Network News

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

Redskins at the bye week: the defense

By Jason Reid

The Redskins reached the midway point of their first season under Mike Shanahan at 4-4 - matching their win total from a year ago but knowing they might have won each of the games they lost. Over the next three days, we'll look at each element of the team - defense, offense and special teams - analyzing what happened, and what might come next.

Today, the defense.

What went right: With the new coaching staff's emphasis on increasing turnovers, it would have been disappointing if gains were not made. Such a major improvement, however, was an outstanding development for coordinator Jim Haslett. After ranking last in the NFL with only 17 takeaways (11 interceptions and six fumble recoveries) during the 2009 season, the Redskins have 19 turnovers (nine interceptions, 10 fumble recoveries) in only eight games and are tied atop the league with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tennessee Titans. The Redskins also have a turnover differential of eight, tied with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for second.

Cornerback DeAngelo Hall matched the single-game record with four interceptions in the Week 7 victory against the Chicago Bears and is first in the league with six. Under Haslett and his staff, players focus on the pursuit of takeaways in everything they do. Haslett has succeeded in creating a culture in which the Redskins, never higher than 10th in turnover differential since the 2000 season, believe they will have multiple takeaways in every game.

"It's what we do now," Hall said. "You see guys out there going after balls, stripping balls ... just getting after it now. The whole thought process is just different."

Haslett's decision to convert Lorenzo Alexander from a defensive lineman to an outside linebacker was another first-half success story. Alexander, whose four-year Redskins career has been marked by versatility, adapted to the new role better than anyone could have envisioned.

Since supplanting Andre Carter on the left side during the Week 4 victory against the Philadelphia Eagles, Alexander has been a force on run defense while also performing surprisingly well in coverage for someone who has primarily been an interior lineman. Although his role on special teams has been reduced because of his increased responsibilities on defense, Alexander still has had many highlight-tape tackles on kickoff coverage.

The Redskins finally let Albert Haynesworth just play, and the two-time all-pro performer has shown he still can be among the league's most dominant defensive tackles. Haslett persuaded Coach Mike Shanahan to let him use Haynesworth in situations that would maximize Haynesworth's ability to penetrate the backfield, and the nine-year veteran had superb performances in the final two games before the bye.

Not surprisingly, London Fletcher made a smooth transition from a 4-3 middle linebacker to a 3-4 inside linebacker. The defensive captain continues to set a positive tone with his production on the field and steady leadership.

No player, however, has fared better in the transition than LaRon "Dirty 30" Landry. Finally in a system that suits his skills, the fourth-year strong safety is thriving under Haslett.

What went wrong: Growing pains were inevitable in the first season of a new defensive scheme and philosophy, and the Redskins have struggled, ranking next to last in yardage. Opponents are averaging 393.3 total net yards against the league's 31st overall defense. There often has been confusion in the secondary, helping opponents average 280.9 yards against the 30th-ranked passing defense.

Haslett's high-risk, high-reward game plans earlier in the season featured too much blitzing, and the Redskins were burned repeatedly on blitzes during the 30-27 loss in overtime in Week 2 against the Houston Texans. Washington gave up a season-high 526 yards in that game, prompting Haslett to take a more conservative approach in play-calling, which has helped.

Haslett has acknowledged that trying to convert Carter from a defensive end to a stand-up linebacker did not work. Coming off the best season of his career in 2009, when he had 11 sacks and was in on 62 tackles, Carter has not been productive to this point, notching just one sack and getting in on 19 tackles.

And then there's the Haynesworth situation.

Shanahan's insistence that Haynesworth play nose guard in the new defense ignited months of controversy and turmoil. The decision to remove Haynesworth from the "Okie" package (the base 3-4) and use him primarily in the nickel alignment, in which he has more freedom to attack, has provided a major boost.

MVP: Landry. Hall leads the league in interceptions and outside linebacker Brian Orakpo is tied for fourth with a team-leading seven sacks. Landry, though, makes so much happen for the Redskins from multiple spots on the field.

Although tackles are not an official statistic, Landry leads the league with 60 unassisted tackles and has been credited with 76 overall, according to the NFL's Game Statistics Information System and NFL.com.

With seven passes defensed, Landry is tied for 23rd in the league. His interception during overtime in Week 5 against the Green Bay Packers led to place kicker Graham Gano's game-winning 33-yard field goal.

"He might be [the defensive MVP] in the league," Haslett said. "That's brash, saying that, because I haven't seen the whole league.

"Obviously, I don't get a chance to evaluate the whole league, but he's outstanding. He's a heck of a football player. We'll try to keep finding ways to utilize him and take advantage of what he does best."

Highlight: The six-takeaway performance during the 17-14 victory against the Chicago Bears in Week 7. Hall led the way with his career day and stole the spotlight from Haynesworth, who dominated Chicago's offensive line. It was easily his best performance in a Redskins uniform.

Lowlight: Quarterback Matt Schaub's 34-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver Andre Johnson on fourth and 10 late in the fourth quarter of the Week 2 loss to Houston. The Redskins blitzed too much in the game, and Schaub avoided the blitz on the play and threw a deep pass to the left side.

Safety Reed Doughty and nickel cornerback Phillip Buchanon were supposed to have covered Johnson together, but Buchanon released the Pro Bowler too early, and he outjumped Doughty in the end zone for the touchdown with 2 minutes 3 seconds remaining in the fourth. Houston tied the score, 27-27, on the successful point-after attempt and won on a field goal in overtime.

Looking ahead: The Redskins are producing turnovers in bunches, Landry and Hall appeared headed to the Pro Bowl and Haynesworth has recently displayed the form that prompted owner Daniel Snyder to give him $41 million in guaranteed money. If the offense does a little more, the defense should keep the Redskins in playoff contention until the end.

By Jason Reid  | November 3, 2010; 10:00 AM ET
Categories:  Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall, Jim Haslett, LaRon Landry, Lorenzo Alexander  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Statistical analysis: History says benching Donovan McNabb was a mistake
Next: Poll: Redskins' MVP on defense

Comments

Dirty 30 for league DMVP.

Posted by: wireman65 | November 3, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Seems right to me. I know we can't count on the impressive turnover margin forever, but it's also clear that they've become more effective as a unit as they've swapped players around. Moore getting his knee a little more rest might be key.

Posted by: daggar | November 3, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

This is the most impressive piece Reid has put out since I've been here...that's not saying much.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 3, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

brownwood

And I'll take it a step further...he's better than what you'll get on the FA market or in the draft (for 2011, at least).

So you're saying that 5 years from now, the rams and bucs will be saying, "I hate that we drafted J Freeman and S Bradford when we could've had Donovan McNabb five years ago!"

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Under Haslett and his staff, players focus on the pursuit of takeaways in everything they do.....except for Carlos Rogers, who continues to treat the ball as though it were dipped in cyanide...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

If Moss falls to us in waivers, we will be picking him up and cutting Galloway.

An added bonus would be a possible 3rd or 4th round compensatory pick in the '11 draft for whatever team picks him up, if they release him at years end.

Posted by: Rypien11 | November 3, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Somehow everything feels a little bit better this morning.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

If Moss falls to us in waivers, we will be picking him up and cutting Galloway.


I pass on Moss.

I'd druther see T Austin promoted and Roy Williams retired.

Too, we need to use another tight end to pass block, and use Fred Davis as a speed titght end.

Davis and Austin are two young options at receiver not being used in light of our obvious weaknesses at the position.

Other teams get their young'ns on the field on day 1.

Let's do like they do.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Moe, the wheels are already in motion... you better hope that somebody in front of us really wants him....

Posted by: Rypien11 | November 3, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

co-sign moe.....

scamp, you're asking for trouble.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

+Man, not to continue talking about next year...but, I was looking at some highlights of AJ Green and Julio Jones. And I am telling you. Both Kyle and Mike will love to have Julio Jones. This guy is huge, fast, and very, very strong. I think that is what sets him apart from AJ. Julio is very strong, and AJ is not. His after the catch ability is great. I think people are underrating him due to his drops. But Brandon Marshall had the same problem, and Shanny still took him. If we have a shot at Julio, I much rather have him than Vincent Jackson.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse


So you're saying that 5 years from now, the rams and bucs will be saying, "I hate that we drafted J Freeman and S Bradford when we could've had Donovan McNabb five years ago!"


Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:20 AM |

I'm beginning to think brown rooted for mcnabb when he was with philly. just sayin'....

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

So you're saying that 5 years from now, the rams and bucs will be saying, "I hate that we drafted J Freeman and S Bradford when we could've had Donovan McNabb five years ago!"


Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:20 AM


No...I mean exactly what I said. He's better than what will be available in FA and the draft in 2011 (at least initially).

One or more of the QBs in the '11 draft may be better. But I doubt they'll be better in 2011. If you absolutely HAVE to get one, go for it. Just keep 'em on the bench a year or two and get some mileage out of McNabb since you already gave up two picks to get him (or let him take the beating behind this bad line. However you choose to view it).

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I'd druther see T Austin promoted and Roy Williams retired

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:26 AM

Not sold on what Austin can do this year to change the direction of the offense. I'd rather Banks getting more playing time on offense. Use him creatively to create mismatches for Banks himself and others.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

This is the most impressive piece Reid has put out since I've been here

JReid opens his fly, shows his 'goods': Tell me now.

Isn't this an impressive piece?

RI squinting through magnifying glasses: I dunno.

But I am amazed that such a small thing could be held by a man which such big hands.


Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 10:40 AM

Co-sign.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 3, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse


Not sold on what Austin can do this year to change the direction of the offense. I'd rather Banks getting more playing time on offense. Use him creatively to create mismatches for Banks himself and others.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 10:41 AM |

now that's music to me ears. get banks in some open space and watch the TD meter go off.

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Wow, did I read the words 'playoff contention' in a Jason Reid post? Maybe the sky isn't falling now.

Posted by: Predator48 | November 3, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to think brown rooted for mcnabb when he was with philly. just sayin'....

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 10:39 AM


Like him? Yes. Root for him? No.

He's a nice guy and a good player. I don't see where the problem is with that. But it has nothing to do with my judgement on whether or not he should be the QB of this team.

Hell, JC is a nice guy that I like. But I'm not gonna tell you you can win a championship with him.

McNabb is a winner. Provided you don't ask him to win you a title by himself, you can win with him. That's a fact.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I think this evaluation of the defense is pretty soft, considering they are ranked right at the bottom of the league. They have been exploited by a rookie QB and a second year QB, they continue to use schemes that get them beat by the other team's marquee player, eg Andre and Calvin Johnson, and they can't seem to get off the field in the fourth quarter.

LB play has been weak at best. Coverage has been a disaster. They are outcoached on a weekly basis, the latest being sunday. Then there is the whole needless AH drama.

Posted by: Iamhumongous | November 3, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

One or more of the QBs in the '11 draft may be better. But I doubt they'll be better in 2011.


The thing you have to ask yourself is, are you trying to be good just in '11 or are your trying to find a guy who''l be your leader over the next 5 to 10 years.

And if the second part of that question is more important, then you draft the guy that has had the most starts in an NFL-lite system.

That's Ponder, Mallett, Stanzi, Luck, and Locker: my money says that any of these kids can start day one.

Cam Newton is the best of the bunch, but he would have to sit as he hasn't had the starts you'd like to see.

Listen: I have nothing but respect for McNabb.

But to me, the sand has run to the bottom of his professional hour glass.

I'd rather move on.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Best RI blog in a long time. Good job, JR.

Posted by: swowra | November 3, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 10:40 AM

Co-sign.


Posted by: Alan4 | November 3, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse


Co Co-sign.

This is the same reasoning most of us had behind wanting to keep JC around. Stop dumping resources into QB when you're obviously not very good at picking QBs. Fill the other holes first and see what the draft and or free agency gives you. Don't force the issue at QB.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | November 3, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

now that's music to me ears. get banks in some open space and watch the TD meter go off.

Posted by: hessone

Cosign on slip screens, bubble screens and double reverses for Brandon Banks.

Posted by: Predator48 | November 3, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

If we have a shot at Julio, I much rather have him than Vincent Jackson.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 10:38 AM

I don't know how the preliminary draft predictions are looking, but to be in position to get Julio Jones, don't we need to do a lot of losing in the second half of the season? I agree he's going to be a great pro, but I'm guessing the front offices of the bad teams think so too. I'm hoping we're picking way too late in the first round to even have a chance at him.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 3, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Somehow everything feels a little bit better this morning.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

El Oh El

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | November 3, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"But to me, the sand has run to the bottom of his professional hour glass."

Moe,

do you really believe McNabb fell off a professional cliff in 1 year? Or is it possible his teammates are a major reason for the dropoff? Have you noticed the improvement in our former QBs performance since his new O-line is protecting him better?

Posted by: Alan4 | November 3, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Guys, Randy Moss is not a bad teamate. He is gonna be motivated, becuase he wants another big contract next year. He likes to win. He can play. Bring him in. Just don't feed him any fancy food, cause he may yell at you. Take him to the Green Turtle or smthn....

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

scamp, you're asking for trouble.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 10:31 AM

Maybe, but it's been a long time since I bought in to any political debate and I've sat here and watched all these d0uchebags take their little potshots time and again without a word. Now it's my turn...SJK 'em.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Randy Moss is not a bad teamate

did you happen to watch him continually dog it, and jog during the game last week, the game in which his team lost, and immediately afterwards Moss professed his love for the team that he was traded from?? Thats a good teammate??

he wants to run 1 route, and nothing else...sorry that dog wont hunt...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how the preliminary draft predictions are looking, but to be in position to get Julio Jones, don't we need to do a lot of losing in the second half of the season? I agree he's going to be a great pro, but I'm guessing the front offices of the bad teams think so too. I'm hoping we're picking way too late in the first round to even have a chance at him.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 3, 2010 10:59 AM

I would hope we would continue to address the deplorable O line situation before we pull something like that.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

It seems like none of us can agree on when we think the skins should try to win. I hate this try to win now crap. I's rather go with the 5 year plan.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Guys, Randy Moss is not a bad teamate. He is gonna be motivated, becuase he wants another big contract next year. He likes to win. He can play. Bring him in. Just don't feed him any fancy food, cause he may yell at you. Take him to the Green Turtle or smthn....

Posted by: roccoskins

Agree with everything you just said except for the first thing you just said.

Posted by: Predator48 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The thing you have to ask yourself is, are you trying to be good just in '11 or are your trying to find a guy who''l be your leader over the next 5 to 10 years.

And if the second part of that question is more important, then you draft the guy that has had the most starts in an NFL-lite system.

That's Ponder, Mallett, Stanzi, Luck, and Locker: my money says that any of these kids can start day one.

Cam Newton is the best of the bunch, but he would have to sit as he hasn't had the starts you'd like to see.

Listen: I have nothing but respect for McNabb.

But to me, the sand has run to the bottom of his professional hour glass.

I'd rather move on.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:52 AM


Gotcha Moe.

Seems like the place we disagree is that ANY of the players you named are gonna be good enough to be Week 1 starters. I seriously doubt that. If we use history as a guide (weren't you the one crowing about how you spot "trends"?), an ENTIRE class of 1st round QBs doesn't do well uniformly. One or two excel, a couple are middle of the road, a couple are flat out bad. The class of '83 is the one everyone looks to, but that was literally a once in a lifetime kinda deal. Even if the '11 class measures up to their '83 predecessors, I doubt all 5 or 6 guys end up being guys you can win championships with.

The point is this: you play the hand you're dealt. Shanahan can't change the rules as he goes along...if you're gonna go for the "win now" formula, stick with it. If you're gonna rebuild, stick with it. Trading picks for vets tells me they wanna win now...so if you wanna win now, roll with McNabb for the next 3-5 years. If you wanna rebuild, dump him and get your rookie.

I just wish that if he was gonna try and tinker with a guy's mechanics and make him into "his guy", then he should have traded up to get Bradford instead of getting an 11 year vet. If you wanna start from scratch, it's crazy to do that with a 33-year-old that's already productive the way he is...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I think it depends on where we pick in the 1st round and whether we can get anymore picks than what we have right now. Our holes are too numerous to fill in one more offseason, so you have to ask yourself - if we are in position to get a QB of the future in this draft do we go for it and let him warm the bench for a year? I say yes, because we can get one or more starting OL in the rest of the draft, and some help with the other positions. Then in 2012 we draft a NT (there aren't any studs in this draft), C/G, LB, and FS, if not a decent CB. Then we will have a complete team in 2012 where hopefully at the beginning of the season or part way through, the 2011 QB draft choice will be ready to go. The 2013 draft can be used to fill any remaining holes and go deep into the playoffs.

If we can get rid of McNabb for anything close to what we paid for (assuming he still sucks in the 2nd half of the season) then we can start sexy rex and get a good draft position for 2012 while the rookie learns from the bench. It will be flat out awful to watch, but if we can have a real breakout season in 2012, I'd be willing to endure it. After all, we've endured dysfunction to the max for more than a decade. If putting a "bad" (or horrible) QB on the field means we will be better the year after than the alternatives, I'm willing to endure.

I am just sick of giving away draft picks when the players we give up for them won't stay long enough to be worth it.

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how you can evaluate the defense without at least mentioning Doughty's poor pass coverage skills, Kemoeatu's Gumby legs in the first half of the season and Moore's poor tackling. Granted, Moore is getting better, but he made some big misses when he first came back from injury. Kemoeatu has played less and that has helped him. Doughty... well, Doughty is what he is: use him pass coverage at your own peril.

On of my biggest disappointments with the defense, however, has nothing to do with the guys who have played. It's a guy that hasn't played that is bothering me: I cannot believe Barnes hasn't been in any ball games. I thought the Skins had a future starting corner when they drafted him, and yet, we don't see him play and we get to see Buchanon make his share of mistakes in coverage week after week. WTF??? Buchanon has had three good plays this season but has blown coverage on two touchdowns and has given up a lot of yardage through penalties and shoddy coverage. Tryon and Barnes both got on the field last year and I tell you, they had fewer mistakes in the nickel package than Buchanon.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I would hope we would continue to address the deplorable O line situation before we pull something like that.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM

I want to go heavy in interior linemen too, but if by chance and miracle Julio Jones is available when we're up...we HAVE to take him. Have you gotten a chance to see Alabama this season? He's special. Moot point anyway. He'll be gone and we will take a solid center or guard (hopefully) late in Rd. 1.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I just wish that if he was gonna try and tinker with a guy's mechanics and make him into "his guy", then he should have traded up to get Bradford instead of getting an 11 year vet. If you wanna start from scratch, it's crazy to do that with a 33-year-old that's already productive the way he is...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:10 AM

That's my source of frustration as well with this situation. They (Shannys) knew the qb the were trading for.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

McNabb isn't going anywhere. We'll be signing him once there is a CBA in place.

Posted by: Rypien11 | November 3, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I'd be fine with QB, RB, or WR in the first round. I think we can land a good surefire starter in the interior line in round 2. Hopefully we can get the center from penn state.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | November 3, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

If we can get rid of McNabb for anything close to what we paid for (assuming he still sucks in the 2nd half of the season) then we can start sexy rex and get a good draft position for 2012 while the rookie learns from the bench...

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM


Are you friggin' kidding me here? For you "trade McNabb" people, let's be real about this:

-We have no idea if the franchise tag will be an available option. There's no guarantee that'll be in the next CBA...or that there will be a next CBA by the time this decision has to be made. Assuming there will even be an opportunity to trade McNabb is presumptive at best.

-Even IF we have the ability to trade McNabb, who's gonna want him? If we don't want him, it's because he's been mediocre/bad these last 8 games. AT BEST we can hope for a conditional mid-round pick. So AT BEST, you'll get back one of the two picks you spent. Expecting anything more than that is crazy.

-If McNabb plays well down the stretch you keep him, not trade him. It means he's got a hold of the system and he's got the goods to mask the obvious deficiencies we have with the OL/WRs. If you have a guy that makes you good in spite of yourself, you KEEP HIM...regardless of what his birth certificate says.

Again--burning a 1st round pick on a rookie after giving up a 2nd and a 4th for McNabb is way too much for one spot. If you're using that many picks for one guy you wanna tinker with, you might as well have traded up for Bradford...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I hate this try to win now crap. I's rather go with the 5 year plan.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

All teams are trying to win now. I assume all teams also have some kind of 5 yr plan in place.

Not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately Redskins are saddled with 10 yrs work from a poor GM.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | November 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

4-4 in the NFC with no dominate team (maybe the Giants) and we're talking next year's draft. Curses.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

How many picks did the Redskins have in the last draft...5 or 6...

There are the new olineman we drafted or brought in:

Hicks
Lichtensteiger
Cook (draft)
Capers (draft)
Williams (draft)
Brown (trade)

Rebuilding takes TIME and PATIENCE people! Cerrato gave Shanahan some S**t to work with!

Posted by: rickyroge | November 3, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Rebuilding is for fools. 5-year plans are for foreskins.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

4-4 in the NFC with no dominate team (maybe the Giants) and we're talking next year's draft. Curses.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 11:26 AM

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if the Skins were playing Sunday.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

After weeks of poor play by Buchanon, no production from Galloway, and awful play from OG (forgot his name but Shan boy) And hear the coach talk about how they play well I am starting believe that Shan only wants players around him that don't challenge him and just simply yes men.

Posted by: jm220 | November 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he is not a bad teamate.

Anyways. Julio Jones will be available in the early 20's in next years draft. Why? Becuase a lot of QB's will be taken early. AJ Green will be taken early, maybe 2 running backs will be taken early. D linemen, and a few OT's. People are gonna underrate Julio becuase of his drops. People did that with Brandon Marshall. But Julio is like a faster Brandon Marshall, and maybe even bigger. Shanny took a chance of Brandon when he slid to the 2nd round. I think our first target will be to get Julio Jones.

Its the bye week we don't have anything else to talk about!!!! At least not until maybe 4:05pm or so....

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

4-4 in the NFC with no dominate team (maybe the Giants) and we're talking next year's draft. Curses.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

A lot of us are big college football fans as well and are constantly talking about the draft because it's the link between college and NFL.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | November 3, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

That's my source of frustration as well with this situation. They (Shannys) knew the qb the were trading for.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 11:16 AM


Exactly...if internet bloggers and random slappies are privy to the knowledge that McNabb is a joker who likes to keep it light, then certainly a little due diligence on Shanahan's part would have uncovered the same conclusion. If they didn't like that, they shouldn't have traded for him. Draft picks are a precious commodity...especially in a draft as deep as the 2010 draft. To give up picks for a guy you weren't SURE about is reckless.

My sincere hope is that this is just a classic case of miscommunication and that this is a motivating force for McNabb to come back after the bye dialed in and ready to roll better than before. If he plays well and we beat the Eagles on national TV, all this talk is moot. I just think it's in the nature of our punch drunk fanbase to assume the worst...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he is not a bad teamate.

Doesn't matter...Ask his last 2 coach's what they think of him....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Brown - you didn't read the entire paragraph (or decided not to comprehend it). There were two "ifs" that needed to be satisfied to give McNabb away - he sucks in the second half of the season, which takes away your third paragraph, and that we needed to get decent value for him, which takes away your second paragraph. With those two paragraphs out of your argument you have nothing left. Please read (and comprehend) before you react. Notice also, I'm not advocating for benching McNabb right now, or releasing him so we completely throw away our picks. That would be the true lunacy, aside from getting McNabb in the first place, but what's done is done.

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | November 3, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

RE Brian's last post:

Colossal mistake IN WHICH CONTEXT?! The game was already over, idiot.

Man, I hate it when stats heads do this. And I actually like Brian's work.

Sorry, you missed the boat here. Your analysis is entirely off base because you're assuming the decision was made in the context of the game, not the season.

Re-tool and come at this again.

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 3, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he is not a bad teamate.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:33 AM


Sounds like his teammates in Minnesota would disagree. As would the guys who played with him in Oakland.

So that's a 2 to 1 shot that he'll come here and be an ass. I'll pass and take our chances that McNabb can turn water into wine with the clusterf*ck of mediocrity...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse


I would hope we would continue to address the deplorable O line situation before we pull something like that.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM |

scamp my man, deplorable is a compliment for this o-line. it's more like sludge. that's what it looks like after the ball is snapped, sludge


Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he is not a bad teamate.

Doesn't matter...Ask his last 2 coach's what they think of him....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 3, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

You specifically responded to the statement "not a bad teammate"

What 2 coaches think of the matter is not relevant to the debate.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | November 3, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Btw, you've never really heard Shostakovich until you've heard him play it himself!!! The interpretation is everything. Phrasing makes all the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3-sl5_OtY&feature=related

My Fav:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuj5uzgmB5A&feature=related

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 3, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like his teammates in Minnesota would disagree. As would the guys who played with him in Oakland.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Real lesson. If you are not a good team, do not take a shot on Randy Moss. He is more inclined to quit than help turn things around

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | November 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

RE Brian's last post:

Colossal mistake IN WHICH CONTEXT?! The game was already over, idiot.

Man, I hate it when stats heads do this. And I actually like Brian's work.

Sorry, you missed the boat here. Your analysis is entirely off base because you're assuming the decision was made in the context of the game, not the season.

Re-tool and come at this again.

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 3, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Agreed. He should have also taken it a step further. He analyzed McNabb being benched in a game and what the team's chances of winning is, but he should have also analyzed how McNabb did in the week after the benching. I bet he has an awesome record cause the coach lit a fire under his azz.

Posted by: monk811 | November 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse


So that's a 2 to 1 shot that he'll come here and be an ass. I'll pass and take our chances that McNabb can turn water into wine with the clusterf*ck of mediocrity...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:42 AM |

brown, could it be that mcnabb has been trying to be to accurate with his passes instead of just throwing the ball, relaxed ?

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse


My halfway-point thought that comes to mind....


"...stay the course....thousand points of light...stay the course."

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 3, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

JFK, I reiterate: trading McNabb is a pie-in-the-sky option AT BEST. Even discussing it is on par with what we did on our Madden 11 season, the best place to ride a unicorn, and Greg's now infamous "Betts for Brady" proposal...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Randy Moss strength: Balls Deep
Mcnabb Strength: Balls Deep
When I'm with your mother: Balls Deep

Posted by: BallsDeep | November 3, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

""Haslett persuaded Coach Mike Shanahan to let him use Haynesworth in situations that would maximize Haynesworth's ability to penetrate the backfield, and the nine-year veteran had superb performances in the final two games before the bye.""


This is a heavy statement that JReid slipped in there.

Haslett persuaded Shanny???

So basically Shanny was content to let AH rot and fester in the doghouse indefinitely to satisfy his personal tiff; and it took "persuading" on the part of Haslett to allow him to get out on the field and help the team.

Shanny's done some good things here; but all the "buyer beware" tags regarding Shanny's ego and personnel decision-making look like they were put there for good reason...

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Wow...if Miami got Moss lined up with Marshall, they'd be might talented at WR...and they'd have gone full re-turd:

Official Randy Moss website posts poll on his next team
Posted by Mike Florio on November 3, 2010 10:58 AM ET

As we all try to figure out where Randy Moss will finish the 2010 season, the official Randy Moss website wants input as to his destination.

In a poll posted on the front page of the site (which is still adorned with the Vikings logo), the question is posed: Where will Randy play next?

The choices are the Dolphins, Rams, and Seahawks.

The Rams, currently in the lead, have the highest spot in the waiver priority.

It's unlikely that Moss himself had a role in fashioning the poll. Still, it's his official website. And it's worth at least asking the question as to whether this is his way of making his preferences known.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

He wasn't a good teamate with the VIkes or Raiders. Why? Because THEY WERE NOT WINNING!!!!!!!!! Randy's problem is when he speaks to the media, and certian things he does off feild. But one thing I know about Randy is, he wants to win.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Shanny took a chance of Brandon when he slid to the 2nd round.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Marshall was a 4th round pick.

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The Redskins are 4-4 and that record is a good reflection on their performance. They have been competitive in every game and have somehow managed victories over better teams (Packers and Eagles), yet have been their own worst enemies against the Rams and Lions.

So looking at the trends, the 'skins will be competitive against top competition like the Eagles, Titans, and Giants but may fall short against the failures of the Vikings and Cowboys.

What do they need to do in order to remain competitive against top competition and yet be victorious against the mediocre and struggling teams? Despite the big change at the top, the Redskins remain a team that plays at the level of its competition.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

So basically Shanny was content to let AH rot and fester in the doghouse indefinitely to satisfy his personal tiff; and it took "persuading" on the part of Haslett to allow him to get out on the field and help the team.

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Not so sure the picture is as black and white as you are painting it. It's not a shot a Shanny and his ego, it's more so talking about Haslett's gut feeling he had about Hayney playing on certain downs or certain packages.

And what are these 'buyer beware' tags you speak of, as far as I have heard his players have had nothing but respect for him.

Posted by: monk811 | November 3, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

He wasn't a good teamate with the VIkes or Raiders. Why? Because THEY WERE NOT WINNING!!!!!!!!! Randy's problem is when he speaks to the media, and certian things he does off feild. But one thing I know about Randy is, he wants to win.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 11:58 AM |

As opposed to those players who don't want to win? Seriously? This is your case?

Look at his stats - they're terrible. The dude is good for one thing and one thing only - an 8 route - that's it! Moss won't go over the middle, he cannot make 'moves' let alone any 'double moves' and he himself has said he plays when he wants to play.

Last week, he was interfered with and the flag was thrown but the football landed literally at his feet in the end zone. He could have caught that but yeah, he wants to win so let's sign him.

That's just flat-out retarded.

Moss is a fair-weather player. He is only a team player when his team is winning (Patriots). Look how quickly the meltdown came in Minn. You put him on the 'Skins and he will bench McNabb himself halfway through his first game.

Book it.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 3, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Re: Drafting Olinemen

I'm hearing alot of guys talking/wishing for Shanny to find some stouter interior Olinemen in the draft. Truth is, I don't think it is happening. Lightweights Casey Rabach and Kory Lichtensteiger are in the starting lineup (while Dockery is inactive) for a reason - Shanny likes them smaller and faster.

The problem, I fear, is the zone-blocking scheme for the run game. So long as Shanny utilizes that scheme, we will NOT have 300 pound bruisers in the interior Oline - unless they are freak athletes who can move like Shaq in the heyday.

In the NFC, Dlinemen are beefy up-the-gut bruisers, and so the Olinemen have to be as well. Zone-blokcing in the run game seems to me to be an "AFC" sort of thing. Is there another NFC team that runs that scheme? I think the Packers, but they aren't exactly known as a "running team" (despite Ryan Grants success over the past couple years), as it seems their dynamic passing game sets up rushing opportunities.


Bottom line:

So long as we keep trying to run the ball with the zone-blocking scheme, we can continue to expect smallish interior Olinemen who do 2 things well: (1) get to the second level quickly and (2) get blown off the LOS in pass-pro.

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

scamp my man, deplorable is a compliment for this o-line. it's more like sludge. that's what it looks like after the ball is snapped, sludge

Posted by: hessone

Its been that way fir 2 years yet it was always the QB or CP is washed up. DM is an upgrade no doubt, but he's getting killed just like his predecessor.

I said it heading in to the season that Hicks was a journeyman and average at best and some argued a bit. Insert Lichtenwhatever and this line may be a little worst than last year.

Better coaching is what got us to 4 wins, not an upgrade in talent.

Posted by: dcwun | November 3, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Randy is always a threat though. When he is motivated he will play. He wants another contract. Many times we sign players and pay them a boat load of money and they just chill when they get to town. Randy will ball, becuase he is motivated to prove people wrong, and to get his money.

Even when he is not catching the ball he is a threat. Did you see how many people New England covered him with? If there are 2 or 3 people covering him, that opens up the middle for Tana. That opens up the other side for AA13. I am not saying Randy will come here and be a complete monster. But when you have one of the best deep passers and the game, and you bring in a guy that can run the 9 route like no other, there is a threat. WE need to score Touchdowns. In the Redzone Randy is a threat. I could care less about his stats, he still has that thought in defenses that at anytime he can turn the beast mode on.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: monk811 | November 3, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm bringing it up b/c I'm wondering what JReid meant (if anything) when he says "Haslett persuaded Shanahan".

Shanny's not running the defense, but he is making personnel calls overall.

They are either referring to one of 2 things:

1) Shanny was going to let AH rot.
2) Shanny was not going to allow AH to do anything except play nose tackle (which we all know is basically punishment since AH said he did NOT want to play NT)

Either way, it just seems asinine that a D-coordinator has to go to a head coach and "persuade" him to allow a player (especially a talented and expensive one) to be used effectively on the team.

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Somehow everything feels a little bit better this morning.

Posted by: scampbell1975

Had a dream I was being murdered last night. When I woke up, I realized what happened.......

You win....This time

Posted by: dcwun | November 3, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Most of the OL problems are coming from Hicks and Rabach. Especially Rabach -- the dude is getting blown up/bull rushed/dominated most of the time. I would draft a center with the first pick, in fact trade down and pick up a bunch of second rounders and go after a center and guard. Build the OL first, like the Jets did.

Don't go the Matt Millen route and pick WR when there's nobody to throw them the ball and nobody to protect the QB. And don't go the Vinnie route and sign washed up FA at positions where speed and quickness counts.

Now.. as far as D Mac: am I the only one who saw Kyle Shanahan give a WFT when McNabb called a different play in the huddle? It was clearly what happened: the Redskins came out and lined up, they cut to KS and he had his palms up saying WTF is this?

I think McNabb was pulled because he changed the play and threw a pick. No coach likes to say that Farve or McNabb isn't calling what's being radioed in, but they are freelancing. And I think McNabb called a pass and threw a pick while trying to hold onto a 5 point lead IN THE FOURTH QUARTER! Jesus that was ill advised. RUN THE BALL. Take time off the clock, punt and give the D a chance.

At least Rex "That Idiot" Grossman gave every indication that he's still an idiot.

Posted by: dpc2003 | November 3, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Bright side of our BYE this week...

Skins can move back into second place...and one game out of the division lead...without doing anything...and can't screw it up!!

Go Colts! Go Seahawks!

Posted by: PlayAction | November 3, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

So basically Shanny was content to let AH rot and fester in the doghouse indefinitely to satisfy his personal tiff; and it took "persuading" on the part of Haslett to allow him to get out on the field and help the team.

Shanny's done some good things here; but all the "buyer beware" tags regarding Shanny's ego and personnel decision-making look like they were put there for good reason...

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 11:55 AM


To be fair, even the great HCs have to get a big assist from the coordinators from time to time. I have yet to see a HC win a title without a strong OC and/or DC. I mean, Belichick STILL hasn't won a SB without Weis and Crennel...yet the two reunited in KC and have the Chiefs at 5-2. Just a thought...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Randy will ball, becuase he is motivated to prove people wrong, and to get his money.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse


Then why didn't he show it with the Vikings?

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

All of this speculation about Randy Moss is just wasted words.

The team has already spent its last dime on player payroll for the current season -- so the coaching staff will be left to patch up whoever they got already and put them out there for the next eight weeks.

So beyond a few low or no cost moves on the practice squad -- we won't expect to see any major acquisitions for an offensive unit that currently has:

- one healthy running back and a few scrubs
- a mix of midgets and geezers in the receiving corps
- two tight ends and a fullback who can't block or pass protect
- one offensive lineman who might be able to block when he is healthy
- a washed up and disrepected QB with bad hammies
- a couple of servicable kickers
- and a partridge in a pear tree

Posted by: Vic1 | November 3, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse


I said it heading in to the season that Hicks was a journeyman and average at best and some argued a bit. Insert Lichtenwhatever and this line may be a little worst than last year.

Better coaching is what got us to 4 wins, not an upgrade in talent.

Posted by: dcwun | November 3, 2010 12:16 PM |

our interior line, LG-C-RG has been getting beat to shreds pass blocking. time for shanahan to start playing to those guys strength and power block and run the ball. I just don't think you can change veterans overnight and presto, they can zone block. how about good old line up and hit the guy in front of you and run the damn ball

same with mcnabbs footing, dude isn't going to change the way he plants overnight.

shanahan should impliment his zone blocking technique gradually as he acquires players more suited for his zone schemes

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he (RMoss) is not a bad team mate.

Gotta question:

Would you want to add Randy Moss even if you acknowledge doing so takes time, plays, and attention away from developing Anthony Armstrong or some other young reciever?

Moss essentially is a one-trick, jump ball, go-route pony.

Do you add such a guy knowing you can't depend on him to block on a running play or go across the middle?

I'll pass on Moss.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Thinking about the trade for McNabb, it makes sense if Big Shan knew the O-line was going to be a steaming pile of horese dookey this year.... McNabb has been like Houdini avoiding the sack this year.

...but then, why bring in Rex Grossman? He's the anti-Houdini, with far worse pocket awareness than the QB we traded.

Until our O-line rises to the upper bottom-third of the NFL, there's no good reason for us to have a QB who doesn't have "extreme mobility" among his talents.

Rumor has it that Little Shan and Sexy Rex are friends (they're the same age), and that's why Rexy is here. I have to beleive that, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. Most prototypical NFL QBs wouldn't stand a chance in this offense, behind this O-line.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 3, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The team has already spent its last dime on player payroll for the current season offensive unit that currently has:

Posted by: Vic1 | November 3, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------------

Because suddenly the team with an owner historically willing to spend money (See Haynesworth, Albert) and in horrible need of a wideout in an uncapped season won't get past writing the check for a future HOFer. Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | November 3, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Was Bruce Allen in Oakland during the Moss years? Might effect whether they go for him or not.

Posted by: skinswest | November 3, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm bringing it up b/c I'm wondering what JReid meant (if anything) when he says "Haslett persuaded Shanahan".

Shanny's not running the defense, but he is making personnel calls overall.

They are either referring to one of 2 things:

1) Shanny was going to let AH rot.
2) Shanny was not going to allow AH to do anything except play nose tackle (which we all know is basically punishment since AH said he did NOT want to play NT)

Either way, it just seems asinine that a D-coordinator has to go to a head coach and "persuade" him to allow a player (especially a talented and expensive one) to be used effectively on the team.

Posted by: p1funk | November 3, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Maybe because Shanny is hardly on the Defensive side of things he really didn't know how to use Hayney until Haslett came and gave him an idea of how he'd like to use him. Maybe 'persuade' was just a bad word used by the 'English Language Murderer', JReid! I'm not trying to take up for Shanahan, but I didn't have that impression when I read it.

Posted by: monk811 | November 3, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse


beeps peeps for a poll

Posted by: hessone | November 3, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Randy Moss came in to Minnesota and tried to be a vocal leader. A vocal leader that by the way doesn't lead by example (i.e. jogs when he isn't the primary receiver). That just doesn't work when you're the new guy. He was voted off the island Survivor style. I just don't see him coming here but I'm for it because it will be the new act at the Redskin big top. New leadership same circus.

Posted by: bangkokben | November 3, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Because suddenly the team with an owner historically willing to spend money (See Haynesworth, Albert) and in horrible need of a wideout in an uncapped season won't get past writing the check for a future HOFer. Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | November 3, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse


--

Yep. Perfect sense. Spending another dime on player payroll this season will not sell another seat, or generate so much as a single cent of additional revenue for the team. While no one is willing to admit it, the team is in a "building" or "transition" year. Another player is not going to change the win-loss record one iota. Snyder is the master of the off-season. But as we've seen in previus years, when for example, we really needed to get a couple of serviceable offensive linemen -- once the regular season rolls around and the roster is set, there are no further additions. It would only add unnecessary cost and would not generate addition revenue. And that, my friends, would be in direct conflict with the prime imperative -- maximize profit.

Posted by: Vic1 | November 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I say GET JACKSON 83

Julio jones is a big time playmaker

We need two top ten lineman tho

If we can get two top ten lineman top 2 rnds then trade back into the 3rd n 4th rnds for a wr.

Johnathan baldwin is a player id like to see us get, top 2 rond prospect tho

I am interested in seeing what moves we make in the draft

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | November 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I say GET JACKSON 83

Julio jones is a big time playmaker

We need two top ten lineman tho

If we can get two top ten lineman top 2 rnds then trade back into the 3rd n 4th rnds for a wr.

Johnathan baldwin is a player id like to see us get, top 2 rond prospect tho

I am interested in seeing what moves we make in the draft

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | November 3, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Playoffs????

Don't talk about playoffs! You kiddin' me??

Playoffs!!!

Posted by: Redskinrex | November 3, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

McNabb aint the answer by any stretch of imagination, I,ve long stated that this dude chugs the ball at the recievers feet on every third down, he plays as if he got five downs not three, never seen him play with any sense of urgency, am not suprised that he is a slacker in practice. Just dont re-sign the guy based on the feelings if these sentimental fools, the Skins dont owe him jack.

Posted by: zimife1999 | November 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

McNabb aint the answer by any stretch of imagination, I,ve long stated that this dude chugs the ball at the recievers feet on every third down, he plays as if he got five downs not three, never seen him play with any sense of urgency, am not suprised that he is a slacker in practice. Just dont re-sign the guy based on the feelings if these sentimental fools, the Skins dont owe him jack.

Posted by: zimife1999 | November 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Redskins have any interest in Shawn Merriman? He's gotta be a better LB than Andre Carter.

Posted by: coparker5 | November 3, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Is the blog dead?

Posted by: Devo2 | November 3, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Just in -- Randy Moss to Titans.

Posted by: bones21 | November 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The word "start" should NEVER appear in the same sentence with Rex Grossman.

Posted by: dcjazzman | November 4, 2010 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Hey Reid, I just saw Tavaris Jackson in the skins future. Get the word to someone and let's make it happen.

Posted by: keedrow | November 4, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

"While no one is willing to admit it, the team is in a "building" or "transition" year."

I think most people realize that. There are still a bunch of problems with the offensive line in particular. Probably wouldn't hurt us to spend another high choice or sign a FA there.

A lot of what the current administration is doing is cleaning up mistakes of the past. Not much you can do to hurry that up.

Posted by: Samson151 | November 4, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

3 posts so far?! What, everybody taking a rain day, or is there a hidden post somewhere?

Posted by: Predator48 | November 4, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

3 posts so far?! What, everybody taking a rain day, or is there a hidden post somewhere?

Posted by: Predator48 | November 4, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

3 posts so far?! What, everybody taking a rain day, or is there a hidden post somewhere?

Posted by: Predator48 | November 4, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I watched the Steelers the other night just to see what Haslett was so impressed with. Well...I see what he means and quite frankly we don't have the stocky fast big men that you see in Pittsburgh. We need to can the 4-3. We are playing the 3-4 Defense in spite of ourselves. That's just stubbornness that seemingly comes with the Shanahan family and klan. In short....the defense sucks. We should have never tried to fix what wasn't broken. Idiot coaching decision!!!

Posted by: kentonsmith | November 4, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

To all of the Donovan critics I guess you guys forgot how he whupped us up every year.

Posted by: kentonsmith | November 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"No player, however, has fared better in the transition than LaRon "Dirty 30" Landry. Finally in a system that suits his skills, the fourth-year strong safety is thriving under Haslett.

What went wrong: Growing pains were inevitable in the first season of a new defensive scheme and philosophy, and the Redskins have struggled, ranking next to last in yardage. Opponents are averaging 393.3 total net yards against the league's 31st overall defense. There often has been confusion in the secondary, helping opponents average 280.9 yards against the 30th-ranked passing defense."


You people are just nuts!

Look at those two paragraphs, and then tell me again about how Landry is anybody's MVP?

The LB or SS who plays the most downs on D ALWAYS leads every team in tackles, look around! Landry is a bear against the run on D, but strictly second rate on pass defense.

Hall is far and away the team's defensive MVP because he is the only one in the secondary who can actually play pass defense.

Call Landry "Roy Williams Junior" because just like him he will be hitting people hard one year and out of the league the next.

If Vick and DeSean Jackson are healthy next game, a BIG if, the Eagles will put up 25-30 against this D.

But hey, maybe you can find a way to get Jay Cutler on the schedule twice next year.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company