Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

A 'Burgundy & Gold' look at who's playing for a job


By Cindy Boren  |  December 31, 2009; 7:21 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Carter takes his Pro Bowl omission in stride
Next: Breaking down the Redskins' injury list

Comments

F the Video..

Everyone.

The only ones safe are the Triplets (wr, te, wr), Haynesworth, OSackpo, Dockery, Barnes, Tryon, a couple of young lineman, Jarmon, and very few young backups that were drafted.

Not even LFB is gaurenteed to stay. Sellers is definitely gone (he misses too many blocks to be a fullback)....

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

from the Post,

"...The Redskins have scouted college quarterbacks and with a first-round draft pick that could be as high as No. 5,..."

"But if as a restricted free agent, Campbell is offered a two-year contract by another team, the Redskins may not want to match such an offer..."

So the team wants to draft a quarterback and have the likes of Jones, Heyer, Rabach, Williams, and Dockery protecting him?

The guy won't develop anything but a relationship with painkillers.

Let Campbell dangle, sign him once the market settles, then get some lineman in place while also drafting the new quarterback.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know what we have with Campbell: a 6'5", 235 pound tackling dummy to be in place while the line gels and the rook learns the playbook.

Some crafty moves should be made to get more picks to draft guys to block for the young'n over the next two seasons, too.

And from somewhere, a speedy running back must be procured.

Again: we want a good young quarterback.

Not the second coming of Patrick Ramsey.

We've already got that in Jason Campbell.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Moe....We'll just sign someone off the street or start Collins or the Colt while Bradford soaks in Shanahan's playbook...

PLUS....we'll get another draft pick if JC signs someone else!

Win-Win.

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

"Not even LFB is gaurenteed to stay. Sellers is definitely gone (he misses too many blocks to be a fullback)...."

I think I'd keep Fletcher, but Sellars is done.

I'd like to see the team snag a good cornerback after moving CR to free safety.

And no matter what its issues are, the redskin defense could kinda stay how it is.

The offense, though, needs to be blow up in the backfield and offensive line.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Moe....We'll just sign someone off the street or start Collins or the Colt while Bradford soaks in Shanahan's playbook...

PLUS....we'll get another draft pick if JC signs someone else!

Win-Win.

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

4thfloor

"....We'll just sign someone off the street or start Collins or the Colt while Bradford soaks in Shanahan's playbook..."


You are aware that terminology is all that separates Shanahan's playbook from what the team runs now.

So why bring in another guy or expose a draftee to getting killed on every play?

Win-win means you stay how you are with subtle changes.

So you get some linemen in and let Campbell play behind them as they gel.

A 2-3 year deal means he's on the bench after a season anyways...unless the improved blocking improves his game.

Then you have a starter and young guy on the bench.

That's how you win-win.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:14 AM | Report abuse

This season can't end soon enough to see what going to happen. I really hope that Snydley stays away from Allen's and whoever's personnel decisions.

Posted by: cmecyclist | December 31, 2009 8:14 AM | Report abuse

RockyMac is safe too.

Andre Carter is due like a $10Mil roster bonus this year, so that's what puts him on the bubble....

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Moe...We are not on the same page.

If Campbell signs somewhere else and we don't match his contract, we get an extra draft pick.

We draft Bradford. He sits year one while digesting the playbook.

Colt/Collins/or street QB gets blasted next year, while Bradford is on the sidelines.

You can not control if Campbell signs somewhere else. why match the offer if you are picking your QB of the future and still have QBs on th roster to play next year...

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"I really hope that Snydley stays away from Allen's and whoever's personnel decisions."


The coffee is strong this morning, so I'll be brief.

I honestly don't think Dan Snyder was all that involved in football decisions the past couple of years.

I think the team will be fine now that the coach of his dreams and his racquetball partner have both failed to deliver.

I think he truly believed in St Joe and Vinny: two dudes who should share the blame for the team's present state.

Gibbs stocked the team for the short term, and when his term ended, the wasted draft picks and FA moves started to smell.

Vinny stocked the roster like a fantasy leaguer in that the hard, ugly decisions about blockers, runners, and depth were avoided like bills he didn't want to pay.

And now, Danny gets the bill.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Word on the street is Locker is the best QB that would have been in the draft. But since he's not coming out this year, I say resign JC, beef up the line, trade up the following year for Locker (or someone else if they look better).

This has the added benefit of JC possibly blooming with attention to the O-line, and if that happened we wouldn't need to draft a QB. I'm not saying it's likely but the mere possibility makes this option a better one.

The alternative, drafting a QB now, means a worse line and a 100% gamble on that new QB. It almost assuredly sacrifices next season, whereas option A is more likely to result in a better season.

Posted by: REXskins | December 31, 2009 8:31 AM | Report abuse

4th, I disagree...I think EVERYONE on this roster is playing for a job.

The uncapped year ensures that you can take ANY cap hit. So even though cutting or trading Haynesworth would be unthinkable any other year, in an uncapped year his $30+ million cap hit means nothing. I'd say the only guys REALLY safe are the ones Bruce Allen deems worth being in the team's long-term plans.

Anyone else better show up big on Sunday.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 31, 2009 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"...We are not on the same page. If Campbell signs somewhere else and we don't match his contract, we get an extra draft pick."


We are on the same page.

I just don't believe in the power of the word 'If' as much as you do.

There are something like maybe 10 college quarterbacks who might get drafted this spring.

If you were a GM, why would you give up a pick to get a vet when you can draft your own guy?

"If" Campbell gets signed by another team?

I doubt it.

It'll be a clusmy dance, but I bet he's resigned.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Word on the street is Locker is the best QB that would have been in the draft."


Locker is a balla.

He meets a big part of what you have to have now: a dude who has been a 3-4 starter in the same college system.

It seems that if a guy--not T Tebow--has been in an NFL friendly system for 3-4 years, he comes into the league with an immediate understanding of what to do.

Witness J Flacco and M Ryan and M Sanchez and C Henne: all young dudes who came out of such situations.

Right now, J Clausen fits the bill.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

I agree with that Moe...I was speaking as IF I were the GM because GMs have to have plan A/B/C/D....

BW - Those are who I deem Bruce will keep. Because of the uncapped year next year, it would be wise to keep as many young guys as possible. The reasoning is too long for me to write up......

And I know Snyder has money, but no way you pay some one $41Mil for one year....His partners might strangle him. The Redskins, in monetary terms, has had a down year.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I got a question that I have not seen yet. What about the other front office positions? Any word on if they will shake up the scouting department, or if Morocco Brown is gone or anything like that?

Posted by: alex35332 | December 31, 2009 8:42 AM | Report abuse

And I know Snyder has money, but no way you pay some one $41Mil for one year....His partners might strangle him. The Redskins, in monetary terms, has had a down year.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:39 AM


I see your point, but it's not exactly without precedent (see Archuleta, Adam)...

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 31, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Redskin Goners?

Chris Samuels

Mike Sellers

Renaldo Wynn

Cornelius Griffin

Randy Thomas

Casey Rabach

Clinton Portis

Ladell Betts

Rock Cartwright

Phil Daniels

Fred Smoot

Antawn Randle El

Stephon Heyer

Mike Williams

Todd Collins

Colt Brennan

I wish all of these men a Happy New Year.

And that hopefully, they enjoy retirement or a new uniform.

'Cuz they've all gotta kinda old and slow and ineffective in the one they have now.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Alex - We'll see after the draft...FO positions are sually taken care that point...

Re: AA....They were able to get the bears to take $5Mil of the $10Mil gaureenteed. I guess bruce Allen would have to find a trade partner willing to do the same. (take atleast $25Mil gaureenteed burden off Snyder's hands)

Posted by: 4thFloor | December 31, 2009 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Moe - what draft pick would we receive if we don't match an offer for JC?

Posted by: Rypien11 | December 31, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

saw a chunk of jibba abut the end of the current CBA. The uncapped year, the RFA extension, and free-agency-only-for-non-playoff-teams provisions were set up as 'poison pills' to encourage both sides to continue the CBA.
Obviously, the owners see a lot more upside than the original negotiators thought they would. I presume that the down economy combined with the increased age of UFA candidates means that the owners don't fear a price war right now, and they see the opportunity to really squeeze labor costs going into 2011.
This is interesting from a Redskins perspective in that amongst the various dysfunctions of this organizations, the hardest one to break is the way we structure contracts (with big bonuses up front, then increasing base salaries which force renegotiation (and make release or trade difficult because of the cap hit). If we take the uncapped year to get off that train, clean up some of the potential dead money, and get some sanity in our new signings, it might make the money they spend translate to performance on the field.
This is, I think, the Cap magic that Allen brings.

Posted by: daggar | December 31, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I certainly hope so. If DAN can't now see the devaluation to his franchise brought on by paying personnel richly and long-term, he never will.

Posted by: glawrence007 | December 31, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Who cares about the right guard on Sunday, or the totally irrelevant pro bowl? This organization is going to make major, franchise-altering announcements as early as Monday and you've got nothing. There has to be something solid to report on Shanahan. Every writer on this staff should be working on finding out what Allen-Snyder's plans are. Give us something.

Posted by: tomj4425 | December 31, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I saw a chunk of jibba abut the end of the current CBA. The uncapped year, the RFA extension, and free-agency-only-for-non-playoff-teams provisions were set up as 'poison pills' to encourage both sides to continue the CBA.
Obviously, the owners see a lot more upside than the original negotiators thought they would. I presume that the down economy combined with the increased age of UFA candidates means that the owners don't fear a price war right now, and they see the opportunity to really squeeze labor costs going into 2011.
This is interesting from a Redskins perspective in that amongst the various dysfunctions of this organizations, the hardest one to break is the way we structure contracts (with big bonuses up front, then increasing base salaries which force renegotiation (and make release or trade difficult because of the cap hit). If we take the uncapped year to get off that train, clean up some of the potential dead money, and get some sanity in our new signings, it might make the money they spend translate to performance on the field.
This is, I think, the Cap magic that Allen brings.

Posted by: daggar | December 31, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse
Just reading through last night's jabba, and dagger has hit a home run here.

Posted by: frediefritz | December 31, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Every writer on this staff should be working on finding out what Allen-Snyder's plans are. Give us something.

Posted by: tomj4425 | December 31, 2009 9:01 AM

Just curious. I'm assuming that Allen-Snyder will disclose their plans when it suits them and, until then, want their plans kept quiet. So, what legal means do you think "every writer on this staff" should be employing to expose their plans? And, why? WTF difference does it make whether you know them now or Monday?

Posted by: League-Source | December 31, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I see the skins scenario working out 3 ways for the draft. Jason Campbell will get a low ball offer for RFA and if another team takes him we will get those supplemental picks for him, from what I understand its a 1st and a 3rd if the contracts worth more than 2 million, dont remember what they get if its under 2 mill. If that happens the skins come into the draft with a 1123457. I think, we lost our 6th for the Taylor trade and our 3rd in the sup draft (correct me if wrong).

If they end up keeping Campbell, I would hope the team trades back in both the 1st and 2nd rounds and goes for something along the lines of a 1223457.

If we don't move arround any picks it should look like 12457

in case A(traded Campbell) I would like/expect to see it go.
1-QB
1-OT
2-OL
3-RB
4-BAP
5-BAP
7-BAP

In Case B (keep Campbell trade back)
1-OT
2-RB
2-QB
3-OL
4-BAP
5-BAP
7-BAP

In Case C (stick with what picks they have and keep Campbell)

1-OL
2-OL
4-RB
5-BAP
7-BAP

With Best Available Player (BAP) focused on the remaining holes not already filled in the draft or free agency Free Safeties, Outside Linebackers, more O-Line, a Corner to replace Rogers/Smoot, a MLB to eventually replace Fletcher, a DT and a backup RB.

Posted by: alex35332 | December 31, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Oh wait I forgot that there is Case D, the Redskins lose Campbell and don't move around any draft picks and need to draft a QB with only 5 draft picks.

1-QB
2-OL
4-OL
5-RB
7-RB

Posted by: alex35332 | December 31, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

beep apearnelty

Posted by: alex35332 | December 31, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

First, no matter what the cap you still have to pay the guys. Second, Hayneworth and DHall are guaranteed a lot of money and they would have to re-structure their contracts to move that money into the un-capped year. Not simple to do. Third, Campbell will not be here next year. He doesn't want to be here and the team apparently doesn't want to be here.

If there is no new CBA and the year is uncapped there is a very strong possibility that 2011 will be a lockout year. Nobody gets paid except those with guaranteed money. The Redskins will wait as long as they can before even attempting to re-sign Campbell to try and gauge this possibility and so will Campbell. There's no point in signing a two year deal here if you know you won't get paid in one of those years. Also, no one is going to be giving up draft picks next year if they can help it so you can forget about the Redskins tendering Campbell in hopes of that happening.

As for drafting a QB with the #5 pick. Do folks here understand that the rookies starting this year are starting because the owners see lots of money sitting on the bench? Its not because these teams had no other options. A QB picked at #5 will demand lots of money, and if his agent senses that 2011 will be a lockout year he's going to demand a big chunk up front. This will create tremendous pressure to start the rookie. Campbell and his agent understand this which means that if they think the Redskins are going to pick a top QB, and they've already signaled that they will, they have even less incentive to re-sign with the Redskins.

Posted by: elkiii_2008 | December 31, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Why is noone talking about the possibility of trading Cooley? There is nothing wrong with having 2 2nd round picks. And we don't need two pass-catching TEs on the roster.

Posted by: wewbank1 | December 31, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I think Campbell is gone. He's had five years to prove if he's a contender or pretender and we know the results of that audition. Yes, the line sucked this year, but the linemen don't throw bad passes and make bad decisions when there was time, CAmpbell repeatedly did. HE'S GONE.

They'll use Brennan instead. The upside is far higher than with Campbell, who lacks any higher upside than we've seen already. Plus, they'll draft a QB. I agree that Collins is gone too.

Posted by: alocowboy | December 31, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Why is noone talking about the possibility of trading Cooley? There is nothing wrong with having 2 2nd round picks. And we don't need two pass-catching TEs on the roster.

Posted by: wewbank1 | December 31, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Have we as fans been trained by our short-sighted FO to place no value whatsoever on depth? We just saw how quickly a pass-catching TE can be lost to you for the season. I'll take two proven players (one young and promising, the other in his prime) over a crap-shoot 2nd round pick anyday.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Redskin Goners?

Chris Samuels

Mike Sellers

Renaldo Wynn

Cornelius Griffin

Randy Thomas

Casey Rabach

Clinton Portis

Ladell Betts

Rock Cartwright

Phil Daniels

Fred Smoot

Antawn Randle El

Stephon Heyer

Mike Williams

Todd Collins

Colt Brennan


I wish all of these men a Happy New Year.

And that hopefully, they enjoy retirement or a new uniform.

'Cuz they've all gotta kinda old and slow and ineffective in the one they have now.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 31, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with most of these, Moe. I do think that Rabach, Heyer, BMWilliams, and Colt will return. And I would like to know what Smoot's contract is. If he's not too expensive, I think he will return too.

Right now the biggest weakness is OL. I don't want to get rid of the core that we have. All are certainly expendable, for sure. But all would be reasonable backups if we can find replacements.

Posted by: frediefritz | December 31, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

JC is done here. Collins is a better back up. If jason has a future it is at some other town. True, we need to rebuild the OL, but this is a quarterback league and if there is an opportunity to draft a franchise QB, then it can not be passed up. On the other hand, it would be interesting for JC to come back, so as he fails again, all his backers could justify it with "he's having to learn yet another system".

Posted by: elderdave1 | December 31, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I don't think any team is going to offer Campbell a contract. The 'skins won't have to match any offers. He'll get cut.

Posted by: alocowboy | December 31, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Why is noone talking about the possibility of trading Cooley? There is nothing wrong with having 2 2nd round picks. And we don't need two pass-catching TEs on the roster.

Posted by: wewbank1 | December 31, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Have we as fans been trained by our short-sighted FO to place no value whatsoever on depth? We just saw how quickly a pass-catching TE can be lost to you for the season. I'll take two proven players (one young and promising, the other in his prime) over a crap-shoot 2nd round pick anyday.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I tend to agree, MColeman51. Cooley has been a star, who consistently shows that he has the right stuff. The Skins need him and would be foolish to let him go. Likewise, keep Fred Davis. I like what he's showing us. And, as you say, we've seen how quickly the depth is needed at TE.

It's an interesting time to be a Skins (and Wizards) fan. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on!

Posted by: 7snider7 | December 31, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Why is noone talking about the possibility of trading Cooley? There is nothing wrong with having 2 2nd round picks. And we don't need two pass-catching TEs on the roster.

Posted by: wewbank1 | December 31, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Have we as fans been trained by our short-sighted FO to place no value whatsoever on depth? We just saw how quickly a pass-catching TE can be lost to you for the season. I'll take two proven players (one young and promising, the other in his prime) over a crap-shoot 2nd round pick anyday.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I tend to agree, MColeman51. Cooley has been a star, who consistently shows that he has the right stuff, and it translates into yardage and points. The Skins need him and would be foolish to let him go. Likewise, keep Fred Davis. I like what he's showing us. And, as you say, we've seen how quickly the depth is needed at TE.

It's an interesting time to be a Skins (and Wizards) fan. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on!

Posted by: 7snider7 | December 31, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Do we really have to get on the plane to San Diego??

Posted by: taylormade218 | December 31, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company