Network News

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

Where will Haynesworth fit in Haslett's defense?

There's been no further indication from the Redskins of what they'll do defensively next season under new coordinator Jim Haslett, but certainly speculation continues to center on a shift to a 3-4 defense. The most intriguing part of the switch for many will be Albert Haynesworth.

He's played his entire career in a 4-3 alignment and came to Washington with certain assurances; he felt he knew his role and knew what he was getting into with the Redskins.

To try to figure out how he'd adjust to the 3-4 -- and how his skill set might translate -- we consulted with Jim Schwartz, the Detroit Lions' head coach who was Haynesworth's defensive coordinator for seven years in Tennessee.

First, Schwartz warned that 3-4 is more of a blanket term and that within that alignment, there are still plenty of things you can do with the personnel.

"There's a lot of different kind of 3-4s," Schwartz said. "You could do a 3-4 where you're using space. There's a stunting 3-4, where you're going at a player, which is similar to what [Haynesworth] has done. You could do a combination of both. Chicago is a combination. Pittsburgh a bit more of a stunting 3-4, a blitzing 3-4. San Diego is a little bit more of a big nose. New England, Cleveland, Miami and those guys are more of a hunt and pound. I think, Haslett, with his experience, if he goes 3-4, he'll figure out the best way to make it work."

So what does that mean for Haynesworth? Do you make him the nose tackle or put him at defensive end?

"You can play him at end, or you can play him nose. He can do whatever he wants," said Schwartz. "He's that talented of a player."

In Tennessee, Schwartz ran a 4-3 system, though he incorporated some 3-4 principles. The Titans would often line up their outside linebackers on either side of the ends. The linebackers contained the edges and funneled the ball inside, which kept Haynesworth in on many plays. It also meant Haynesworth wasn't chasing players to the sidelines on every down.

"We had success with him in a certain scheme," Schwartz said. "If he would've been drafted by another team, I'm sure he would've had success in that scheme.

"He'll adapt. There's always an adjustment period. His whole career, he had one scheme. He had his same position coach his entire career, the same defensive coordinator his entire career, the same head coach his entire career, and suddenly it all changed in a year. But he's talented, and he'll adapt and he'll be just as good in another scheme."

By Rick Maese  |  January 29, 2010; 11:44 AM ET
Categories:  Albert Haynesworth  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In LaFleur, Redskins have coach whose specialty is passing
Next: Redskins sign long snapper Nick Sundberg

Comments

Although certainly large enough to play the "space eater" NT role in a 3-4, it's pretty much a guarantee that Albert would chaff at the suggestion. He wants to attack the ball it seems.

Posted by: walkdwalk | January 29, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: skinfanman | January 29, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I could see the skins trading campbell to 2 teams, Minnesota and Arizona. Both have a late first round pick and just lost a starting QB. I could also see both willing to trade up to the 4th pick to get a QB early this year.

Discuss.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 29, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

No way on Arizona, they have Leinart and while they certainly aren't sure he's the answer they have to give him the chance to be especially when JC doesn't present a clear upgrade. If they were trading for a QB it would have to be for an established top 10 guy like McNabb not a 3rd tier guy when they already have that on the roster.

MN maybe, but again, they have Rosenfels and Jackson, is Campbell a guaranteed upgrade? IMO not so much.

Real possibilities for a trade IMO are:

Carolina
Buffalo
St. Louis

and possibly Cleveland or Seattle depending on if Holmgren tries to get Hasselbeck or not.

those are the only places IMO that he presents an obvious upgrade over what they have outside of Oakland but Al seems inclined to give Russel one more year.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

firts to say FIX THE PRO BOWL

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

firts to say FIX THE PRO BOWL

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

FS position is about insticts and field presence. Nobody wanted Darren Sharper either.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Thankyou. Safeties in their 30's are still going strong and have seen everything.

Alex,
I would LOVE if a team like the Cards would trade up with the Skins to take a QB. But I would love it even more if the Browns or Bills would trade up with us. I don't see anybody giving up a late 1st for JC though..

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

And I still say leave the defense as a 4-3 and build on last yrs sack improvement by leaving Orakpo and Carter at DE and having Haynes do what he does in the middle.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

LET THE PRO BOWL BE THE HALL OF FAME GAME

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

LET THE PRO BOWL BE THE HALL OF FAME GAME

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark is at best an undersized above average safety. He's no Reed, Dawkins, or Sharper some of the most dynamic safeties ever to play the game.....come on man

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Well I see those teams I mentioned probably more into getting our 4th pick than Jason, I do think that Campbell is a perfect fit for Minnesota's run and line style.

I will always be a big fan of trading our first for a late 1-2 and our second for a late 2-2 or 2-3-3.

I said it in the past and will say again. we are in a deep draft and getting 5 picks out of the top 100 is the sign of a good GM.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 29, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

LET THE PRO BOWL BE THE HALL OF FAME GAME

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I think your caps lock key is stuck.

As for moving to the HOF game. No one would agree to that.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 29, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

If Shanny decides to go QB at 4 I would talk long and hard to St. Louis about getting their 3rd for JC. Its #1 so its basically a 2nd rounder and that's about the best we could hope for on JC. If St. Louis could get Suh, a receiver in the 2nd, and Campbell in the 3rd that be a heck of a draft for them and if we could get QB1, tackle2, and a tackle or guard with their pick that's good for us as well. Either Bradford or Clausen are good enough to throw a hail mary out of bounds.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Look at some of the other older Safeties in the league: Ed Reed, Sharper, Dawkins, etc. They're still effective and going strong. Nothing wrong with having a proven veteran in the secondary to make sure things are in order. Clark isn't that old, he could give 3 good yrs of service.

Posted by: ga8085


FS position is about insticts and field presence. Nobody wanted Darren Sharper either.

Posted by: sthai75

Thankyou. Safeties in their 30's are still going strong and have seen everything.

Posted by: ga8085

Doesn't mean they can do everything.

I always think it's funny when guys name all-pro and potential future HOF'ers to make their argument.


There are talks of Ed Reed retiring... Clark is a good safety, but he plays next to Polamalu.

I'd pick him up for the right price, but like I said, there are saying that he's going to want to see a large sum of bread, and if that's the case, NO and THANKS.

They need to get younger and more talented. Just 'cause you're older doesn't mean that you instantly provide skill, knowledge, or even leadership -- Not saying that Ryan Clark doesn't though...

Would you consider Ryan Clark in the class with those guys? Because most don't.

Could either of you provide names of guys who WON'T be considered HOF candidates?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark is at best an undersized above average safety. He's no Reed, Dawkins, or Sharper some of the most dynamic safeties ever to play the game.....come on man

Posted by: zjfr2

Indeed, exactly...

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark is at best an undersized above average safety. He's no Reed, Dawkins, or Sharper some of the most dynamic safeties ever to play the game.....come on man

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

That wasn't the point of the comparison. Red made the statement that he's too old. And I just named a couple of safeties in their 30's that are still playing at a high level. Clark can be an effective Safety here for atleast a couple more yrs. Bottom line: There's a big hole a FS and drafting one late in the draft doesn't mean the problem is solved. Dude from the Rams is also available, Atosometing, so I'd take a stab at him too.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

And I still say leave the defense as a 4-3 and build on last yrs sack improvement by leaving Orakpo and Carter at DE and having Haynes do what he does in the middle.

Posted by: ga8085


It's amazing how some of you don't get it.

There not going to switch to a 3-4 and a 3-4 only. Like Schwartz said the term is very broad. You can still have many different alignments in a 3-4, and even if they were going to switch to a 3-4 set only, do you think this coaching staff will sacrifice the talent of their players just to implement their system -- even with a d-coordinator that has experience running a 4-3 defense?

Who do you think is coaching this team? Jim Zorn?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

but you're missing our point. Play starts to decline in the 30's for almost everyone (brett favre the exception) and yes Reed, Dawkins, and Sharper are still very effective and use their experience and savvy to overcome the decline in their physical skills. But they started at a physical skill level higher than most anybody else who ever played their position, so 80% of their talent level is still a heck of a good safety. At best Clark was/is an above average safety and signing him to a contract now is exactly what we've done in years past, pay starter money for declining players. You can get the same level of play from a younger guy with upside then Clark.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

firts to say FIX THE PRO BOWL

Posted by: robertg238 | January 29, 2010 11:57 AM |

Calm the F down. Nobody cares about the Pro Bowl. Not even the people playing in it.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 29, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If Shanny decides to go QB at 4 I would talk long and hard to St. Louis about getting their 3rd for JC. Its #1 so its basically a 2nd rounder and that's about the best we could hope for on JC. If St. Louis could get Suh, a receiver in the 2nd, and Campbell in the 3rd that be a heck of a draft for them and if we could get QB1, tackle2, and a tackle or guard with their pick that's good for us as well. Either Bradford or Clausen are good enough to throw a hail mary out of bounds.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Makes sense to me, zjfr2...hopefully the Rams feel the same way! Otherwise, I think Oakland and Buffalo are our best alternatives. Poor JC17 - I'm not a fan and I can't wait for him to get out of town, but even I would feel a slight twinge at sending him from our bad situaiton into those even worse situaitons!

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Nobody cares about the Pro Bowl. Not even the people playing in it.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 29, 2010 12:21 PM |

Don't you mean the ones selected?

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

So what gives you the inclination that Clark is declining? How many times has an older CB been turned into a safety? We even had one: Troy Vincent
Please tell me who you suggestion is?? All I'm saying as far as FA goes, he'd be one of the guys I would think about bringing in.
Red: Nobody knows yet what exactly Haslett has got planned. But don't put the players in such a position where their so unfamiliar with the schemes where they can't react off of instincts. Ex: Green Bay's Kapman - awesome DE, struggled mightily when asked to play OLB in 3-4.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

ProFootballOutsiders looked at 'stop rates' for CBs last season. Stop rate means the % of opportunities where a player made the tackle following a reception. "Football Outsiders separates defensive Plays into run tackles, pass tackles, and sacks. When we say Plays, we're referring to any time the defender's name appears in the standard play-by-play, whether it is a solo tackle or an assist."

Lowest stop rate among NFL CBs last season: Carlos Rogers (7% of 28 opportunities).

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Is the B Marshall trade rumor true?

B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?

If that's true, well, this place will be jumping like jello in an earthquake.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Moe - where'd that come from? BTG PFT post?

No way in hell we should even consider that deal.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 29, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Regarding AH and the 3-4...

Why can't he play the NT position? As the article says, a lot of that role has to do with how the scheme is being run...not all NTs have to be a tree-stump type of player.

For instance, Ratliff plays the NT role in the Dallas 3-4, and he recorded more sacks than AH did this year, and was able to penetrate and generate QB pressure on a fairly consistant basis. Conversly, the starting ends in their scheme didn't combine for as many sacks as Ratliff had from the NT position.

Obviously, in a 3-4 the majority of the pass rush is coming from the OLBs, but a strong attack up the middle makes the outside rush that much more effective. I think AH could be on board with playing NT if they assure him they will design the scheme to still allow him to attack on passing downs.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Is the B Marshall trade rumor true?

B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 12:31 PM

MistaMoe = BeantownGreg

Posted by: League-Source | January 29, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Nobody cares about the Pro Bowl. Not even the people playing in it."

This isn't true.

I live in South Florida, and every stripper I know is counting on paying her bills with money earned from NFL ballas partying after the game.

One girl complained she spend all her money on knee pads and breathe mints, and now, without player interest, she's suffering a bit of a financial setback.

I told her to swallow hard, look up, and learn to deal with a bad situation.

Something, I said, she's probably had a ton of experience with already.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I told her to swallow hard, look up, and learn to deal with a bad situation.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 12:40 PM

What you meant was "learn to deal with a hard situtation."

Posted by: League-Source | January 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Ex: Green Bay's Kapman - awesome DE, struggled mightily when asked to play OLB in 3-4.

Posted by: ga8085


He struggled early on, yes. But before his injury he was beginning to come around to it. In 9 games he still at 42 tackles and 3.5 sacks.

Following the Packers playoff loss Kampman had this to say:

"New defensive coordinator Dom Capers scrapped the Packers' 4-3 defensive scheme and installed his version of the 3-4. He asked Kampman to switch from defensive end to outside linebacker, requiring him to learn the nuances of standing up at the line of scrimmage instead of playing as a down lineman, and sometimes dropping into pass coverage.

Kampman initially seemed less than enthusiastic about his role in the new scheme, but earned consistent praise from coaches for the work he put in to the transition.

"Obviously I've gotten used to this 3-4," Kampman said. "I didn't get a chance to get a full year to critique and say, 'Hey, this is great.' But I was starting to get more comfortable with it. Having said that, I have a lot of experience in the 4-3. I think that I can do both."


Half of the battle is just simply buying into the system. You hear players and coaches say that all the time.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

If Shanny decides to go QB at 4 I would talk long and hard to St. Louis about getting their 3rd for JC. Its #1 so its basically a 2nd rounder and that's about the best we could hope for on JC. If St. Louis could get Suh, a receiver in the 2nd, and Campbell in the 3rd that be a heck of a draft for them and if we could get QB1, tackle2, and a tackle or guard with their pick that's good for us as well. Either Bradford or Clausen are good enough to throw a hail mary out of bounds.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm still having a hard time understanding why,if Bradford and Clausen are slam dunk franchise QBs, would a team needing a franchise QB pass them up? Wouldn't the Rams select their franchise QB at #1, given the fact JC is not a franchise QB, that would be better for that team. While Suh is a great player, having that franchise QB should trump all..right?

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

moe...we don't have a 3rd rounder, so i don't know how that trade could work

Posted by: votematt2024 | January 29, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Albert should play were the "TEAM" needs him! If he is anything less than excited about that; the Skins are owed a large refund and should get rid of him! I think Shannahan will get rid of certain malcontents and prima donnas; especially one washed up running back!

A housecleaning is in order. GO SKINS!

Posted by: sbf845 | January 29, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Half of the battle is just simply buying into the system. You hear players and coaches say that all the time.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

So if we're going to project over 16 games, Kampman would of had around 7 sacks, let's say. Compare that to his numbers in a 4-3. I believe the year before he had like 14 sacks (huge difference). And of course he's not going to publicly criticize his new role. If its a combo 4-3/3-4 I have no problem with that. Just make sure the players you have will be just as effective in a 3-4 as a 4-3. And the last time Haslett had a very effective D was back in the 90's, so I'm not going to trust him %100 in what he thinks might work. Maybe I still got a little residual Zorn/Blache poison in me, I don't know..

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

QBs don't come out the draft "franchised up" they have to grow into that role.

Young QBs need an offensive line, a defense, and a lean heavy running game. Without it you're just throwing him to the wolves.

Good coaching doesn't hurt either.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm still having a hard time understanding why, if Bradford and Clausen are slam dunk franchise QBs, would a team needing a franchise QB pass them up? Wouldn't the Rams select their franchise QB at #1, given the fact JC is not a franchise QB, that would be better for that team. While Suh is a great player, having that franchise QB should trump all..right?

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone thinks either of those guys are "slam dunk" franchise QBs - Peyton Manning-types only comes along once per decade or so.

Given that, the Rams may decide Suh is a safer pick long-term pick, especially if they can trade a 3rd rounder for a servicable QB prior to the draft. Not saying it will happen - most folks do expect them to draft one of the top QBs - just saying it is plausible.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark is a little guy who plays with a high motor. He's a great locker room guy but he gets injured way too much, and he is probably only as athletically gifted as a guy like Kareem Moore who is already on our roster. Before the team drops some major dough on a safety, they should be darned sure they don't a prospect in house. I personally like the idea of them re-signing Rogers and moving him to free safety, but I think Kareem Moore only needs the reps. Remember, too, that the safeties will probably be used differently in whatever defense Haslett decides to run. In Blache's defense, the strong safety was almost a fourth linebacker. Haslett might want both of his safeties to be more or less interchangeable: good in coverage and good in run stopping. One thing is for sure: the coaches need to climb inside Landry's head and straighten him out. He played too far below his capability this last season for him not to show up at every offseason session...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm still having a hard time understanding why,if Bradford and Clausen are slam dunk franchise QBs, would a team needing a franchise QB pass them up? Wouldn't the Rams select their franchise QB at #1, given the fact JC is not a franchise QB, that would be better for that team. While Suh is a great player, having that franchise QB should trump all..right?

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each scout and GM has to make an assessment of these guys at QB. If there was a slam-dunk selection like Ryan 2 yr ago, it would be an obvious selection. But apparently none of these QB's has separated himself as a clear franchise QB. Thus, the hesitation by Rams to take Clausen or Bradford.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Ringing endorsement from AH old DC from the titans wouldn't you say. Brilliant idea in mixing in 3-4. Haynseworth on the end in a 3-4 imagine the possibilities. Why not mix it up. Just shift Landry back to SS so he can do his blow up a ball carrier routine in the trenches.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

So if we're going to project over 16 games, Kampman would of had around 7 sacks, let's say. Compare that to his numbers in a 4-3. I believe the year before he had like 14 sacks (huge difference). And of course he's not going to publicly criticize his new role. If its a combo 4-3/3-4 I have no problem with that. Just make sure the players you have will be just as effective in a 3-4 as a 4-3. And the last time Haslett had a very effective D was back in the 90's, so I'm not going to trust him %100 in what he thinks might work. Maybe I still got a little residual Zorn/Blache poison in me, I don't know..

Posted by: ga8085

Again, buying into the system is they key with changing up or doing what you're comfortable doing.

His numbers dipped because they were asking him to do other things. In a 4-3 he was a DE, in a 3-4 a LB, so I'm assuming that he was dropping into coverage. So of course he won't register the same amount of sacks that he normally would've had.

The Packers were consistently in the top 10 of several defensive categories. You can make the argument that they had the best 'D' in all of football. The Packers were in the middle to bottom half of most defensive categories in 2008. You can logically assume that this was due to the 3-4 switch.

Kampman had to sacrifice his numbers for the betterment of the team and it paid off -- for the team.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

George Allen never liked Sonny Jurgenson, and consequently sat him in favor of the much less skilled Billy Kilmer. Staubach was a terrific quarterback on a terrific team; Jurgenson a terrific QB on inferior teams. Vince Lombardi believed he could have won multiple titles with Sonny at the helm. George Allen disagreed.

Posted by: Samson151

How did Lombardi feel about Jurgensen?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/book/pages/78.htm

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

And the last time Haslett had a very effective D was back in the 90's, so I'm not going to trust him %100 in what he thinks might work. Maybe I still got a little residual Zorn/Blache poison in me, I don't know..

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I think the late 90's was the last time Haslett was DC. After that, he was HC, and had someone else controlling D.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Albert should play were the "TEAM" needs him! If he is anything less than excited about that; the Skins are owed a large refund and should get rid of him! I think Shannahan will get rid of certain malcontents and prima donnas; especially one washed up running back!

A housecleaning is in order. GO SKINS!

Posted by: sbf845 | January 29, 2010 12:50 PM |

+++

Yeah, right - meanwhile, back on earth...

Albert has a guaranteed contract with a massive salary hit if you "clean house" with him.

He is also the most dominant defensive football player in the league (or certainly one of the top 2-3) when used correctly. To take a talent like that and say "be a space eater" is stupid and in my opinion lazy from a coaching perspective. If I were Albert, I'd complain too.

He signed because there were discussions about how he would be used up front, and that was part of the reason he agreed (plus some major cash...)

I have to believe all of this was considered before Shanny made his D coaching and scheme choices.

Posted by: edvar | January 29, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm still having a hard time understanding why,if Bradford and Clausen are slam dunk franchise QBs, would a team needing a franchise QB pass them up? Wouldn't the Rams select their franchise QB at #1, given the fact JC is not a franchise QB, that would be better for that team. While Suh is a great player, having that franchise QB should trump all..right?

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

TWIS I don't think either of them are slam dunk franchise QBs. The difference here though is St. Louis needs a lot lot more than just a QB. We need oline and a qb, other than that we're not far away from being a good team. With a real kicker and good coaching we were at a minimum a 7 win team. IMO we don't take a step back by going to a rookie with more upside as long as the oline is fixed as well. Campbell has IMO proven he's a capable backup in this league who can take a punch and it was admirable the way he performed given the line he played behind last year. But IMO, that's what he's paid to do and it doesn't earn him anything more than a thank you. He's also shown that even when given time he makes bad reads, is inaccurate, has a slow delivery, has poor knowledge of down and distance, and where the sidelines are, and where the line of scrimmage is, and so on and so on. I'd rather go with the guy we don't know what his ceiling is and let him grow with our young line, and young receivers, and most likely our young running back, under the tutelage of Shanny in the one and only system he'll have to learn for five years than watch JC trying and forget about all the hits, unlearn another system, and struggle to try and learn another one. Again, this is just IMO.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I personally like the idea of them re-signing Rogers and moving him to free safety, but I think Kareem Moore only needs the reps. Remember, too, that the safeties will probably be used differently in whatever defense Haslett decides to run. In Blache's defense, the strong safety was almost a fourth linebacker. Haslett might want both of his safeties to be more or less interchangeable: good in coverage and good in run stopping. One thing is for sure: the coaches need to climb inside Landry's head and straighten him out. He played too far below his capability this last season for him not to show up at every offseason session...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

RSH, I don't think it makes sense to take our best cover corner and move him to FS. If you are going to do that, take Hall, who is more of a zone corner, and move him back there where he can cherry pick some overthrown balls. He has great hands too.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Given that, the Rams may decide Suh is a safer pick long-term pick, especially if they can trade a 3rd rounder for a servicable QB prior to the draft. Not saying it will happen - most folks do expect them to draft one of the top QBs - just saying it is plausible.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 12:56 PM |

Makes sense. The Rams last three QB's (Trent Green, Warner and Bulger) weren't selected anywhere near the first round of the draft, so they've had pretty good luck getting good QB service from later round selections.

Posted by: edvar | January 29, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Kampman had to sacrifice his numbers for the betterment of the team and it paid off -- for the team.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

But, assuming that the Skins play a similiar 3-4 scheme like the Pack (lets say 40-50% of the time), having Orakpo AND Carter drop back into coverage would be pretty awful. True, the Pack's defense got alot better, but that has alot to do with the additions of: Matthews and Raji. And it doesn't hurt that they also had the Defensive Player of the year at CB. The Skins have none of those luxuries. The Pack were able to invest heavily in the draft for players that would fit into a 3-4, again the Skins don't have that option.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

How did Lombardi feel about Jurgensen?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/book/pages/78.htm

Posted by: zcezcest1


Awwwwwwwwww....

Seriously though, I found straight drooling-halo-wearing retarded that people were siding with Jim 'F' Zorn over Sonny Jurgensen.

I didn't know that when he retired he was basically the best QB to have done at that point. Sometimes I wish I could have seen some of the dudes from back in the day play.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

He has great hands too.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Hall at Safety!! LOL! Have you forgotten my left toe can tackle better then him??

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:02 PM

So now I'm clearly confused as why so many are advocating the Skins use a #4 pick on QBs who haven't distinguished themselves to be similarly characterized as other QBs selected in that draft range. The more I think about it, it seems drafting one of the QBs at #4 would be a big gamble. Not saying they won't, but relatively speaking it wouldn't be the wisest move.

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

moe...we don't have a 3rd rounder, so i don't know how that trade could work

Posted by: votematt2024

I think it was us getting the 3rd + Marshall

Posted by: stevek20147 | January 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

L-Source

"What you meant was "learn to deal with a hard situation."


I've spoken to the stripper about the line in question.

According to her, because of 'cane and 'riod use, the situation with most NFL ballas is usually a limp one.

And that's why it's so bad.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The Pack were able to invest heavily in the draft for players that would fit into a 3-4, again the Skins don't have that option.

Posted by: ga8085


As the season progressed so did Orakpo in coverage, and I haven't actually seen Andre Carter in coverage, just heard that he is more comfortable with his hand in the dirt. I think Carter's level of comfort, like Kampman's, can be sacrificed for the betterment of the team if it makes them better.

I guess I'm willing to take "a wait and see" approach on this. If Haslett and London Fletcher think it could work, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Those guys have earned it.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 1:10 PM

I guess I'll be more comfortable with the Skins selection if come draft time, other teams are trying to maneuver up to get one of these QBs, or some other affirmation that they are top 5 talent. Otherwise a big red flag would go up for me, because the team would have over-drafted the player (see, Campbell, Jason).

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

the situation with most NFL ballas is usually a limp one.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:20 PM

So, Cork has something in common with most NFL ballas.

Posted by: League-Source | January 29, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

B Marshal and a 3rd rounder for Cooley and D Thomas. All sides are happy. Iwould even throw in ARE. Now why wouldn't the broncos do that.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

See? I told y'all that Stompy could fit the 3-4 just fine. The Phins' style of 3-4 works just fine w/ meat/power on the inside (meat on the inside...huhuhuhuhuh - Shuttup, Beavis!) and speed/tech skill on the outside. Use your linebackers to control the offensive flow where you want it. They had a monstrous D for decades. Oh, and I believe we have an Olividatti on staff. What does THAT tell ya?

Hail Haslett?...I hope?....

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

absolutely, you need your safeties to be secure, effective tacklers first and foremost.
they are the last line of a defense and we have seen what happens when landry botches tackles

hall has great hands without a doubt, but he is not what you need in a safety when it comes to stopping the run, or putting a receiver down securely.

rogers has far better tackling skills, but i have NEVER seen a defensive back with poorer ball skills in over 50 years of watching NFL football. he is SO bad i would want to know what his vision is ? if he hasnt been tested, somebody is missing things

clark would be a stable, calming presence at safety.. for a couple of years, or until we see if guys like Moore, Horton or Holmes can grow into an effective free safety to pair with Landry, who needs to move to SS

Posted by: shally | January 29, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'm willing to take "a wait and see" approach on this. If Haslett and London Fletcher think it could work, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Those guys have earned it.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm just taking it as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" type of approach. But hey, what do I know. I've only taken the Skins to the promised land 4 or 5 times on Madden 2007, lol.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"But, assuming that the Skins play a similiar 3-4 scheme like the Pack (lets say 40-50% of the time), having Orakpo AND Carter drop back into coverage would be pretty awful."

That's why we need to find two young, big fast linebackers.

I'd sacrifice C Wilson and H Blades' roster spots to add two big college 3-4 ILB guys who can play teams, cover, and fill in at 'backer--the idea being that one eventually replaces Fletcher.

This would seriously upgrade the position.

And it would give the team the flexibility to vary its defensive front 7 with ever changing personnel groupings.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I could see the skins trading campbell to 2 teams, Minnesota and Arizona. Both have a late first round pick and just lost a starting QB. I could also see both willing to trade up to the 4th pick to get a QB early this year.

Discuss.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 29, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

No way on Arizona, they have Leinart and while they certainly aren't sure he's the answer they have to give him the chance to be especially when JC doesn't present a clear upgrade. If they were trading for a QB it would have to be for an established top 10 guy like McNabb not a 3rd tier guy when they already have that on the roster.

MN maybe, but again, they have Rosenfels and Jackson, is Campbell a guaranteed upgrade? IMO not so much.

Real possibilities for a trade IMO are:

Carolina
Buffalo
St. Louis

and possibly Cleveland or Seattle depending on if Holmgren tries to get Hasselbeck or not.

those are the only places IMO that he presents an obvious upgrade over what they have outside of Oakland but Al seems inclined to give Russel one more year.

Posted by: zjfr2


zj -- I think AZ is among the most likely places for Campbell. AZ has no reason to trust Linehart. They aren't constrained into using him.

Campbell was the #13 rated QB. As rough as 2009 was, there were 20 QBs ranked behind him.

If he goes to AZ, will he do better? Well, lets see. Better WRs? Check. Better OL? Check. Better RBs? Check. Better coaching? Check. The only downgrade is the TE (not unimportant for JC). JC's passer rating goes up 5-10 points if he plays in AZ -- making him a top 10 passer, with an outside chance at top 5. If Campbell can find some chemistry with DT11, I'm sure he can find it with Larry Fitzgerald.

I think the system in AZ is a good fit for Campbell, their WRs can take advantage of a big arm and the RBs get a lot of catches. Warner was terrific, but Campbell brings the ability to make some plays with his feet.

I can see the Skins trading Cooley + Campbell to AZ and getting a couple of very high picks, or perhaps getting Linehart, a backup TE and a maybe one high pick.

The stars are aligned in AZ for the next few years. In the NFL, you have to take advantage of these windows of opportunity. Campbell isn't Warner, but he's the best available guy and good enough to get them to the playoffs. If I'm AZ and I have a choice between a guy who has proven something in this league and a guy who has proven nothing, I go with the guy who has done something.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

With Vinny out of the picture these draft scenarios are much less terrifying.

If they do draft Bradford at #4, I won't need to worry that it's a gamble and that guy didn't even play last season and he's a bean pole and could easily be snapped in half getting sacked 40+ times next season behind another patchwork line.

Posted by: BrooklynSkins | January 29, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Blades is a legacy. I'm not sure you want to loose that kid. Works his tail off.

Then again, if that's worth something in trade land, it could be worth it. I wonder what folks would offer up for him. A third rounder & a role player? Is that worth it? dunno....

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Makes sense. The Rams last three QB's (Trent Green, Warner and Bulger) weren't selected anywhere near the first round of the draft, so they've had pretty good luck getting good QB service from later round selections. Posted by: edv"

Spagnuolo wasn't coach when any of those QB's signed. His background is with the Giants, Eagles, and Cowboys. In other words, he's NFC East all the way.

Ask yourself what Parcells or Andy Reid would do with the pick, and you'll likely be closer to the mark.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

So now I'm clearly confused as why so many are advocating the Skins use a #4 pick on QBs who haven't distinguished themselves to be similarly characterized as other QBs selected in that draft range. The more I think about it, it seems drafting one of the QBs at #4 would be a big gamble. Not saying they won't, but relatively speaking it wouldn't be the wisest move.

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse
Yes, it's a crapshoot. We MAY hit a winner here, but we may end up with nothing better than JC. That's why a lot of bloggers are saying Okung or trade back. In the end, we'll just have to trust Shanny's judgment on the qb's.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

TWSI, I am in the camp that we wait to see if we need to draft a "franchise QB" next year, and focus on building the O line and keep the D strong first. We're not going to fix this in one year, so let's invest in a strong foundation (both lines and a strong D) as we build this thing out.

We have a lot of good young receivers, we need to address RB, even if just for depth and change-of-pace.

I don't think we have a starting OT - left or right, on the team right now Heyer is terrible (beginning to wonder if I even want him for depth) and L Jones did not impress (gave up over 6 sacks in his limited time...).

I have to go back to the school of thought towards the end of the season that had us raiding a couple of practice squads for tackles - probably could have gotten a RT out of that batch, but that's water under the bridge now.

If we can trade back to add first day picks, let's do it and get some tackles and a RB the first day, then a Guard and LB/Db depth on day two.

I think that would be a good start.

Posted by: edvar | January 29, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

That's why we need to find two young, big fast linebackers.

I'd sacrifice C Wilson and H Blades' roster spots to add two big college 3-4 ILB guys who can play teams, cover, and fill in at 'backer--the idea being that one eventually replaces Fletcher.

This would seriously upgrade the position.

And it would give the team the flexibility to vary its defensive front 7 with ever changing personnel groupings.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Where would you be getting these LB's from? Remember, only 5 draft picks available at this time.

zcezcest1: Arizona's passing game is predicated on timing and getting the ball to where the WR WILL BE going. I think he'd be a terrible fit in AZ. Warner succeeded because he has great touch, JC does not.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

If Soup goes turns into a top 5 passer, I'll stop drinking for a year. And that's serious!

One of the reasons AZs line does well is the smarts of one wiley ol' Warner. He knows how is pocket is going to collapse and adjusts accordingly. JC has proven he does not have that skill. Additionally, release time is an issue.

I think you'd have a situation where Soup would bring down the other squads' ratings instead of them bringing his up. At best a compromise of the two.

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

But hey, what do I know. I've only taken the Skins to the promised land 4 or 5 times on Madden 2007, lol.

Posted by: ga8085


See that's your problem right there. You suck in Madden, so how could you possibly know anything regarding football anyway?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Blades is a legacy. I'm not sure you want to loose that kid. Works his tail off."

HB Blades is a backup, not matter how hard he works.

Would you exploit his size by setting him up to cover a 6' 5" tight end?

I would.

Would you pound the ball at him behind a 6' 6" 320 pound guard and 6' 3" lead blocker?

I would, that's how teams challenged the former fins' linebacker Z Thomas: they when right at him.

Thomas made his career out of making sideline to sideline tackles, but if he wasn't protected by a defensive tackle, the Power-0 and and BOB lead play crushed him.

And that's why Blades not a 3-4 inside linebacker.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

10 Reasons For Washington DC Sports Fans To Keep Hope Alive
http://dalockerroom.com/index.php/2010/01/29/10-reasons-washington-dc-sports-fans-hope-alive/

Posted by: ceo22 | January 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

See that's your problem right there. You suck in Madden, so how could you possibly know anything regarding football anyway?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Taking the Skins to the SB 4-5 times means I suck? I tried to say that in a humble type of manner, maybe you misunderstood me. How about this: I'm a hall of fame candidate for what I've done with the Skins. You forced me to brag..

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Moe - how tall is Zach Thomas?

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Zjfr2

If JC is an upgrade for Carolina,Buffalo and St. Louis why would we trade him away for a pick and draft a QB who is unproven? All you Jc haters are wearing blinders there is no QB in this draft worth a 1st round pick I say sign JC to a 1yr deal draft Oline give that oline a year together then maybe next yr look for qb if JC doesn't improve.

Posted by: mlewis1 | January 29, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"I can see the Skins trading Cooley + Campbell to AZ and getting a couple of very high picks, or perhaps getting Linehart, a backup TE and a maybe one high pick"

From the previous thread, we need a Rhino, a unicorn, bigfoot, and probably the loch ness monster....

Thats how galactically stupid your trade is.

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 29, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I do see your point, though.

But Zach stopped plenty of running up the middle.

Like I said, though, if we can get value for Blades, why not. I just don't like loosing good talent. Which, I believe Blades is.

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?"Posted by: MistaMoe

Don't the Broncs have a good receiving TE? I thought their main need was to replace Marshall and get help at safety and corner. A young QB would be nice.

Don't see Cooley/Thomas meeting those requirements.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

So now I'm clearly confused as why so many are advocating the Skins use a #4 pick on QBs who haven't distinguished themselves to be similarly characterized as other QBs selected in that draft range. The more I think about it, it seems drafting one of the QBs at #4 would be a big gamble. Not saying they won't, but relatively speaking it wouldn't be the wisest move.

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I think most of us would like to see us either take Okung at #4 or trade back, but if they decide to take a QB at that slot (and doing so at #4 is somewhat less of a risk than at #1, financially speaking), we also have strong/mixed opinions about which QB it should be.

With the uncertainty surrounding these two top QBs and how they stack up against the other first round talent, I don't think it's out of the question that one of them could slide down into the lower half of the round (ala Rogers in '05 and Quinn in '07).

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

talk to a coach, good job rick maese.

now, let's talk politics. jk

my bad yesterday I got all riled up, apoligies to whoever

happy friday

Posted by: pabrian2003 | January 29, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

ga8085

"Where would you be getting these LB's from? Remember, only 5 draft picks available at this time."


Well, we already have one candidate in Curtis Gatewood-6' 3" 240 pounds.

And like the iggles found a good interior backer in S Bradley, we'll locate such a guy as the one position that annually overflows with talent is linebacker.

I'd seek out some kid who played inside in a good college 3-4 scheme and start there.

Somebody like B Spikes would suffice.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?"Posted by: MistaMoe

Don't the Broncs have a good receiving TE? I thought their main need was to replace Marshall and get help at safety and corner. A young QB would be nice.

Don't see Cooley/Thomas meeting those requirements.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

They've got Sheffler, who doesn't seem to fit what they're doing now. And they also drafted a TE in the second round, so yeah, that wouldn't work.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"HB Blades is a backup, not matter how hard he works."

He's a limited player, but quite capable of starting in the right system. Height's a challenge, as it is for Fletcher. You always run at smaller LBs; the defense has to scheme to offset that, as Dallas did with Thomas.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I think of San Diego's defense, I always think "big nose." Schwartz says it best. San Diego and their big nose defense ... what a bunch of big noses.

Posted by: dcsween | January 29, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'll be more comfortable with the Skins selection if come draft time, other teams are trying to maneuver up to get one of these QBs, or some other affirmation that they are top 5 talent. Otherwise a big red flag would go up for me, because the team would have over-drafted the player (see, Campbell, Jason).

Twisi

Twis, my only concern on Bradford is his shoulder, if James Andrews (someone the skins know pretty well) says he's good to go and the joint is normal I would venture to argue that getting Bradford at #4 is underdrafting where he would have gone last year, or this year if he hadn't gotten injured. Yes he doesn't come from the "pro style offense" but he is extremely accurate, has a quick release, and a strong arm and I don't think you'd find any scout that would disagree he was ahead of Stafford and Sanchez last year if he would have come out. IMO, and I certainly could be wrong, Clausen is more day 1 ready similar to Matt Ryan (who came from a pro style offense but not an amazing team at Boston College) senior year he threw 31 TDs and 19 Ints versus Clausen's 28 TDs to 4 INTs. But in the long run if his shoulder is healthy Bradford and Clausen both seem to have the talent to be a franchise QB.

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Taking the Skins to the SB 4-5 times means I suck? I tried to say that in a humble type of manner, maybe you misunderstood me. How about this: I'm a hall of fame candidate for what I've done with the Skins. You forced me to brag..

Posted by: ga8085

There isn't a HOF on Madden...

I just got Madden on PS3 two years ago. So the last version I played on PS2 was 2008. Anyway when I was playing it on the PS2 I WON the bowl EVRY year -- on the All-Madden level, WITH the AI for the CPU turned up to the max in every category.

I'll Haynesworth stomp you in Madden, G.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM

I'm not understanding your thinking here. What do we trade back with after we take Okung at #4?

Posted by: edvar | January 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

What if JC wont sign a 1 yr contract. Do we franchise or transition him. I dont know all the ins and outs but the doller amounts are $16.4 million for franchise and $14.5 million for transition.

Is he worth that?

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM

That's what situation these two guys reminds me of...Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers.

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

RSH, I don't think it makes sense to take our best cover corner and move him to FS. If you are going to do that, take Hall, who is more of a zone corner, and move him back there where he can cherry pick some overthrown balls. He has great hands too.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 1:11 PM
------------------------------------------
Good points, but Rogers is the better tackler. I think you want your last line of defense to be a decent tackler. They experimented with Smoot back there last year but Smoot has never been known as a great tackler. I think it makes more sense to put Rogers back there.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"... how tall is Zach Thomas?"


5' 11" 240 pounds.

Unlike Fletcher, he wasn't that strong at the point of attack.

I remember countless dolphins' games where the anouncers would brag about Z Thomas' tackling numbers, but wouldn't notice that most of them were 6-8 yards upfield.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM

I'm not understanding your thinking here. What do we trade back with after we take Okung at #4?

Posted by: edvar

A unicorn and some magic beans.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

There isn't a HOF on Madden...

I just got Madden on PS3 two years ago. So the last version I played on PS2 was 2008. Anyway when I was playing it on the PS2 I WON the bowl EVRY year -- on the All-Madden level, WITH the AI for the CPU turned up to the max in every category.

I'll Haynesworth stomp you in Madden, G.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I played my friend in Madden a while back, he used to talk as much mess as you, apparently. He learned his lesson the hard way: The loser of the game had to take a vicious punch to the stomach. Talk to me when you can deal with that kind of pressure during a game fella.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Fans would like to replace a dozen players this offseason, but the reality is there will only be maybe 10-15% turnover in the roster. There are just not enough good players out there to hit a "system reset" every season so there will be compromises. I think using guys like Kareem Moore and HB Blades in starting roles is probably going to become a reality. I'd be happy if they left the defense alone this year and focused totally on offense. There are more than enough holes there to make an offseason out of fixing them...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"I'm still having a hard time understanding why,if Bradford and Clausen are slam dunk franchise QBs, would a team needing a franchise QB pass them up? Wouldn't the Rams select their franchise QB at #1, given the fact JC is not a franchise QB, that would be better for that team. While Suh is a great player, having that franchise QB should trump all..right?Posted by: TWISI"

If by 'franchise', you mean an anchor you can build an offense or defense around -- I don't see a player like that in this draft class. Suh could be Randy White, or he could turn out to be Russell Maryland. Bradford is a spread QB who will need to learn to play under center. Clausen is better prepared, a better deep thrower. Neither looks like a sure thing like Aikman or Carson Palmer coming out of college.

But in the hype universe, all things are possible, and that's what this blog is about.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Ah! Yes, I always forget about the magic beans. Gotta write that down somewhere...

Thanks Red.

Posted by: edvar | January 29, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The loser of the game had to take a vicious punch to the stomach. Talk to me when you can deal with that kind of pressure during a game fella.

Posted by: ga8085


That's nothing... One time I challenged this dude for every score he had to take a shot of 151, the same went for me...

The final score was 84-17.

12 shots of 151 is worse on the stomach than a single punch to it.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?"Posted by: MistaMoe


Hey--I was asking about something another cat posted, this isn't my idea or statement.

And I wouldn't be for it anyways as I'd move Campbell for a third/fourth, not wanting the headaches a Marshall might bring.

Plus, Cooley is a fan fav in his prime.

Trade Cooley?: naw, don't think so.

Let's get him and Davis in some two-tight end sets, and use them to challenge teams with weak safety play.

Thomas is a work in progress that's about to come to fruition, so I'd keep him around as well.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zjfr2 | January 29, 2010 1:49 PM

I have to try to find some Sooner games from last year online. I'd like to see Bradford's game again. I can't remember how good he is. Clausen is very talented but, IMO not top 5 talented. I could easily see taking him some where from pick 12 or back, but that's just one man's opinion.

Posted by: TWISI | January 29, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

We tried to get more LBs last year in Cody Glenn (he's now going to the super bowl with the Colts since we cut him in camp) and Robert Henson (2 tackles in '09).

Posted by: BrooklynSkins | January 29, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

That's nothing... One time I challenged this dude for every score he had to take a shot of 151, the same went for me...

The final score was 84-17.

12 shots of 151 is worse on the stomach than a single punch to it.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Ya'll just might be some alkies though, lol. Knowing during a game that if you lose, you're going to receive bodily harm, is alot more intense if you ask me. And maybe you scored 84 pts because he was passed out by the time you got to 21 and you kept playing.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Any good talk up here? I am not about to go through all these damn post? Anything new to argue about? All I saw was Madden...

...And I know no one wants to see me and my skills on that joint....

Just sayin...

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 29, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The funny part about that, ga was that at the time I was 19 and the dude I was playing was 25. I had just started to experiment with alcohol, and since even then I never backed down from a challenge I remember being nervous as hell the whole time. But I do remember him being highly sauced by the middle of the third qtr.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Seriously though, I found straight drooling-halo-wearing retarded that people were siding with Jim 'F' Zorn over Sonny Jurgensen.

I didn't know that when he retired he was basically the best QB to have done at that point. Sometimes I wish I could have seen some of the dudes from back in the day play.

Posted by: RedDMV

Sonny was brilliant, especially after his year under Lombardi. Thing is, by that time, he was getting injured pretty much every year.

How brilliant? In 1972, his first start, he went 7-17 with 3 picks vs philly, in the first half. Guess he need to shake off the rust. Over the next 2.5 games, he went 32-42 for 500+ yards -- 12 yards per attempt!! It also included perhaps the seminal regular season win of the George Allen era, coming back from 13 points down to beat dallas. In his 4th game of the year Sonny stepped into a hole in the field in ny, snapped his achilles, and he was done for the year.

Another memorable game was his duel with Bob Griese against a very good Miami defense at RFK. Again, his 1st start of the year, he threw 3 first half picks. Again, the rust came off and Sonny lit up Miami in the 2nd half. He ignored George Allen and threw most every play. In that half, he was 19-25, 225 yards and 2 TDs, including a classic game winning drive, the TD pass occurring with 15 seconds left.

Sonny's last year, at age 40, he finished with a 95 passer rating, best in football.

Sonny was as fun to watch as any player I've ever seen.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Any good talk up here? I am not about to go through all these damn post? Anything new to argue about? All I saw was Madden...

...And I know no one wants to see me and my skills on that joint....

Just sayin...

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 29, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Well you missed it. Everybody was posting on how Bradford is a God amongst men and the Skins should do everything in their power to draft him and suit him up as soon as possible.

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?"Posted by: MistaMoe

Hey--I was asking about something another cat posted, this isn't my idea or statement.

And I wouldn't be for it anyways as I'd move Campbell for a third/fourth, not wanting the headaches a Marshall might bring.

Plus, Cooley is a fan fav in his prime.

Trade Cooley?: naw, don't think so.

Let's get him and Davis in some two-tight end sets, and use them to challenge teams with weak safety play.

Thomas is a work in progress that's about to come to fruition, so I'd keep him around as well.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 2:03 PM
------------------------------------------
I'm not for that trade but I would like to see the team get taller at receiver, and if the team can get B Marshall, then he fits the bill. I wonder what the trade value would be for S Moss...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll give a bama their issue on Madden... Any console, Any year.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

4th - I always just read the last 1/2 hour's comments and pick up from there. Gives you a good gist of the current.

Believe it or not we're actually discussing the thread topic, too. Though we did move to middle LB & the 3-4. Does an undersized yet talented MLB serve a function or do you need a hulk on point?

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"B Marshall for Cooley/Thomas and a 3rd rounder?"Posted by: MistaMoe

Hey--I was asking about something another cat posted, this isn't my idea or statement.

And I wouldn't be for it anyways as I'd move Campbell for a third/fourth, not wanting the headaches a Marshall might bring.

Plus, Cooley is a fan fav in his prime.

Trade Cooley?: naw, don't think so.

Let's get him and Davis in some two-tight end sets, and use them to challenge teams with weak safety play.

Thomas is a work in progress that's about to come to fruition, so I'd keep him around as well.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 29, 2010 2:03 PM
------------------------------------------
I'm not for that trade but I would like to see the team get taller at receiver, and if the team can get B Marshall, then he fits the bill. I wonder what the trade value would be for S Moss...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 29, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Um, not much dude.

Posted by: Bigfoot_has_a_posse | January 29, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Z's, Jurgensen was obviously great, and underrated at the same time. When they talk about the greats you rarely hear about him. They give Bart Star more props.

I'd sure like to meet the idiot who decided the number of SBs a QB wins is the end all be all.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

If Soup goes turns into a top 5 passer, I'll stop drinking for a year. And that's serious!

One of the reasons AZs line does well is the smarts of one wiley ol' Warner. He knows how is pocket is going to collapse and adjusts accordingly. JC has proven he does not have that skill. Additionally, release time is an issue.

I think you'd have a situation where Soup would bring down the other squads' ratings instead of them bringing his up. At best a compromise of the two.

Posted by: DikShuttle |

Campbell obviously isn't Warner, but you don't think throwing to Fitzgerald, Boldin and Breaston won't move JC from an 86 rating to a 90+ rating? Behind a better OL, with a better run game?

Only 12 QBs had a 90+ rating in '09.

Warner's a terrific QB (and probably would have had 100+ rating if not for that 5 pick game), but the talent around him on offense in AZ dwarfs the Skins talent.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse


What if JC wont sign a 1 yr contract. Do we franchise or transition him. I dont know all the ins and outs but the doller amounts are $16.4 million for franchise and $14.5 million for transition.

Is he worth that?

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abu
No, we don't make him a franchise or transition player. He's not worth that.

We tender him as a restricted free agent. That means we pay him a salary increase, then he can go out and seek an offer from another team. If he gets one, we have one week to match that contract or we get compensation. I think it would be a 1st rd pick, but it can be negotiated. JC would be our QB unless he got an offer from someone else.

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I'll give a bama their issue on Madden... Any console, Any year.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:16 PM

Madden '95 on PS2. I got the Jets. #19 TD Everytime!

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 29, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It certainly wasn't Marino, RedD. Or Jim Kelly. heh.

Here's a question that popped into my head earlier: How many 1st rounders have won the StuporBowel?

As of the 2007 season:
Joe Namath - Super Bowl III
Bob Griese - Super Bowl VII and VIII
Terry Bradshaw - Super Bowls IX, X, XII, and XIII
Jim Plunkett - Super Bowls XV and XVIII
Jim McMahon - Super Bowl XX
Phil Simms - Super Bowl XXI
Doug Williams - Super Bowl XXII
Troy Aikman - Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and
Steve Young - Super Bowl XXIX
John Elway - Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII
Trent Dilfer - Super Bowl XXXV
Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl XL
Peyton Manning - Super Bowl XLI


As you can see, it's a pretty short list. I can't vouch for the accuracy, necessarily so please anyone point out where wrong...

I guess the next question is: How many 1st round QB's are/were Duds...?

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

And I still say leave the defense as a 4-3 and build on last yrs sack improvement by leaving Orakpo and Carter at DE and having Haynes do what he does in the middle.

Posted by: ga8085

You can't play Orakpo and Carter as your two starting DEs, because neither has the bulk or strength at the point of attack to be an every-down left DE (See Taylor, Jason). Most offenses tend to run more to the right, where the tight end usually lines up. So you need more of a Phillip Daniels-Jeremy Jarmon size and strength guy on the left side, instead of speed guys like Orakpo and Carter.

Posted by: rbpalmer | January 29, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I'll give a bama their issue on Madden... Any console, Any year.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 2:16 PM

MAdden '97 on PS2. Went with the Broncos that whole year....before they won the SB...

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 29, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM

I'm not understanding your thinking here. What do we trade back with after we take Okung at #4?

Posted by: edvar

To clarify - take Okung at #4 and then trade UP into to the lower half of the 1st to take the QB that slips (trade BACK into it was meant in the context of "get back into the 1st round", not "move backwards in the round". Hope that makes more sense now....


A unicorn and some magic beans.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Seriously though, I found straight drooling-halo-wearing retarded that people were siding with Jim 'F' Zorn over Sonny Jurgensen.

I didn't know that when he retired he was basically the best QB to have done at that point. Sometimes I wish I could have seen some of the dudes from back in the day play.

Posted by: RedDMV

Sonny was brilliant, especially after his year under Lombardi. Thing is, by that time, he was getting injured pretty much every year.

How brilliant? In 1972, his first start, he went 7-17 with 3 picks vs philly, in the first half. Guess he need to shake off the rust. Over the next 2.5 games, he went 32-42 for 500+ yards -- 12 yards per attempt!! It also included perhaps the seminal regular season win of the George Allen era, coming back from 13 points down to beat dallas. In his 4th game of the year Sonny stepped into a hole in the field in ny, snapped his achilles, and he was done for the year.

Another memorable game was his duel with Bob Griese against a very good Miami defense at RFK. Again, his 1st start of the year, he threw 3 first half picks. Again, the rust came off and Sonny lit up Miami in the 2nd half. He ignored George Allen and threw most every play. In that half, he was 19-25, 225 yards and 2 TDs, including a classic game winning drive, the TD pass occurring with 15 seconds left.

Sonny's last year, at age 40, he finished with a 95 passer rating, best in football.

Sonny was as fun to watch as any player I've ever seen.

Posted by: zcezcest1 |


Sonny was the number 1 going into the season. He actually got busted up in a preseason game, which is how Kilmer was QBing through the first part of the season. Check out how many times Sonny bailed out the team while he played under Allen. One of the best stories is when Kilmer got dinged during a game and Sonny had to come in for a play on third down. Allen called for a draw play. Sonny audibled to a pass, threw a beautiful TD pass, and got blasted by Allen for it. To the team and the fans, he was the man, but Allen wanted to win with defense.

Posted by: Sonny9 | January 29, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see us take Okung at #4 and then be able to trade back into the lower 1st round to take whichever QB slips... it could happen.

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 1:45 PM

I'm not understanding your thinking here. What do we trade back with after we take Okung at #4?

Posted by: edvar

A unicorn and some magic beans.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

To clarify - take Okung at #4 and then trade UP into to the lower half of the 1st to take the QB that slips (trade BACK into it was meant in the context of "get back into the 1st round", not "move backwards in the round". Hope that makes more sense now....

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: PDXskin | January 29, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

but the talent around him on offense in AZ dwarfs the Skins talent.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 2:22 PM

No argument there! But I do doubt Soup's ability to take advantage. I believe the Line performance would suffer accordingly and then the receiver / running game talent is wasted.

Here we had the added problem of 'no line'.

Hey, I could definitely be wrong, but I don't have much confidence in JC. Not saying he can't, just won't believe it 'till I see it.

...I could probably stand to cut out the hard stuff for a while, anyway.. lol.

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Sonny was the number 1 going into the season. He actually got busted up in a preseason game, which is how Kilmer was QBing through the first part of the season. Check out how many times Sonny bailed out the team while he played under Allen. One of the best stories is when Kilmer got dinged during a game and Sonny had to come in for a play on third down. Allen called for a draw play. Sonny audibled to a pass, threw a beautiful TD pass, and got blasted by Allen for it. To the team and the fans, he was the man, but Allen wanted to win with defense.

Posted by: Sonny9

I remember that game, too. Great stat line 1-1, 1 TD. Announcers were laughing, saying Kilmer was there to drive the ball down the field, Sonny only came in for the TD.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 29, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You can't play Orakpo and Carter as your two starting DEs, because neither has the bulk or strength at the point of attack to be an every-down left DE (See Taylor, Jason). Most offenses tend to run more to the right, where the tight end usually lines up. So you need more of a Phillip Daniels-Jeremy Jarmon size and strength guy on the left side, instead of speed guys like Orakpo and Carter.

Posted by: rbpalmer | January 29, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Really? See: Tuck & Strahan or Minnesota's Allen and Edwards

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"JC's passer rating goes up 5-10 points if he plays in AZ -- making him a top 10 passer, with an outside chance at top 5. If Campbell can find some chemistry with DT11, I'm sure he can find it with Larry Fitzgerald."

Ummmm, no. Some of JC's acknowledged deficiencies -- hitting WR's in stride, throwing the fade, specific accuracy, especially on downfield routes (like the 'back-shoulder' throw), sight adjustments to the defense -- are exactly some of the things Warner and Fitzgerald / Boldin excel at which helps make their offense go. You can't just plug a QB into an existing successful system and assume that the QB improves.

Posted by: ts35 | January 29, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Two productive TE offense not neccessary. Trade one. 3 WR unproven. Trade one of them. McDaniels is trying to get rid of anyone who is not in step with him players/coaches alike. Don't want Marshall or shefflar cool. We got your perfect replacements right here. Cooley/or Davis and Devin Thomas.
Mcdaniels marginal success was because of the last regime that was there and Mike Nolan. Now everyone's jumping ship because they can't stand this man child captain. MAKE IT HAPPEN SHANNY TAKE YOUR STAFF BACK DONE. NEXT TAKE YOUR PROBOWL 100+ PROBLEM CHILD NEXT and a 3rd or 4th rounder.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

3 inches, 6 pound difference between JayTay and oSACKpo.

The height helps w/ some tipped balls, which is no small matter (pun.h.). But could actually work against some leverage moves.

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Two productive TE offense not neccessary. Trade one. 3 WR unproven. Trade one

another idiot weighs in........

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 29, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: frediefritz | January 29, 2010 2:24 PM

Thank you.

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

Name one nfl team that runs two TE's consistently with success bean boy. ONE.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

My two cents of the safeties debate, i.e. getting a vet maybe past his prime a bit vs younger, less experienced, more talented player....

It seems like the team has plenty of young, athletic talent at safety in Landry, Horton, and to a lesser extent Moore and Doughty. What they seem to lack is discipline. That's why I think they need to find a disciplined veteran safety to come in and help school the youngsters. Someone they can turn to when Landry or whomever starts to make fundamental errors, who can come in and stabilize the situation. Maybe it's a guy like Clark (who Sean Taylor credited with helping him develop), maybe it's an good experienced CB who's gotten older and needs a position switch.

Regardless, I definitely don't think they should consider using the #4 on a guy like Berry when they have so many other more pressing needs. If we drafted another safety in the top ten, I'd start to feel like the Lions chasing WRs in the draft.

Posted by: ts35 | January 29, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

3 inches, 6 pound difference between JayTay and oSACKpo.

The height helps w/ some tipped balls, which is no small matter (pun.h.). But could actually work against some leverage moves.

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 29, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Taylor actually played at around 245. Orakpo got him by 15-20lbs. And add another QB to your list since its based from 2007. The legendary Eli Manning

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, lets not forget the Colts: Mathis and Freeney

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Shanny loves running 2 TE combos. Sure Lets keep both of them on the field and they can both have 60+ catches and 10TD apiece. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING EVEN IF THEY IGNORED RUNNING OR PASSING THE BALL TO WIDE RECIEVERS.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

sthai, tell you what, you name for me ONE team that will trade for an INJURED Chris Cooley, better yet, explain to me what happend AFTER the trade, if the player not traded gets hurt.

So you then take a STRENGTH, and turn it into a WEAKNESS....

Thanks for playing should we, or should we not trust the galactically STUPID!!!!!!

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 29, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

Name one nfl team that runs two TE's consistently with success bean boy. ONE.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:49 PM


Oh YEAH WE'LL BE THE FIRST!

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh YEAH WE'LL BE THE FIRST!

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Broncos did it in Shanahan's last yr with the Broncos: Graham and Sheffler. The Pack did it in their SB yrs with Favre: Chmura and Jackson. It's been said that Shanny wants to do the same thing with the Skins. I'm all for it

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ARE SO!

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Point being there is room for improvement at other positions of need. You would rather have 1)DT11 and DavisandCooley. 2)B Marshall an DAVIS or Cooley not both.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

AM NOT!

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 29, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Reasons not to draft a qb at 4:

1. There is nobody good enough to draft at 4

Bradford: Injury prone, came from a spread offense, played at a traditional power where he faced inferior competition on a weekly basis.

Clausen: Had vastly superior talent around him (ND's schedule is a joke and they still bombed), he looks like brady quinn part deux

2. Okung
3. Okung
4. Jason is good enough to weather rebuilding this offense. And it does need to be rebuilt.
5. Drafting a suspect qb (clausen) or a qb with a high ceiling (bradford) is not a luxury that we have right now.
6. Who are the best team architects in the league right now? Polian, Belichek, and Parcells. Do any of those guys have a reputation on rolling the dice on a 1st rd qb? (btw peyton was as close to a lock as you will ever get, and i dont think polian actually selected him anyway)?


Posted by: gtstang9t3 | January 29, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

No thanks on Marshall.

No doubt he has talent. I just think he's more trouble than he's worth.

He's worse than Portis for team chemistry and has off the field issues too.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 29, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

gtstang: "Clausen: Had vastly superior talent around him (ND's schedule is a joke and they still bombed), he looks like brady quinn part deux."

Please. Notre Dame's talent has been off for three seasons. Clausen was throwing perfect bombs to a 5'10" WR. Did you see some of those throws? Brady Quinn never threw a pass like that in his life.

Clausen may not be the next coming of Peyton Manning, but he's a very good NFL prospect.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"He'll adapt. There's always an adjustment period. His whole career, he had one scheme. He had his same position coach his entire career, the same defensive coordinator his entire career, the same head coach his entire career, and suddenly it all changed in a year. But he's talented, and he'll adapt and he'll be just as good in another scheme."
=================================
In other words, another wasted year of watching the defense stopping nobody at the end of games, until they "adapt" with another new defensive scheme.

Posted by: JohnWWW | January 29, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

beep beep

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 29, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

In other words, another wasted year of watching the defense stopping nobody at the end of games, until they "adapt" with another new defensive scheme.

Posted by: JohnWWW | January 29, 2010 3:16 PM

Huh? What Schwartz said is to your paraphrase as "perfectly clear" is to "Xy7^%jPTov9#$*(".

Posted by: League-Source | January 29, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"6. Who are the best team architects in the league right now? Polian, Belichek, and Parcells. Do any of those guys have a reputation on rolling the dice on a 1st rd qb? (btw peyton was as close to a lock as you will ever get, and i dont think polian actually selected him anyway)?Posted by: gtstang9t3"

Of course Polian selected Peyton. In Buffalo, his first big move was to lure Jim Kelly from the USFL. He's a quarterback man. He takes risks at RB and wide receiver.

Parcells is the guy who plays around with QBs.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 29, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Broncos did it in Shanahan's last yr with the Broncos: Graham and Sheffler. The Pack did it in their SB yrs with Favre: Chmura and Jackson. It's been said that Shanny wants to do the same thing with the Skins. I'm all for it

Posted by: ga8085 | January 29, 2010 3:00 PM


Nice recall.I stand corrected Chumura and Jackson were #1 and #2 in the league in recieving. Graham backed up sheffler....ok. let's have two TE's combined stats in one season equal the total in a season of one quality starting TE. I like both Cooley and Davis. But we don't need two. We have so many other needs if there is an opportunity to improve those areas why not take advantage. PORTIS JC17 no one wants them. u put DAVIS or cooley, Landry on the market then yeah now your talking.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 29, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Talking about trading back for more picks...

Has anyone considered the idea of the Ravens as a potential trade partner. Their offense is solid on almost all fronts and Ed Reed and Ray Lewis are aging really fast. With that, they may want to reach and pick up Eric Berry or Rolondo McLaine or Brandon Spikes (SP).

That scenario may net us a swap for this years first, this years third, and next years 1st or second. With that we could add a L/R Tackle this year in the bottom third of this years first round, a guard in the third, and QB either in this years Second or with next years first. Plus, we would still have one more pick for an elite tackle.

Sounds possible. Baltimore is in the AFC so trading with them doesn't hurt either team. Except maybe Danny's ego since they dominate him.

Posted by: Devo2 | January 29, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

First off, it's 'Fat Albert' not Big Al.

I say, hang porkchops on the opposing QB and it won't matter what D the Skins run, his fatass will chase 'em down.

Now, he will need constant oxygen and ankle re-wraps every 4 downs, but such is life...right?

Unless this puddin gets in shape, it won't matter. 41 mil guaranteed, so where is the incentive?

Pass the gravy baby...

Posted by: kahlua87 | January 29, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

If Shanny decides to go QB at 4 I would talk long and hard to St. Louis about getting their 3rd for JC. Its #1 so its basically a 2nd rounder and that's about the best we could hope for on JC. If St. Louis could get Suh, a receiver in the 2nd, and Campbell in the 3rd that be a heck of a draft for them and if we could get QB1, tackle2, and a tackle or guard with their pick that's good for us as well. Either Bradford or Clausen are good enough to throw a hail mary out of bounds.

Posted by: zjfr2 |


I like your thinking, but it pretty much writes off 2010 as a rebuilding year. I worry they'd rush the kid onto the field and ruin him a la Ramsey and JC.

I can see Shanahan going QB with the #4 overall, but it delays rebuilding the O-line.

A FA lineman who can step in and getting two new Oline starters with picks would be a good thing.

Next year add Oline depth and address LB, RB and DB needs

Posted by: TheCork | January 29, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

No rookie QB is a lock. Peyton Manning stunk as a rookie. So did Aikman. But they were fortunate enough to land in stable situations where they could develope. No doubt Campbell got screwed by the Redskins' dysfunction but he's reached his ceiling and it's time to move on. If Bradford has a chance to be a big-time QB we should take him. p.s. maybe Shanahan could pacify Haynesworth by giving him the ball Refrigerator-Perry-style on the goal line.

Posted by: coparker5 | January 29, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

none of these so-called 1st round QB's are a lock for stardom..and the fact that washington needs ALOT means they should try to trade back and pick up 2-3 extra picks. They need to draft a LT and RT this draft and a young running back, if shanahan want's a qb draft him in rounds 3 or 4 and play behind campbell if they decide to keep him. Drafting one of these so-called top qb's a couple of them are injury prone already in college..think they will hold up in the nfl?

Posted by: wathu19 | January 29, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

It's best they come to a conclusion and fast for fear of a repeat performance.

Posted by: MHEDRLT | January 30, 2010 6:31 AM | Report abuse

I definitely like him at the nose. The 3-4 interior may be best or at least safest in a more disciplined space eating system. But if Hansey is at the nose he may have half a step on a relatively undersized lineman. Brutalize him, knock him into the QBs lap, right? At that position he may actually draw the mythic triple team that seems to be commonly suggested of him.

He has above average quickness for his size. But some of his off-plays that seemed too common last season may be the psychological inevitability of not having strong positioning on a Tackle. Perfunctory chest bumps resulted. He could cause at-the-snap fumbles, flatten a forming pocket and draw plays may find the line of scrimmage moving backwards.

The question then would be how aggressive to be with the tackles. Probably better for them to be more stay at home and discipline but quick enough to break free in the pass rush. Griffin and Golston seem ideal for the tackles. Somewhat smaller but athletic play. Griffin has been elite and probably not yet a has-been but another year older. Monty is more a traditional 4-3 tackle with Hansey size better suited to backing the nose. Who then to back the tackles? Jarmon could be used more aggressively and I don't quite see him at OLB. Some of the smaller guys can be disruptive. I used to line up on the TE and scoop a guard and still make plays. Effectively disturbing blocking assignments and draw double teams. But youth and athleticism rise to a premium in the system and a guy like Ndamakong Suh would be seriously tempting at #4. He would any ways but in a 3-4 he could be highly aggressive. A 3 man rush being so effective that any blitzing backer would be like taking overpriced stadium sushi from a baby.

Posted by: chavez66 | January 30, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"Peyton Manning stunk as a rookie. So did Aikman. But they were fortunate enough to land in stable situations where they could develope."

Neither Manning nor Aikman 'stunk'. Both struggled on weak teams. Unlike Steve Young, Doug Williams, or David Carr, both got a chance to play on much better versions of the same club.

Ryan Leaf, you might argue, stunk, and on a reasonably good team.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 30, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I sit here and read this blog about how bad Jason Campbell is and how we should try and get Clausan or Bradford. Let me give you folks some insight, Bradford plays in a terrible defensive conference which allowed him to put up great statistics. When he finally did play against a great defense, a SEC defense(Florida)he stunk up the place. Also, he is fragile. One little hit and he was done for the season. I hate Notre Dame QBs. Remember cleveland was high on one and drafted him. He sucks. Clausan, has never won anything at Notre Dame. He does well against scrub teams (boston college, air force, etc), but, in big games, he stinks.

Any great QB, had a system built around their strengths. Also, they had players who could make plays around them. Joe Montana, had Jerry Rice, Tom Rathman, Craig, Clark, etc. He also had a offensive line that put 3/4 players in the pro bowl every year. And we are not going to talk about their defense, can you say Ronnie Lott. We can go on and on, Aikman, Marino, Elway, etc. What did the skins have, a coach that called BS plays, and please get off it, JC is an intelligent kid. In fact, the only sign of unintelligence that he has shown is to continue to show class and humility to an organization that SUCKS.

You same people were so high on the Redskins getting Cutler, who by the way, statistics were worst than JC's this year. You see, different team, different results.

To sum it all up, no matter who QBs this team right now, you will get the same result, mediocracy. And all of you complaining about JC will be crying for us to draft another QB.

JC can play, he might not be a top 10 QB, but he can play.

Posted by: sputnee | January 31, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

So if a player is a "fan fav" he can't be traded? I didn't know that any GM or coach would be considering that when making a decision to trade somebody. Call me crazy but I thought the reason you make trades is to make your team better, and not to appease the fans. I'm for trading anybody if it makes the Redskins better! They are a last place team that didn't win a single game in their division. I'm not attached to any player on this team so much that they can't be traded. Also, you cannot play Cooley and Davis together because neither is considered to be a superior blocker. If you are going to play with a lot of 2 TE sets one of them must be an excellent blocker. Think back to Didier, he was the receiving TE/H back, and Don Warren was the blocking TE.

Posted by: wbjking | January 31, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Unless and until the team fixes teh myrida of problems with the OL - it will make NO DIFFERENCE who the QB is or is not. Remember David Carr - the can't miss portotype pro QB - and what happpended when he was drafted by Houston and then had the snot knocked out of him for years and years. He had no chance. You really think putting Bradford into this lineup will work...."C'mon man....!"

Posted by: i155133 | January 31, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

What if JC wont sign a 1 yr contract. Do we franchise or transition him. I dont know all the ins and outs but the doller amounts are $16.4 million for franchise and $14.5 million for transition.

Is he worth that?

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 |

If you've got the capspace transition him for 14 and then you get picks if he signs with someone else - let him help McCoy for a season. Okung 1st QB 2nd.

Posted by: ElYeah | February 2, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company