orakpo
No big injury on his history, younger, equally (if not more) effective. I’d love to have Shawn Merriman and Brian Orakpo both as 1st- or 2nd-year players, but they just had to be born in different years.
B/C we already have 3 potential OLBs?
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
by smutsboy1 on Mar 7, 2010 11:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Character guy
Hate to be “that guy”, but I want to point out your misuse of the term “character guy”. The only reason I even noticed this is because I just heard the NFL network guys discussing this during the combine last week. Apparently a “character guy” is a guy with character issues (Ochocinco, Vick, Pacman, etc.). A “high character guy” is a guy you want on your team, a guy with good character, maybe leadership skills, a guy who makes the right decisions and is a stand-up citizen.
I love those NFL network guys, so much better than ESPN. Much more interesting and entertaining, and at the same time pretty damn informative. If you haven’t seen Rich Eisen running the 40, I highly recommend checking that out!
Not buying it
Joe Gibbs always used the phrase “character guy” (not “high-character guy”) to describe guys who had overall positive personality traits — leadership traits, doing what’s best for the team, work ethic, etc. I’ll use Gibbs’ definition of a term over anyone currently working for the NFL Network (or ESPN, for that matter).
Fair enough
meant to reply here instead of below, oops. But yeah, I’ll buy that line of reasoning, Gibbs usually knows best.
That's where I got the term, from Gibbs.
The other type I refer to a “punk, shit for brains loser.” In case you wanted to know.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
i dont think that is a gibbs term- lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 9:26 AM EST up reply actions
Poor Ochocinco
What did he do to get his name tossed in there with Vick and Pacman? Sure he’s a little nuts, but he seems harmless.
Fair enough
I’ll buy that line of reasoning anyday. Hail.
WE SIGNED LINEMEN !!!!!
PFT reporting we signed RG Art Hicks from Vikings and Pashos i have to give it to Allen and Shanny you all have to admit this year def has a different feel to it HTTR!!!!
HTTR!!!! Dont get any Better.....ST21 fo life
F*****ing Mike Florio
Again PFT has disappointing they retracted there story that we signed Pashos. supposedly hes goin to visit Cleavland. again PFT just makes calculated assumptions
HTTR!!!! Dont get any Better.....ST21 fo life
Lions acquire DT Corey Williams … speculation is Okung likely going #2 now. But there are still other tackles considered franchise worthy at #4.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 6, 2010 8:27 PM EST reply actions
that doesnt mean they wouldn’t take a franchise changing DT at 2. williams is a decent guy, NOT a super star like people think mccoy or ndamukong could be
we’ve still got a shot at okung.
i dunno … what i read indicated that he is definitely a starter, not a backup and that they already have a pretty good tackle to complement him. all of which suggested they were not drafting a DT in the first round.
the lions need a line of their own…stafford got creamed this year. and i think they were targeting a rb in free agency too.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Yea, I agree, Williams makes 6M/yr and has 4 yrs left.
Hill is a promising young DT for them and they signed Bosch for 26M.
They have to sign Okung to block Peppers, Allen, and Mathews 6 games a year.
They could also take...
If they don’t take Suh they could very well take Eric Berry. I feel like the Lions feel okay about Jeff Bachus as their LT, don’t you?
I think it’s going to be 1) Bradford 2) Suh 3) McCoy 4) Okung
I think the skins have a better chance of getting Suh then Okung.
Bachus is old and average. Now that the Bears added Peppers, and the Lions adding Jones, I feel the Lions will definately take Okung.
if they want berry then they should trade down. #2 is way too high for a free safety when there is this much line talent/qb prospects in the draft.
i heard they like bachus too…but if you like him on the left…you will love him on the right :-)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
louis delmas
the lions took a free safety in the 2nd round last year and theyre convinced hes a star in the making. i wouldnt expect them to draft a safety so high this year.
Fargas
No way I’ve been saying we need to trade and get Michael Bush from Oakland
I didn't suggest any trades(except a second rounder for Gaither from the Ravens a couple threads ago)
and certainly wouldn’t trade DT or MK for Michael Bush. I like Fargas way better than Parker right now though.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
I like Fargas, too as long as no trades
which sounds like the case if he was cut.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
yeah he was cut........I like him for the vet minimum as part of a rotation
atleast more than Parker.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Agree with everything. Except using Carter on the line in a 3-4. He’s a little undersized for a 3-4 DE, he’d be a liability against the run there. And I think he could be a great OLB.
My only worry is that releasing Todd Collins means that Shanny is planning on drafting a QB, and then having a competition for starter instead of just bringing in a veteran backup (we haven’t met with any FA QBs yet, as far as I know). I definitely don’t want us to use the #4 on a QB, and I’d rather we used ALL of our picks to address other areas of need.
ok
Well the way I’m seeing is if we dont get Bradford or Okung this draft is going to be a bust for us.Jimmy Clausen is a joke and noway is worth a number 4. Maybe we take CJ Spiller at number 4 I still believe we should go get Thomas Jones Peirre Thomas is on the block for cheap he would make FA a win for us. Danny break out the book and go get Thomas Jones and Peirre Thomas and trade Clinton to Cleveland for a 3rd round pick.
No one is taking CP on a trade
his contract is ridiculously high – if you can think back thru to the glory years of Snyderatto, you can thank them for this predicament.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Portis very well could be cut so I doubt any team would trade for him.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
No chance of trade
He’s been losing it for the last 16 games. On IR for the last 8. Hasn’t proven that concussions are done with. Hasn’t proven that he has 2 legs to run on. (All numbers are estimated except the legs)
+100
jason campbell is a good starting quarterback and we shouldn’t get rid of him. anyone who thinks otherwise is completely clueless. I like most of your analysis except for the fact that you like the group of safeties we have. IMO, I don’t think we have a single bonafide FS on the roster and 4 SS. I think we should’ve gone after Rolle or draft Berry because it was painful watching the big plays we let up consistently last year
I'm not booing Stephon Heyer, he's trying hard. I'm booing the fact that Stephon Heyer plays for us.
by Area 51 Forever on Mar 7, 2010 11:31 AM EST reply actions
what is wrong with you guys....
Your first step as a franchise is to get a star qb, then protect your star qb. There’s no way you pass up an elite qb for a LT, that is the non-sense. The moment you have a chance to draft a future star qb, you do it, no matter the situation or if you have a good o-line or not. I’m tired of people on here saying we could win with a serviceable qb and then use the Gibbs era for an example. No doubt we can win with a serviceable qb…but we can never be a consistently winning franchise with one. The gibss era is so different comapred to now, now you have to have a star qb, its more of a pssing league now, and not to mention added contact rules against the defense. These days you have a chance to get an elite qb you jump on it now not later…problem with my argument is that I dont know if Clausen or Bradford is “it”
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 7, 2010 11:45 AM EST reply actions
we'll see
Bradford may be that guy, IF his shoulder is OK. The 2 ends of the spectrum on the “bad shoulder” scale are Drew Brees and Tim Couch. Brees made Miami look stupid for gambling on Culpepper’s health over his, and Couch never recovered (what chance he had at an NFL career) from his shoulder injury. And please, don’t tell me how awful Couch was in Cleveland. He was a top tier COLLEGE QB just like Bradford.
Taking a QB with a high first is a HUGE gamble. I’m against us doing it, but I do at least understand the argument for the other side. If there were no questions about Bradford, I’d say go for it. But there are – the guy hasn’t finished a COLLEGE season in 2 years. As for Claussen, he reminds me a LOT of another immature, :2nd best QB in the draft" – Ryan Leaf.
Do we need a franchise QB? I don’t know, but it sure would be nice. What I do know is, I don’t want to project that title onto a guy not worthy of it just because he has the best QB credentials in the current draft.
Now, if you don’t want to use the “Gibbs era” as the barometer, how about using last year? Of the 4 QB’s in the championship games, two were 1st rounders, and two were second rounders. Now break them down: Does ANYONE think ANY of these guys will be the next Peyton Manning? I highly doubt it. Sanchez is still an unknown if you want to be honest, so what’s next? You have Drew Brees and Brett Favre two guys with questions coming out of college which led to them being taken in the 2nd round.
Like I said, I’d rather take the chance on a guy later on in the draft, where it’s less of a gamble, but you have just as good a chance ending up with the same results.
Whats wrong with you?
Your first step as a franchise is to get a star qb
Tell that to Baltimore and the Jets. They picked up their franchise QBs last and they seem to be doing pretty good.
by Nobetterthenbob on Mar 7, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
in fact, both minnesota and arizona started their rebuilding with a strong emphasis on the offensive line, then the defensive line then added first round skill position talent and topped it off with a 34+ year veteran qb that everyone thought was washed up.
regardless, bradford is going #1 to STL and clausen is not a top 20 pick
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
The Vikings knew thet couldnt get over the hump without qb
Leave it to you and you would have been satisfied with a serviceable qb, right? vikings had a strong o-line, strong defense, star rb, and good coaching last year witha serviceable qb in Tarvaris Jackson and that still wasnt enough. You know what they were missing…a qb….enter Favre and the team goes to the nfc championship which any can argue they won that game. When will you guys learn….you cannot develop a consistently winning franchise without a star at qb. Why do you think every teams sole purpose is to get one. And all the teams you 2 named above, guess what they have star qbs.
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Tarvaris is FAR from servicable.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Are you suggesting that Favre
would actually be alive if he played for us last year? Please…I would rather have a serviceable JC for a few more years while we get a line developed and get a QB in another year or two. You place the cart squarely in front of the horse, as getting the “star” QB last is exactly what the Vikings did.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Once again, I'm sorry
You sir are the one missing the point. Flacco had barely a better season than JC in terms of stats, and Sanchez was flat out horrible. Neither of them are elite, maybe in the future, but they have been placed in a system where they can grow. The vikings had success before they brought in Favre and he was the final piece to completing the team. They had a great line, a great defense and a great running game. The only thing that they truly needed was a QB and it worked wonders. Arizona needed a QB that could step and lead the offense and that is what they got. And these two QBs were not drafted by the team that they have current success with so if you are referring to as elite QBs your argument makes no sense.
Now, on our team, do you see a WR tandem like Fitzgerald and Boldin? Do you see a stud RB like Peterson? Do we have a great line like baltimore? NO! We have none of these things, so your delusion of drafting a QB to better the team is ridiculous. Even if we have a 2-3 year rebuilding process on our hands, it is still smarter to go with a vet QB than it is to go with a rookie. We need to build a team before we build a persona and we really need to draft someone on the offensive line with our first pick, an area we have failed to address for the good part of the decade.
by Nobetterthenbob on Mar 8, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
They are projected to be stars
Sanchez, Ryan, and Stafford aren’t stars yet but they were brought in to eventually be a star for their respected franchise. And what you said about the Vikings is what i already stated above….They had everything with a serviceable qb and they went no where. Favre comes in and they get to the nfc chanpionship…you have to have a great qb to get the team over the hump. This is not the 80’s.
As far as our team… how do you know how good our wr’s are until you get an elite qb. You dont!!! We have as much offensive power than any one else. Our problem is utilizing them. That falls to blame on the coaching, the line, and mainly the qb
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
First off
If you think the 9 TDs and 12 Ints is serviceable you need to get you head checked. Tavaris has never been a serviceable starter and never will be.
Your comment about a good WR is just silly. Look at Marshall, he’s amazing yet he has an average QB. Roddy White had his break out year with harrington and redman throwing to him.
You know what, I’ll play a little with this statement
you have to have a great qb to get the team over the hump
What exactly is the hump? The AFC championship game? Because one of the worst QBs in the league got there. That’s not on him, its his team. His team, which had the best defense and one of the best running games, took their rookie QB to the AFC championship game, not fucking sanchez. Is that the hump you are talking about? Because another one of these elite QBs, farve was in the same situation. An elite Qb was on the team and they lost as well, so your argument is a little flawed.
Even is your statement is true, we don’t have a hump to get over, we have a fucking road block. Get it in your head. We are not going to be good enough to get to the playoffs with the current team we have and drafting a QB does not get us any closer. And by the way, projected to be stars doesn’t mean shit.
by Nobetterthenbob on Mar 10, 2010 2:58 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe thats why they cant get over the hump
And both of you miss the point. point being if you have the opportunity to get an elite qb…you don’t pass that up whether your line is in shambles or not.
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
bradford and clausen are not elite college qbs without major concerns. there are no elite qbs available in free agency. the best college qb is still in college. you seem to be missing my point entirely. thats ok. i want an elite qb too! where we differ is in the absence of an elite qb available to you, i say go for the sure thing in the 2nd most imp position on the team where you dont even have a quality backup, much less starter. you want to hope that the qbs that could be elite but have legitimate major question marks pan out.
it is not as simple as passing on an opportunity- it is a $60mm commitment with over $35mm guaranteed. he was injured twice in the SAME season! Yeah, I want him to be healthy when I draft him- call me crazy! lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
the best available does not mean elite
Bradford and Claussen are the best available this year but this years draft is well know to be weak in QBs.
I’d be excited about picking up Locker but not anyone who’s coming out this year.
Yea I agree. They don't seem sold on JC.
I think they will go QB. If they had any confidence in Campbell, they would have signed him for a multi-year contract. If as a coach or GM the first thing you do is evaluate the QB position and secure it for the forseeable future. Then you look at LT, RT, LG and secure those spots. If they think another player is a substantial upgrade at that position, then they have to make the move.
The problem with the "get a franchise QB first" logic
is that it is based on the faulty assumption that a franchise QB can be identified in the draft/from college. The fact that a QB goes high in the draft doesn’t have any bearing on how they do in the NFL. We’ve probably seen more 1st round QBs fail in the NFL than succeed. Look no further than our own history of QB busts The sounder move is to secure the line then if need be go on the QB hunt next year if JC doesn’t pan out.
If you want more evidence look at the Patriots and the Raiders. For one thing Brady was what, a 6th rounder? Compare that to the situation they have in Oakland with Jamarcus Russel. Where a person is anticipated to be picked/actually picked doesn’t make them elite.
Look back to New England if you want evidence that it has as much to do with the system and supporting cast as the QB. Look how they did with Matt Cassel at the helm compared to how Cassel has done for the Chiefs. Brady certainly adds things to that offense that Cassel can’t but it shows you can win 10 or 11 games with a decent QB (as opposed to an elite QB) in a solid system. An elite QB however in a bad system is dog meat.
Yea I agree, it's a crap shoot, but then again every position really is.
I have no idea how they evaluated the QBs, but it seems obvious to me that JC is not their guy going forward. They stand a very good chance of losing him this month, and then what? They have to draft a QB somewhere in this draft. Have to hope their scouting and evaluations are spot-on.
!st round qbs have high bust rates....what else do you expect
if it didn’t football would be a whole lot easier and not that interesting. Life is a crapshoot and you wanna do something in life…you have to jump off the bridge doing it. You use your high paid scouts, and other personnel in the organization and make a educated call on whether they think this or that qb is worthy of being a high pick and could he be the star qb they look for. If the organization is wrong…you cant blame them for trying…if their right then they just got the most important piece to the puzzle for the next 10 years or so.
As far as the new england example…yea they got 11 wins (easy schedule) with Cassel, but didnt make the playoffs. With Brady, their super bowl bound just about every year… see the difference?
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
If we wait until next year and beyond
we can draft a young QB EVERY year with less risk since there likely will be a rookie cap. We could have 2 or 3 guys in camp with a shot at making it for us and it will be a fair test for them with a serviceable offense to run. No pressure at all to move on a QB this year.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Cassel's college experience
In his case, he did not get to play QB in college games, yet the Patriots gave him a roster spot and it netted him a nice contract. Given his lack of college or NFL experience, it is too early to conclude much about him. The analogy does not hold. What did Brady do in his rookie year?
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 9, 2010 7:13 AM EST up reply actions
I couldn't agree more
getting an elite qb can come from anywhere in the draft and thats where having good coaching comes into play
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
i think they are losing JC for the second round tender they offered him. If i were mr jones, i would sign the guy as a backup to romo to get him out of dc and promise to trade him so he can start somewhere and leave us holding the bag of either no qb or no protection for our rookie qb
even if dallas only got a 3rd rounder and lost a late 2nd rounder in the deal, it is worth it to pummel your rival
and if i am the redskins assuming the second round is a mistake, i am either trying to trade cooley right now for a first round pick or extending JC a better offer
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
JCs a first rnd tender
+ we have right of first refusal.
Star QB's don't survive long if...
they’re playing on their back. I disagree with your logic. You build your core (O-line) first and then you add from there. That’s winning football. Sure, some teams jumped out there and got a “star” QB and watched him struggle the first few years while building a line. But the chances that that QB survives long enough for that to happen are slim and rare. Manning’s early years sucked without a stout line. He hung around to see them become legit. The results, one Super Bowl ring.
Brady was thrown on a team WITH a line. Barely played on his back. The results, 3 rings. Sure it’s arguable that there were other elements that contributed to that. But to say that you draft a “star” QB now in our current condition, is suicide and ASKING for many more losing seasons to come.
So are you telling me you would draft a Joe Thomas over a Peyton Manning if the o-line wasn't stout yet?
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't know Peyton was up for drafting again.
I see a broken possibly great QB and a couple of Ryan Leafs and Alex Smiths. Let me know how it worked out for David Carr and Joey Harrington when they had no line. How about a side of Jemarcus Russell and Akili Smith. I’m pretty sure all of those guys were considered the can’t pass on QB. Unless you are 100% on the QB, you don’t take him out of desperation. I stand by the saying, “Hope is not an effective stategy.”
Based on the knowledge that Manning
became a superstar several years into his career? Or based on the fact that he was a highly touted senior QB with pretty good success at a major program. Well, so did Ryan Leaf, whom the Colts almost drafted. Your example is not fair and does not support your argument except to say that both the Chargers and the Colts took a shot at nirvana with widely varying results.
This year, however, there are no Mannings likely to even bother with the risk and we simply can not take the risk in my opinion of drafting a “Leaf.” Or Shuler or Ramsey or Ferrotte or…
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
i think that is the main reason people keep talking line…the top quarterbacks are question marks to start.
bradford did not even play last year. and he is a shotgun qb on a team not known for passing in a conference not known for passing. and he is coming off a major shoulder injury
clausen never won at the collegiate level, is not attributed as a leader, and can be very easily compared to brady quinn since they played for the same coach in the same system and have very comparable stats. quinn was drafted #22 in the first round and has a consistent career qb rating of about 65- which stinks.
these guys might be top quarterbacks in the league one day, but their profile entering the draft is not worthy of even a top 20 pick. i think the media is struggling with that and are pumping them up.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
disagree
Skins and plenty other teams have won w/o a star QB. Besides, even a star would be wasted playing behind our line.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Really We have?
What is your definition of winning? Having good win/loss record? Because my definition is the same as every coach and player and thats winning a super bowl. Its been awhile since the skins done that and please don’t use that as an example to explain your point because football has changed so much since then. Its definately more about the qb the it has ever been
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
Yes We have and many others
Rypien, Williams, Grossman, Delhomme, Gannon, Chris Freakin Chandler. All SB QBs.
Add to that
Dilfer and Brad Johnson. Joe Theisman wasn’t that much better than anyone in this group, just a notch up.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
and then there's
Joe Kapp, Craig Morton, Jim Plunkett, David Woodley, Jeff Hostetler, Neil O’Donnell, Stan Humphries, Daryle Lamonica, Tony Eason , ALL mediocre and ALL SB QB’s. Morton went with 2 different teams. He’s ranked like #132 in Career pass complete %. What are these guys smoking?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Namath was a poor man's Mark Rypien
but that might be going a little too far back.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I’m definitely not old enough to remember. I guess that’s what NFL films is for. That includes most of your list Geo. LOL
regarding Rypien
He had the Hogs at their best! If JC had a line like that………..AND he had in the ’91 Super Bowl year, the 2nd best D in the NFL.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
maybe- but ryp threw an unbelievable over the top long ball. it was the only throw he could make. prob why we ran ran ran and throw over the top all the time with him—- lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
It was uncanny how he could hit a Smurf
in stride, on the hands from 60 yds away and completely miss some guy circling out of the backfiedl.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
"It" is the dilemma
We can continue to rebuild this year and pick up just as good a QB next year for much cheaper assuming a rookie cap. We have too many holes to fill this year to even consider a pick for a QB.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
It all depends
If the “it” guy is coming out this year then youu don’t wait. You don’t pass up a young future star qb and say we’ll get one next year. It could work like that maybe but if you have a hance to get that guy now…then you dont wait on it….you cease the opportunity
by mr.snyderhireme on Mar 8, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
you obviously believe these guys are going to be the next manning. which one do you like and why?
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
I'm finding it easy to wait
as there is no “it” guy in this years draft making the whole question moot.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
even if there was an"it" guy
he might be a total flop in the NFL. happens more often than not….
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
and bradford is going #1 to STL. they have to take him. if they were smart, they would take bradford #1 and grab campbell for the second round tender or see if the skins will trade him for a third rounder. start campbell until bradford is ready because the gm is getting fired if he does not solve the qb position THIS year.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 7, 2010 5:49 PM EST reply actions
why do you keep
saying “2nd round tender” for Campbell. Every indication I have seen shows it to be a 1st round tender. I realize it’s the 2nd LEVEL tender, with the 1st and 3rd compensation being the top level. But I do believe that the Redskins would be due a 1st rounder if they do not match an offer for Campbell. Now, obviously, that’s not to say that they can’t negotiate it down. It seems that is the reason for the tender they gave – to let teams know that Campbell CAN be had, while also letting him know they aren’t willing to just let him walk for a pittance.
I don't understand
all this 2nd rounder talk either.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
i read it but they were wrong. you are correct hutch!
by les boulez bomber on Mar 8, 2010 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks, CJ
Until this gets straight in many people’s heads, we aren’t going to get many sensible posts on the issue of JC.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
So far it's the best free agent season in 20 years
I’m loving the new methodology of the Redskins and I can see we’re finally going to get somewhere…it’s about time!
Best FA season?
Why is it so good? We hardly got anything we need, and cut 10 players. We didn’t improve at all, except for getting one right guard to compete with Mike Williams. We lost the best RT also (Pashos). How is total failure – the status quo – good for a 4-12 team? Actually, what we’re seeing is a huge retrenchment by Snyder – like, “I can’t win with money, so I just get stingy and let the employees figure out how to win with cheap players”. I.e., the pendulum may have swung too far back – now Dan is cheap (although Allen did say Dan did not put on any limits in spending). Again – this is looking like a terrible FA season, following a terrible season.
I think you're overeacting just a little bit.
This roster remake is just getting started.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
exactly
the great moves so far are that we haven’t over spent stupid amounts of money on players like we usually do.
It’s a long way before the season starts and there’s plenty of time to fill the team needs.
Out of the 10 players cut, none of them were better than average and I don’t think they’ll be that hard to replace.
Yes
This is a long process all the way through to camp. I think part of what they are doing is sending a message down the line that the free wheeling Snyderatto days are over. This needs to be done consistently in order to treat everyone fairly. Like someone once said, “Lombardi isn’t prejudiced. He hates us all equally.” Or something to that effect.
I also think that the best we could expect in FA for our Oline is only average players at best for depth. To really solve our problems there, we need to look to the draft for long term talent and pay them what they are worth.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Vinny is nodding his head in agreement with you Donnio
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
no doubt
Keep in mind that those guys were eating up $63 million in cap space, $63 million for 10 mediocre players. Ridiculous!
guys that are replacable at the snap of the fingers.
by opening day we will have found equal talent elsewhere.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Colt
Whos to say if we dont get Bradford our best QB Colt wont be our starter. He’s Shannys type of QB definitly an upgrade as in passing the football around. I believe this would be better anyway. I’m stil saying we need to get Thomas Jones or Pierre Thomas. Let Colt have his chance and draft OL, and maybe a starting FS.
I would be really shocked if Colt is on the team at Training Camp
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
If we had a 3rd
I would be hoping he fell to us there. I like him.
t-minus 2 years until Colt is out of football forever.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I think he was talking about Brennan
which is who I was talking about.
by BayAreaBullet on Mar 8, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
I'm confused.
Colt Brennan is an insignificant prospect.
Next topic.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I'm sure his Mom thinks otherwise
but most people are closer to your thoughts on the matter. :)
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Free safety candidates
………………Snaps…Overall .Run Def…Pass Rush…Pass Cov..Penalty..# of Pen..QB Sk..QB Ht..QB Pr…BP..Tks..Ass..MT..Stops
Brodney Pool 683…….8.2…….1.8………….0.6…………….5.8…….0.0……..0-0……..1……..0…….2…….0….36…..7…..4…….12
restricted free agent – Former Cleveland safety Brodney Pool is scheduled to pay a free-agent visit Monday to Rams Park, his agent Ben Dogra, confirmed Saturday night. Pool, 25, was a second-round draft pick by the Browns in 2005 out of Oklahoma.
Gibril Wilson..943…….2.0……..2.6………….0.7……………0.7…..-2.0……..2-0……..1………2…….2……..1….70….11…9…….14
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35727138/ns/sports-player_news/ – Article says he was a bust.
The One that got away, highest safety contract ever, pro-bowl.
Antrel Rolle.1,124…-11.7…….-3.3………….2.6……………-9.0…..-2.0……..2-0……..2………2……..6…….0….70….12..16…….13
Someone will have to tell me what’s wrong with these stats, i.e., Wilson looks good but Rolle doesn’t
For more detail on all safeties see the columns under the caption “coverage.”- http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=S&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1
FA
OK – maybe not a disaster, but a bit disappointing. No objection to the cuts or passing on Peppers, Dansby, etc. But I did hope that we would beef up the O-line. It was a small class of FA O-linemen, and they’re (almost) all gone already, and we got just one marginal guard. They let the best get away. Now, granting trades, late cuts, etc., we have to go O-line big in the draft. And that takes away the chance for a QB. We’re boxed in. And I just hope it wasn’t “penny wise pound foolish” (losing Clifton, Pashos). Let’s hope they do have a plan.
olinemen
ryan Lilja just got cut! we should for sure sign him!
by the fantasy king on Mar 9, 2010 12:47 AM EST reply actions
FA - Snider column
Rick Snider’s column in the Sunday Examiner said what I was trying to say, but much better and more diplomatically than I did, (and he did it without any boilerplate criticism of past big spending). He points out (paraphrasing) that we needed smarter spending, but they are doing it at the wrong time – when there is no reason to be cheap. We’ve shown “restraint”, and lost some people we could have used (especially O-line). In effect, so far it’s been a disappointing FA season. As a number of people have said above, it’s still early and a lot can happen. Like Lilja coming free, and trades and tenders. etc. So I did over-react. Sorry about that. I still hope that they get some good O-linemen though!
My main disagreement with his thesis is that money isn't the only reason FA aren't a good idea
It being an uncapped year is almost irrelevant to my anti-FA stance.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
