Network News

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

Fletcher says he's 'FINALLY Pro Bowl bound'

(Updated 6:52 a.m.)

The Saints' victory over the Vikings in the NFC Championship game means there's an opening at linebacker in the Pro Bowl, with Jonathan Vilma playing in the Super Bowl.

And that means that London Fletcher, elected to the team as an alternate, will replace Vilma in the game next Sunday night in Miami. He'll join the Redskins' other representative, Brian Orakpo.

Fletcher commented on the news late Sunday night, via Twitter:

"12 years and 1 Overtime later....FINALLY Pro Bowl bound. Well worth the wait! God is great!!!"

In the Zone ...

It's Senior Bowl week (as if you haven't had that one marked on your calendar since October...) and the Redskins Tailgate Zone asks whether the Redskins should draft a quarterback.

By Cindy Boren  |  January 24, 2010; 10:35 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fletcher named a Walter Payton Award finalist
Next: Fletcher heads for Pro Bowl with assist from Saints

Comments

Congrats to Fletch! You deserve it!

Posted by: Jason10 | January 24, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

in the words of the great Stone Cold Steve Austin,Give Me A Hell Yea!!!!it's about time.Fletcher should have been in the past 10 years.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 24, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

At last....

Posted by: edvar | January 24, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Somebodys leaving Miami with a concussion next weekend. London will bring his lunch pail.

Posted by: AdamCr | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD TRADE OUR 3RD ROUND PICK FOR CHASE DANIEL. I HATE ZORN FOR LETTING HIM GO...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD TRADE OUR 3RD ROUND PICK FOR CHASE DANIEL. I HATE ZORN FOR LETTING HIM GO...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM |

You would be the only one.

A 3rd rounder? Really?

Posted by: edvar | January 24, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Bout damn time.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | January 24, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

What third rounder? :P

Glad to see somebody gives a darn about the Pro Bowl...

Posted by: GshawnJohnson | January 24, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Fletcher should have been in the past seven years,but that's what happens when sports writers vote on people,that's why it took so long for monk to get in.He should have gone in long before that coke head Michael Irvin.Oh and another thing if they are not going to let people in the hall for steroids,then they shouldn't let coke heads and crack heads like Irvin and Lawrence Taylor in.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 24, 2010 10:56 PM
========================================
Numbbucket.. this is the ProBowl..not the Hall of Fame..

Yippee..an alternate made the pro bowl because the guy who beat him out, originally, is in the Super Bowl as he was the better player.

..The NFL needs to fix this..

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | January 24, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

YEAH I THOUGHT 3RD ROUND PICK WAS A BIT MUCH. MORE LIKE A 4TH ROUND PICK...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Was he even drafted last year? I seem to remember him being a UFA.

Posted by: edvar | January 24, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Congrats Fletcher. But this Pro Bowl before the Super Bowl really stinks...

Posted by: impact32 | January 24, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Chase was flawless tonight.

Posted by: AdamCr | January 24, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Our third rounder was used on the Jeremy Jarmon selection. Nice move actually.

Posted by: saltine182 | January 25, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

I am happy for London. He can flat out play and really deserves this

Posted by: jshavatt | January 25, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

IMO Fletcher should be considered for the HOF. He has had an insane career. Finally he makes the Pro Bowl. IM STOKEDDDDD!!!!!

Posted by: redskinssince96 | January 25, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD TRADE OUR 3RD ROUND PICK FOR CHASE DANIEL. I HATE ZORN FOR LETTING HIM GO...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM |

How about an even swap, JC for Chase. Since everyone thinks someone might give us a 3rd for him.

Posted by: HPYTRKR1 | January 25, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

DC/MD/VA

Posted by: brian71490 | January 25, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

it's about time!

Posted by: brian71490 | January 25, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD TRADE OUR 3RD ROUND PICK FOR CHASE DANIEL. I HATE ZORN FOR LETTING HIM GO...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM

Actually, this deal almost got done but it came apart when the Skins insisted on adding Campbell to the draft pick and the other team refused to take Campbell.

Posted by: hock1 | January 25, 2010 2:08 AM | Report abuse

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! CONGRATS, London!

Posted by: ntlekt | January 25, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

God is great! Amen to that! Go Fletch!!

Posted by: RedCherokee | January 25, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

COngrats. It is well deserved.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Great weekend of football, folks. Our boy Fletch is going to his first Pro-Bowl, we don't have to see Favre fellatio for two weeks and the top seeds in each conference are advancing to the playoffs for the first time in quite some time. I feel especially good for the Saints, a long-suffering franchise that has been long on misery and short on big breaks. And, of course, they were my preseason pick to go the Super Bowl so I'm glad to see I was at least half right about that (f-ing Steelers killed the other half of my prediction).

Anyways, congrats again to Fletch and F Favre!

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else notice the incredible weight gain by Gregggg Williams? He was no where near that big when he was in Washington. I mean, I know the guy is a Buddy Ryan disciple, but you wouldn't think it would extend to his eating habits as well...

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 5:56 AM | Report abuse

I know the guy is a Buddy Ryan disciple, but you wouldn't think it would extend to his eating habits as well...

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 5:56 AM

He's starting to look like a Ralph Friedgen disciple. Maybe he kept the weight off while he was here by playing racquetball with Dan and Vinnie.

I wish the 'Skins had kept him instead of Zorn, but in retrospect if he'd been here he would have won just enough for Vinny to keep his job. I'm guessing that the reason he wasn't hired was that he didn't want to work in the circus environment that Vinny created.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Good point, LS...I guess I never thought of it that way. Some short-term pain watching the Zorn Debauchery so we could get to the hope represented by Allen/Shanny. Sure hope it's worth it.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, League-Source, I bet you're right about that.

"Hey, and Gregggg, whatayasay we pick your O' Coordinator, too? And maybe bring a bingo specialist in to call plays for him?"

"No, thanks."

Posted by: Thinker_ | January 25, 2010 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Congrats to FLETCH.

I'll reserve comment on SHANAHAN till he wins his next Super Bowl. Too many minuses about him to be excited at this point.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

And a shout out to brownwood. How's things up there in PA.?

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

I think the third G stands for gumbo now ...

Posted by: CindyBoren | January 25, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please give me the current number of draft picks we have in April and in what rounds ? Thanks in advance .

Posted by: LMichael1 | January 25, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please give me the current number of draft picks we have in April and in what rounds ? Thanks in advance .

Posted by: LMichael1 | January 25, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please give me the current number of draft picks we have in April and in what rounds ? Thanks in advance .

Posted by: LMichael1 | January 25, 2010 7:21 AM |

1st
2nd
4th
5th
7th

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 25, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

To my knowledge five total. I'm not sure about supplemental, but we'll have to ask VINNIE back as that was his speciality. round one - #4, round one - #37, round four, round five, round seven.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

sleepy eye this morning. Obviously #37 would be round two.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I still think we should trade two high profile players who don't like to practice or be in shape for more picks, and maybe even trade down with Oakland in the first round for their second. In case you're wondering that would be HAYNESWORTH and PORTIS.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Trade them to who?

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

I still think we should trade two high profile players who don't like to practice or be in shape for more picks, and maybe even trade down with Oakland in the first round for their second. In case you're wondering that would be HAYNESWORTH and PORTIS.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:34 AM |

You must live in fantasy land there is no way you can trade either one of them. Portis is done and he has a huge contract, AH has a huge contract no one will trade for them.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 25, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

I still think we should trade two high profile players who don't like to practice or be in shape for more picks, and maybe even trade down with Oakland in the first round for their second. In case you're wondering that would be HAYNESWORTH and PORTIS.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:34 AM

How many times are we going to have to here this jackassery. Who in the he77 is going to trade for a lazy, loudmouthed, over the hill, no practicing running back with a huge bloated contract. NO ONE! Stop this madness and use your head.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | January 25, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

It's pile on glawrence time.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | January 25, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Finally Fletcher gets some attention. The man has only been a rock his entire career. Here's to the sports analyst that said, "Lond Fletcher will get in the pro-bowl about the same time New Orleans gets to the Superbowl..."

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

I still think we should trade two high profile players who don't like to practice or be in shape for more picks, and maybe even trade down with Oakland in the first round for their second. In case you're wondering that would be HAYNESWORTH and PORTIS.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

To reiterate.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

To reiterate.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 7:58 AM

Well... we're waiting for something that resembles an intelligent thought.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | January 25, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

some GOOD Redskin news indeed!

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Congrats Fletch!!!


I bet the Raiders would trade Jafatass Russel straight up for Clinton Tortoise.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

The Jets are going to get mauled.

Is the line still 7.5?

Colts will win by 2 TDs.

BOOK IT!

Posted by: p1funk | January 23, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

So I was wrong, the Colts won by 13, not 2 TDs.

But they got their mauling, for sure.

Lame Jets.

That's what happens when the best argument for calling a team's victory goes something like this:

"Joe Namath beat the Colts, and the magic is going to repeat itself with Sanchez".

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else notice the incredible weight gain by Gregggg Williams? He was no where near that big when he was in Washington. I mean, I know the guy is a Buddy Ryan disciple, but you wouldn't think it would extend to his eating habits as well...

Posted by: brownwood26


He's in the 504 now... lots of good food down there to make you put on the weight.


Think Minnesota lost the game more than the Saints won it.

I believe Jim Mora said it best:

"Well, I'll start off by saying this: do not blame that game on the defense, OK? I don't care who you play -- whether it's a high school team, a junior college team, a college team -- much less an NFL team. When you turn the ball over five times... you ain't going to beat anybody I just talked about. Anybody. All right? And that was a disgraceful performance in my opinion. We threw that game. We gave it away by doing that. We gave them the friggin' game. In my opinion, that sucked. Ah. You know? You can't turn the ball over five times like that. Holy crap! I don't know who the hell we think we are when we do something like that. Unbelievable. Five turnovers. That's pitiful! I mean, it's absolutely pitiful to perform like that. Pitiful!"

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

I bet the Raiders would trade Jafatass Russel straight up for Clinton Tortoise.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

And we would take that trade...why?

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

and that boys and girls is why qb play is what drives this league......passing is the engine that drives teams...look at Garcon, and Collie, both guys made better by the fact that Peyton is their qb....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 25, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Yeh. I'm happy for the 'Ain'ts. They deserve a shot. But that win did little to inspire confidence.

Anyone else get a kick outta watching the corners line up 12 yards deep during the last Vikes drive in regular time?

Faghrve giveth... Farghve taketh away... lmao Ok, more like the receiver, but still...

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

and that boys and girls is why qb play is what drives this league......passing is the engine that drives teams...look at Garcon, and Collie, both guys made better by the fact that Peyton is their qb....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 25, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse


Thank you Bean,

The comment I made up here a couple weeks ago when Favre was tearing apart the 'Girls was how all a really good QB needs are average receivers.

When you have a QB that can throw strikes and put the ball on the money anyone with a competent set of hands and some speed will get the job done.

I've never ever seen JC17 put the ball on the money to guys on the run the way Favre/Manning do. Ever. Not even once or twice a game accidentally.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Bully for LFB.

I saw on another blog that Reid reported Campbell was going to be back for the skins.

How come I don't see it here.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Thankfully, we've all been spared 2 weeks of non stop c*cksuckery of both Manning and Favre that could've happend if #4 hadn't turned back in to a pumpkin last night.

I can stomach the media gushing over one or the other but both in the same game? My TV would go into a diabetic coma.

Thank you, football gods.

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Think Minnesota lost the game more than the Saints won it.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse


I give more credit to the Saints.

They played their game.

Defensively they've always feasted off of turnovers, and they caused them this game. They made the plays and were popping the ball of out the other guys' hands.

They beat up Favre and had him limping at the end of the game which made him think twice about scrambling on that 3rd 15.

Offensively, there was little to write home about in the 2nd half, but they didn't make mistakes and capitalized on some key turnovers.

They got the job done.

Kudos to them...except that Gregg Williams should probably lay off the chocolatey snacks.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Good for London….still pro bowl by default though. Take what you can get I guess. Too bad he doesn’t get to go to Hawaii…

It is kind of funny, the great year Favre had, and then he essentially threw the game away at the end. Wouldn’t have been an easy FG for sure, but they at least would have had a shot to win in regulation.

I think Peyton is going to pick the saints apart.

Posted by: dlhaze1 | January 25, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Yes get ready for the most New Orleans centric Superbowl of all time. Son of Archie vs the Saints... During the week of Mardi Gras!

Hey this gets played right and the half time show may become "wardrobe malfuntion" x 1,000

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I give more credit to the Saints.

They played their game.

Defensively they've always feasted off of turnovers, and they caused them this game. They made the plays and were popping the ball of out the other guys' hands.

They beat up Favre and had him limping at the end of the game which made him think twice about scrambling on that 3rd 15.

Offensively, there was little to write home about in the 2nd half, but they didn't make mistakes and capitalized on some key turnovers.

They got the job done.

Kudos to them...except that Gregg Williams should probably lay off the chocolatey snacks.

Posted by: p1funk


You don't like Favre.


If you can sit there with a straight face and say that the Saints won this game rather than Minnesota losing it, you're playing yourself.

Again FIVE turnovers, SIX fumbles... I think Peterson had THREE all by his lonesome...

Anytime you see Brees kept in check (Under 200 yards passing) you'd think that the opposing team would have had to won the game.

Favre over 300 yards, Peterson over a buck 25, and they still lose? Nah, it has to be more -- the Vikings coughed, gagged, and choked that game away plain and simple.

"You can't turn the ball over five times like that..."

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I'll be really interested in the comments from the Senior practices regarding Tebow. There is such diverse opinions regarding him.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Happy for the Saints, but man did they get lucky last night.

The fumbles, the bad calls, Favre's throw... Minny dominated that game and should have won easily. Tough loss to take.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

red, no kidding, minne gave that game away...peterson especially...3 fumbles is inexcusable....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 25, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Well, to be fair, turnovers WERE Grilliams game on D. He said so & they reported that before the game.

The Vikes weren't putting the ball on the ground on their own... it was getting smacked out.

Sure, there's an element of luck - but you make your own, don't you?

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

You don't like Favre.


If you can sit there with a straight face and say that the Saints won this game rather than Minnesota losing it, you're playing yourself.

Again FIVE turnovers, SIX fumbles... I think Peterson had THREE all by his lonesome...

Anytime you see Brees kept in check (Under 200 yards passing) you'd think that the opposing team would have had to won the game.

Favre over 300 yards, Peterson over a buck 25, and they still lose? Nah, it has to be more -- the Vikings coughed, gagged, and choked that game away plain and simple.

"You can't turn the ball over five times like that..."

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse


My point is this:

How did those turnovers happen?

The Saints D played their game, and that's what carried them in the 2nd half.

The Saints D has always given up lots of yardage. I believe they came into the game ranked 25th in that category, so it's no surprise that an offense like the Vikes moved the ball on them effectively.

The Saints strength as a defense all season has been blitzing and causing turnovers (why it couldn't be that way under Grilliams here in DC is a question for the sages), and that's exactly what they did.

Adrian Peterson had fumbling issues this season, and the Saints wnet after the ball when he had it.

In order to disrupt a QB like Favre you need to hit him...and the Saints did that in the 2nd half.

Obviously the Saints offense wasn't hitting on all cylinders in the 2nd half - credit to the Vikes D. Still, they put up 31 points.

...and no, I don't like Favre. But that's frankly beside the point.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Yes get ready for the most New Orleans centric Superbowl of all time. Son of Archie vs the Saints... During the week of Mardi Gras!

Hey this gets played right and the half time show may become "wardrobe malfuntion" x 1,000

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse


I'll take that any day over a week of Favre-worship and Sanchez-sychophantism.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Thankfully, we've all been spared 2 weeks of non stop c*cksuckery of both Manning and Favre that could've happend if #4 hadn't turned back in to a pumpkin last night.

I can stomach the media gushing over one or the other but both in the same game? My TV would go into a diabetic coma.

Thank you, football gods.

Posted by: Original_etrod


You're going to hear it anyway.

Now we'll have to hear about how this is the Saints first super bowl appearance and what it means to the city of New Orleans and Katrina and how they're going to party it up down there...

With the Colts it's going to be strictly about Peyton and Archie.... and even through he's not involved with the actual football part, you'll hear about Eli as well.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the phantom PI call... the bad spot on 4th and 1, and the non-call on the exact definition of the Brady rule...

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Quarterback Jason Campbell had the best season of his career despite playing behind one of the NFL's least effective offensive lines. Only two quarterbacks were sacked more than Campbell, who set personal-best marks across the board, and the Redskins are expected to bring him back for at least one more season.

By Jason Reid | January 24, 2010; 10:02 AM

###############################################

I saw on another blog that Reid reported Campbell was going to be back for the skins.

How come I don't see it here.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 8:58 AM

################################################

Maybe because you're not looking? Come on, Alex, don't be one of the numb nuts up here who try to blame Reid for everying when it's their own incompetence.

Love those guys who attack Reid after Maese or Svrluga makes a post.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

OH yeah, and the ball that actually hit the ground on the final drive but still ruled a catch...

Saints got every break/bounce.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the phantom PI call... the bad spot on 4th and 1, and the non-call on the exact definition of the Brady rule...

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse


That PI call was sketchy, though I think the ref had a bad angle. When I first saw the play it looked like PI to me straight up, and then I saw a replay from a different angle and it didn't.

I don't know what you do on that 4th and 1 spot. They put the ball in the middle of the scrum and marked it. Again, how do you find conclusive evidence based on that video to change the spot?

Screw the Brady rule. They gave Favre a weak freebie "roughing the passer" on 3rd and long to keep that drive alive a few plays earlier. Tit for tat.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

It was interesting to hear Aikman and Buck disagree on the roughing call on Favre where they said he got slammed/piledriven…….the ex-QB was actually saying it was a bad call. IMO, it was a good call and he slammed him to the ground when he could have laid off….

Posted by: dlhaze1 | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Wtf????

Were you all actually watching the game?

Peterson put the ball on the ground twice without anyone trying to strip the ball out. He just.... fumbled.

And just because you swipe at the ball doesn't mean that it's a guaranteed turnover. How many times have you seen a defender try and swipe at the ball to no avail.

The Vikings lacked total concentration and focus yesterday... And Favre went '07 NFC title game Favre.

The Vikings gave the game away... You CAN'T tell if Favre doesn't throw that atrocious INT right before the end of regulation it would've been all but wrapped up.

Damn some of you can't stand the dude Favre so much, you don't want to give him credit for sh*t, even if it's on a negative spin.

Happy hatin'....

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I'll be really interested in the comments from the Senior practices regarding Tebow. There is such diverse opinions regarding him.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Something changed in his throwing mechanics in the last year or two. He isn't just lobbing up wounded ducks anymore. He really is throwing a nice catchable ball. I think when people actually watch him throw they'll change their opinions. I would draft him in the third round if I were an NFL team with an established starter looking to groom a young QB. I think at the very least he is a game manager. He doesn't turn the ball over. I don't think he's ever going to be an elite QB but I think he's a guy that a strong team could win with.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Maybe because you're not looking? Come on, Alex, don't be one of the numb nuts up here who try to blame Reid for everying when it's their own incompetence.

Love those guys who attack Reid after Maese or Svrluga makes a post.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I was not blaming Reid at all, I have never had a beef with JReid. I thought that a guy may be making it up on CBS Sportblog... The way he wrote it up he had it looking like that was the title and focal point of the article.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

You're going to hear it anyway.

Now we'll have to hear about how this is the Saints first super bowl appearance and what it means to the city of New Orleans and Katrina and how they're going to party it up down there...

With the Colts it's going to be strictly about Peyton and Archie.... and even through he's not involved with the actual football part, you'll hear about Eli as well.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse


That's fine. Just as long as Favre is not involved in any way, shape or form. At leaset we'll get a 2 week repreive from the "will he return?" sjk.

I'll admit I hate Favre as much as you hate the Saints.

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 9:32 AM

He needs to shorten that delivery up. I think he can do it at QB. We shall see.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I'll agree with you, Red, that the Vikings lost that game more than the Saints won it.

And that actually makes me happier.

Man, I hate Favre.

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Yes, you can say Minnesota gave the game away, but New Orleans' D took it away, too. When you put eight guys in the box and dare Favre to throw it, that's some gutsy play calling there. They did a good job of masking blitzes and getting to the quarterback. They didn't get the sacks but you could tell the mandate was to hit Favre as much as possible, and they did that. Greg Williams is a great defensive coordinator and I hope he gets some head coaching consideration when the season is done.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Damn some of you can't stand the dude Favre so much, you don't want to give him credit for sh*t, even if it's on a negative spin.

Happy hatin'....

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse


And some of you seem to need to grab ankle for Favre so badly that you can't give credit where credit is due to other people on the field.

Can you find a place in my posts where I said that Favre played like crap and was the reason for them losing??

All I'm saying is that when a defense beats up an opposing QB and jumps on 5 turnovers, they should get some credit.

Especially when that's what they've been doing all year.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Screw the Brady rule. They gave Favre a weak freebie "roughing the passer" on 3rd and long to keep that drive alive a few plays earlier. Tit for tat.

Posted by: p1funk


Wrong.

The roughing the passer rule clearly states that you can not lift the QB off his feet and slam him into the ground. And that's exactly what the defender did.

No tit-for-tat on that. Sorry. Just because Aikman said he didn't agree with it doesn't mean he's right.

Try and remove the "F Favre" shades and the "Die Brett Die" T-shirt for about 15 minutes and you would've seen that.

And as far as that 4 and 1, they could've seen where the contact was made in the air and where the defender landed... it may have not been conclusive, but I still think the Vikes got a bad deal on that one.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I would not draft Tebow for the most manly reason ever. I need to be sure we are watching him play after he is no longer a virgin, a change like can change a lot of things about a man, especially his work ethic.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I bet the Raiders would trade Jafatass Russel straight up for Clinton Tortoise.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 8:35

PAskinsfan17, you are either too old or simply 17, either way, don't bet anything because both players will be back next season, don't have to believe me, I'm simply letting you know what Shanahan told Charley Casserly.

Posted by: abxinc | January 25, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I'll agree with you, Red, that the Vikings lost that game more than the Saints won it.

And that actually makes me happier.

Man, I hate Favre.

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:36 AM


Agree with Red. On Favre, I love him but hate the media gushing that he inspires.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Tebow will be drafted by Jacksonville.

They need to sell tickets and Tebow will put fans in the seats...for 3 weeks until they realize that he's not an NFL QB.

Then it's HELLO LA!

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Wrong.

The roughing the passer rule clearly states that you can not lift the QB off his feet and slam him into the ground. And that's exactly what the defender did.

No tit-for-tat on that. Sorry. Just because Aikman said he didn't agree with it doesn't mean he's right.

Try and remove the "F Favre" shades and the "Die Brett Die" T-shirt for about 15 minutes and you would've seen that.

And as far as that 4 and 1, they could've seen where the contact was made in the air and where the defender landed... it may have not been conclusive, but I still think the Vikes got a bad deal on that one.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse


You're right Red.

In fact it was just wrong for the Saints to win that game.

It was wrong for any calls to go against Favre.

Here's an idea to right all those injustices.

How about we pull Manning and Brees from the Superbowl and let Favre start for both teams.

Would you stop your Favre-inspired whining then?

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm not even what you would call a Favre fan, but damn, I'm not going to let my dislike for a player or team could the issue.

So p1, to say that I'm grabbing Favre's ankles is funny. I don't grab sh*t on another dude. Period.

And I wasn't saying that you said Favre had a bad game and it was the result of Vikes losing -- WHAT I SAID WAS that you dislike Favre so much that you can't even give him NEGATIVE credit...

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

The Vikes are gonna be poopin' KY for a few days...

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Refs also gave Pierre Thomas a TD that was short. They way the Viks were stopping the 3rd and 1’s, it could have been a 4 pt difference there too (doubt it though).

I don’t get the Favre hate myself…..so what if the guy flip-flopped about his retirement. Didn’t screw the Skins in any way. He’s a pretty nice guy otherwise, and has nearly every record out there. I like the guy, and have enjoyed watching him play for 18 years.

Posted by: dlhaze1 | January 25, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Wrong.

The roughing the passer rule clearly states that you can not lift the QB off his feet and slam him into the ground. And that's exactly what the defender did.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse


And I say screw that rule too.

If Favre is still holding onto that ball when the defender takes him down, it's not a penalty, it's a sack.

Hargrove got there a split second after Favre threw the ball and already had his head down when he hit him.

That's why it's weak call.


Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Were you all actually watching the game?

Peterson put the ball on the ground twice without anyone trying to strip the ball out. He just.... fumbled.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM

I saw a hand on both those balls. Admittedly, the hand was so weak that it could have been yours and Peterson shouldn't have fumbled, but the Saints slapped the ball both time.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I hope Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan take note that the NFL winds of change are blowing. It used to be that you could take a strong defense over a strong offense any day. Now, you look at this Super Bowl and you have two high-powered offenses. Big offense rules. So, when the Redskins go through free agency and the draft, they might want to think about sprinkling band-aids on the defense and making the real investments on offense.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

red, I was under the impression that you and 4th were....how can I say this...um....that you guys...um.....know what I'm saying??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 25, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Well... we're waiting for something that resembles an intelligent thought.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | January 25, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Me too. When will you have one? Should I keep waiting as I have the past several years or just keep scanning your posts hoping against hope for a little noblesse oblige.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

He needs to shorten that delivery up. I think he can do it at QB. We shall see.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, he's be on the bench for a couple of years at least. He certainly wouldn't be an early starter. He would defintely need to be devloped. That's what would drop him back into the third round.


BTW, the whole jamarcus/portis trade thing was just a response to the person saying that no one would ever trade for portis. What I was illustrating was that there are teams out there that certainly would trade for portis. I in no way was suggesting it as a plausible trade scenario for us or that we would ever even entertain the idea. I was simply saying that there are teams that would trade for Portis.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The NFL made playing CB so hard that yes it favors high scoring pass oriented offenses first and foremost. So the old saying is not the opposite.

Great D can win you games, but it takes Great O to win the playoffs.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey p1, why don't you scale back the jackassery a bit and just admit that you were wrong about the roughing the passer call?

It isn't my fault that you don't fully understand the rules of the game.

Like I said, I'm not even a Favre fan like that. Never had a jersey, never wanted him to win simply because he's Brett Favre, sh*t, I never owned a pair of Wrangler Jeans.

I just see both sides of that game. And anybody with half a brain can tell you that an offense can create turnovers themselves.

I mean WTF!?!?! Peterson on two occasions just simply fumbled the ball. Yes, there were defenders that were about to make the tackle, but he just fumbled before they really got hands on him.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

My dislike for Favre is purely due to the media hand job he gets.

He is the most overrated QB of all time.

Yes, he has every record there is (including INTs) but he has made mistakes like he did yesterday throughout his entire career and every talking head in the media just glosses over it because of his mystique and gunslinger mentality.

F Favre.

Posted by: Original_etrod | January 25, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Two other observations to make from this weekend's games:

-New Orleans' wide receiver corps look like a basketball team. Bigger wide receivers can run block better and use their physical gifts to muscle in inaccurate passes. Guys like ARE and Moss are too short to play in the WCO. It is time for the team to admit that and do something about it. They have the taller guys on deck, so it shouldn't be so hard to push the reset button on the receivers.

-I saw so many passes thrown this weekend that were thrown with pinpoint accuracy and I had to ask myself why my jaw was dropping. I mean, this is what quarterbacks in the NFL should be capable of doing right? I realized Campbell could never pull this off. Maybe this is the most compelling reason for replacing him. I'm not saying replace him right away, but it is obvious that to get to the next level, the Redskins are going to need a more accurate quarterback.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, he's be on the bench for a couple of years at least. He certainly wouldn't be an early starter. He would defintely need to be devloped. That's what would drop him back into the third round.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 9:50 AM

He'll play in his first year in the league. Peter King had a good piece on him this morning and said the over/under on where he will be taken is pick #28.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/24/titlegames/2.html

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what you do on that 4th and 1 spot. They put the ball in the middle of the scrum and marked it. Again, how do you find conclusive evidence based on that video to change the spot?

Screw the Brady rule. They gave Favre a weak freebie "roughing the passer" on 3rd and long to keep that drive alive a few plays earlier. Tit for tat.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse
----------------------------------

My big thing is, when is the NFL going to get with the program and have a specific booth review team like college?

The process of having on the field refs run over, get under the hood, and basically listen to some tech say 'this is the best view we got' is superfluous. Get a booth review team. Buzz down the call. Done.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hey bean, you're from the state that allows... you know, if two people of the... well you know *Insert image of Mr. Roper*.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Hey p1, why don't you scale back the jackassery a bit and just admit that you were wrong about the roughing the passer call?

It isn't my fault that you don't fully understand the rules of the game.

Like I said, I'm not even a Favre fan like that. Never had a jersey, never wanted him to win simply because he's Brett Favre, sh*t, I never owned a pair of Wrangler Jeans.

I just see both sides of that game. And anybody with half a brain can tell you that an offense can create turnovers themselves.

I mean WTF!?!?! Peterson on two occasions just simply fumbled the ball. Yes, there were defenders that were about to make the tackle, but he just fumbled before they really got hands on him.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse


Dang it, Red.

I don't want to fight with you this morning, and I don't know how it got here, but I'm wondering if John Madden got a hold of your account today.

I don't know what you want me to acknowledge regarding Favre; I really don't. Dude played a good game overall, but fell into some Favre-like buffoonery on that last play and that's on him. Too bad b/c at times it really looked like they had the Saints number.

I think the Saints D played a really good game. They executed their style of defense and got a bunch of turnovers - they should get some credit.

Screw the calls and the refs.

It was a good game, and a heckuvalot more entertaining than watching Manning steamroll the lame Jets.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

-I saw so many passes thrown this weekend that were thrown with pinpoint accuracy and I had to ask myself why my jaw was dropping. I mean, this is what quarterbacks in the NFL should be capable of doing right? I realized Campbell could never pull this off. Maybe this is the most compelling reason for replacing him. I'm not saying replace him right away, but it is obvious that to get to the next level, the Redskins are going to need a more accurate quarterback.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse


I feel the same way.

Years of watching JC17, Mark Brunnell, and Todd Collins (from time-to-time), I seriously have forgotten what legit top-notch NFL quarterbacking can look like.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

haha, red, touche....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | January 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

huhuhu Brunell going to the StuporBowel.. huhuhuhu

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

huhuhu Brunell going to the StuporBowel.. huhuhuhu

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 10:04 AM

Just what I was thinking when Brunell was hugging Brees after the game. Other ex-Redskins in line for a ring: Chase Daniel, Pearson Preleau, Leigh Torrence and Gregg Williams. Good luck to all of them.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse


I feel the same way.

Years of watching JC17, Mark Brunnell, and Todd Collins (from time-to-time), I seriously have forgotten what legit top-notch NFL quarterbacking can look like.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:03 AM
------------------------------------------
Yeah, I mean some of the laser beams that were thrown yesterday - I cannot recall when Campbell has ever thrown a pass like that. I don't want to start the whole JC debate on a Monday morning because I do believe he is next year' stop-gap QB, but he has just never had that ability.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Congrats Fletcher!

It's funny how Chase Daniels would have saved us all, just like Colt last year.

Posted by: Redskins001 | January 25, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I think the Saints D played a really good game. They executed their style of defense and got a bunch of turnovers - they should get some credit.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 9:59 AM

Saints D didn't play a really good game. Vikes put up about 200 more yards than the Saints did and only lost because of the turnovers. And most of those turnovers weren't really caused by the Saints. They were gifts. Saints D also took some nasty, foolish penalties.

If the Saints D doesn't play better against the Colts, the game will be a blowout.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Is this guy for real? STFU Braylon.

Braylon Edwards seems unhappy with play calling
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 25, 2010 10:05 AM ET

New York Jets wide receiver Braylon Edwards got off to a big start on Sunday against the Indianapolis Colts. But after his 80-yard touchdown in the second quarter, Edwards never caught the ball again.

After the game, Edwards hinted that he wasn't pleased with the second-half play calling.

"I don't call the plays," Edwards said. "I just run them."

Edwards also said "We didn't have the same attitude" in the second half, and when reporters asked him if he felt like he wasn't used enough, he said, "I don't know. You have to interview the players and coaches. It just wasn't the same."

Both Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez and offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer said they thought an appropriate number of plays were called for Edwards, although Schottenheimer added that the Colts shifted their coverage to make it harder to get Edwards open deep.

Asked if he was upset, Edwards said, "No disrespect, but you witnessed the game."

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Braylon is a clown, he belongs with the Jets.

And while I don't think Chase is a savior like some here do, I would love to see what he could do in Shanny's system.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Big offense rules. So, when the Redskins go through free agency and the draft, they might want to think about sprinkling band-aids on the defense and making the real investments on offense.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Good thought, and they better. SHANAHAN is not noted for picking well on defense. That said, the defense still needs a tackle opposite HAYNESWORTH in a 4-3. Switching to a 3-4 is being considered at this point for that very reason IMO.

The time for MONTGOMERY to show up is over. GRIFFIN too old with injuries. GOLSTON plays well, but is too small. Ditto ALEXANDER, who is more versatile however. If they don't trade HAYNESWORTH for picks in the draft, and remain in a 4-3 alignment, they need a SSLB. Several good ones can be had in free agency. CB and FS are much more problematic, the best one's being RFA's in an uncapped year, but two players such as DUNTA ROBINSON and NICK COLLINS are definitely needed.

OFFENSE wins games now because of the rules changes over the past decade. If fans can't see that after this year, they never will. PORTIS should be dealt for a third round pick to DETROIT.

SKINS should trade down with AL DAVIS to pick up a second. They need a minimum of three picks in the top two rounds, and not for RB's either. If they can manufacture another first for HAYNESWORTH by trading with SAN FRANCISCO, then take C.J. SPILLER with that pick. Otherwise, go into the fifth round for a RB.

They need three outstanding o-linemen not just one in RUSSELL OKUNG, although that would be a great start. But BRUCE CAMPBELL and others will be available at the #4 pick, or OAKLAND's #8 if a trade can be engineered. Sign CAMPBELL for the moment unless CLAUSEN is available at #4. Then grab him, but extra top picks becomes a necessity to protect him. Possibly someone like DONALD PENN for a third if PORTIS is traded can be had as a RFA in an uncapped year.

At any rate, the offense needs a fix, and as you can see, the possiblities are practically endless. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

i think we should get champ back.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

gl, someone here posted a mock draft that had us taking Okung in the 1st, Iupati in the 2nd, and then getting LeFever at QB in the 4th. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE that draft.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

no way in hell we can trade fat albert with that 100 million dollar contract.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Saints D didn't play a really good game. Vikes put up about 200 more yards than the Saints did and only lost because of the turnovers. And most of those turnovers weren't really caused by the Saints. They were gifts. Saints D also took some nasty, foolish penalties.

If the Saints D doesn't play better against the Colts, the game will be a blowout.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse


"Most" of those turnovers weren't caused by the Saints, eh?

Out of the 5 turnovers that the Saints got, which 3-4 were NOT caused by the Saints.

When a player is not holding a ball very securely, and a defender pops it out and recovers it, you still give the defense credit for causing a turnover.

The Saints D came into the game ranked 25th in yardage, so it's no surprise that they gave up a ton of yardage against the 2nd ranked offense.

But they beat up the QB and him limping at the end of the game. Favre threw for alot of yards, yet ended up with a 70.0 QB rating.

They ended up with 5 TOs, and actually could have had more.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

2 Good Games Yesterday...Both of the Losing teams gave the games away, though.

The JEts should have stayed aggresive in the 2nd Half.

And the Vikings should have stuck AP28 in the running game vs. going to #12......Plus the had some bad Game Management, coaching wise toward the end of regulation....Not to mention the refs were on the saints side....

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 25, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

four of thos saints penalties were bs.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

oops i mean those.no the refs were on nobody's side they made bad calls against the saints also.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: glawrence007

If only detroit were willing to take portis along with his rediculous contract. I'd give him up for a 4tt and even a 5th rounder. Ibet we could get a young more productive RB in the 5th that cost alot less. Oh there's the problem why whould any team trade for a overpaid over the hill RB when you can get one in the later rounds for cheap.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 25, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

They ended up with 5 TOs, and actually could have had more.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:31 AM


Damn right, they forced 5 fumbles and only recovered 3 of them, I think. So that easily could have been a 7 TO performance for Minny.

The Saints earned that game, period. You can certainly make the case that Minny blew the game more than the Saints won it, but you have to take advantage of those turnovers and the Saints did that. To say otherwise is laughable.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

gl, someone here posted a mock draft that had us taking Okung in the 1st, Iupati in the 2nd, and then getting LeFever at QB in the 4th. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE that draft.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Add a running back in the 5th and a KR specialist in the 7th and that would be a dream draft.

As far as undrafted guys are concerned. If Kafka from Northwestern doesn't get drafted I think he's more than worth taking a look at. The guy has great accuracy and makes great decisions. He also has good size and has some wheels. I'm surprised nobody is talking about him. I think he'd be a good fit in a WCO.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Hey I called this a month ago! It's too bad Fletcher didn't take my advice and decline to play or take part in the pro bowl. He could have really made a statement about the process and what an utter sham it is.

Posted by: Barno1 | January 25, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

gl, someone here posted a mock draft that had us taking Okung in the 1st, Iupati in the 2nd, and then getting LeFever at QB in the 4th. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE that draft.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 10:28 AM

I'm with you brownwood, at this point that would be an ideal draft for the Skins.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse


I WOULD TRADE OUR 3RD ROUND PICK FOR CHASE DANIEL. I HATE ZORN FOR LETTING HIM GO...

Posted by: ATLredskin | January 24, 2010 11:12 PM |


You would be the only one.

A 3rd rounder? Really?

Posted by: edvar | January 24, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse
___________________

I'd trade a half-eaten Snickers bar for him, but that's about all.

Posted by: skinsfan713 | January 25, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

what i don't like now that the vikes lost is the likelyhood favre will be back next year.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

zorn let daniels go cause he couldn't hack it.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Jets, Sanchez played very well. Get him some receivers who can catch balls that hit their hands in a CHAMPIOSHIP GAME... at least two of them had key drops.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | January 25, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Favre said he is highly unlikly to come back.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

then they let zorn go cause he couldn't hack it hahaha.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

yea thats what he said the last 3 years.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Good for Fletcher. Now we need to get him an All Pro designation. The guy is an endangered species in this country ... he is what used to be called a "role model." I heart Fletcher.

Question to the amateur GMs (excluding those who think Fletcher is "too small" to play inside LB in a 3-4) ... could Carter play inside LB in a 3-4? If not, then his value seems too high and the fit into the Skins future too forced not to trade him ... even if just a straight up trade to another team who needs an upgrade at 4-3 DE ... in exchange for a 3-4 LB (either in or out).

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

now they need to let portis and colt brennan aka hawaii 5 0 go cause they can't hack it.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

oops i mean 5o

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

where's the new update jreid???

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | January 25, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Question to the amateur GMs (excluding those who think Fletcher is "too small" to play inside LB in a 3-4) ... could Carter play inside LB in a 3-4? If not, then his value seems too high and the fit into the Skins future too forced not to trade him ... even if just a straight up trade to another team who needs an upgrade at 4-3 DE ... in exchange for a 3-4 LB (either in or out).

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse


I don't think it matters if Carter plays in a 3-4.

If the plan is to switch up alignments, we can simply have different player packages and Carter can go to the sideline in a 3-4 alignment; then come back on the field for a 4-3 look. We can use Orakpo, Wilson and maybe Curtis gatewood (if he develops) as 3-4 OLBs and Carter can get his breather.

Same with Montgomery, if he can't find space as a 4-3 NT, that's OK b/c we've got other guys there, but Monty has the beef to make a fine 3-4 nose tackle.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the other 14 NFC QB's will skip the Pro Bowl and JC will get to play...

Posted by: peterandmeredith | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Colts vs Saints/ best SB matchup in some time. The most committed QBs in the game deserve to be in it. Colts playing better ball right now. Vikeings defense is better than Colts so Brees had better have a improved offesive effort. Otherwise Manning will be Manning he'll be good for at least 2TD or 3TD passes.

Posted by: sthai75 | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Sign Favre to a one-year deal here in DC??

jk

Posted by: CheyenneWY | January 25, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Try and remove the "F Favre" shades and the "Die Brett Die" T-shirt for about 15 minutes and you would've seen that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 9:37 AM

That T-shirt is German ... the translation is "The Brett The."

["No one who speaks German could be evil."]

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Fletcher should decline the Pro Bowl invite...

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 25, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Sween - nice Simpsons pull.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

the only respect i have left for favre is that hes a fellow mississippian.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Jets, Sanchez played very well. Get him some receivers who can catch balls that hit their hands in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ... at least two of them had key drops.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | January 25, 2010 10:42 AM

I agree that Sanchez had a real step up game. He had some throws that surprise me (even that the play was dialed up). He got sacked once that he checked down (to the corner of the goal line just out of bounds) on his way down. As a result of that game, I don't think he is a fraud. Now if he could just slide.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Question to the amateur GMs (excluding those who think Fletcher is "too small" to play inside LB in a 3-4) ... could Carter play inside LB in a 3-4? If not, then his value seems too high and the fit into the Skins future too forced not to trade him ... even if just a straight up trade to another team who needs an upgrade at 4-3 DE ... in exchange for a 3-4 LB (either in or out).

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Hmm tough one, I think he may be a bit small, size wise to do the MLB role, also his hands are not great for dropping back in a cover 1, he has 0 ints on his career.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

the simpsons need to go away.All hail Family Guy!!

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Good point above by someone, we will still need Carter to play DE in the standard nickel and dime packages, unless we go with a 3-2-6 and a 3-3-5 all the time.

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Same with Montgomery, if he can't find space as a 4-3 NT, that's OK b/c we've got other guys there, but Monty has the beef to make a fine 3-4 nose tackle.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM |

The question is, does he have the heart to play the NT.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it matters if Carter plays in a 3-4.

If the plan is to switch up alignments, we can simply have different player packages and Carter can go to the sideline in a 3-4 alignment; then come back on the field for a 4-3 look. We can use Orakpo, Wilson and maybe Curtis gatewood (if he develops) as 3-4 OLBs and Carter can get his breather.

Same with Montgomery, if he can't find space as a 4-3 NT, that's OK b/c we've got other guys there, but Monty has the beef to make a fine 3-4 nose tackle.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM

Seems like it takes a little of the guess work out of the job of the QB if you know what's coming based entirely on personnel. I understand about having different packages at all, but pre-snap shifts seem limited if the alignment has to be a 4-3 because Carter is on the field (or 3-4 because he isn't).

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Jets, Sanchez played very well. Get him some receivers who can catch balls that hit their hands in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ... at least two of them had key drops.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | January 25, 2010 10:42 AM


Interestingly enough, Sanchez had one of his best games of the SEASON, yet the Colts locked down that Jets running game...seriously, who was saying that both of those things were going to happen?

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Interestingly enough, Sanchez had one of his best games of the SEASON, yet the Colts locked down that Jets running game...seriously, who was saying that both of those things were going to happen?

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:05 AM

I think part of the Colts game plan was to have a well-placed punch in the ribs of Shonne Greene in the third quarter.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I think part of the Colts game plan was to have a well-placed punch in the ribs of Shonne Greene in the third quarter.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse


If you knock them out of the game, then they can't beat you on the field.

Worked for the Skins against the Broncos when they knocked out Orton and Raiders when they knocked out Grdkowski.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Same with Montgomery, if he can't find space as a 4-3 NT, that's OK b/c we've got other guys there, but Monty has the beef to make a fine 3-4 nose tackle.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM

From what I've seen, he got the beef, but doesn't have the will.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Sween,

But they would be calling him a 'girlie man', Die being female gender... hehe.

That T-shirt is German ... the translation is "The Brett The."

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Same with Montgomery, if he can't find space as a 4-3 NT, that's OK b/c we've got other guys there, but Monty has the beef to make a fine 3-4 nose tackle.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 10:56 AM

From what I've seen, he got the beef, but doesn't have the will.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse


Perhaps...but then he won't have a job.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I love family guy, have ever since '99... but you have to respect the Simpsons.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The Saints earned that game, period. You can certainly make the case that Minny blew the game more than the Saints won it, but you have to take advantage of those turnovers and the Saints did that. To say otherwise is laughable.

Posted by: brownwood26

This is the last I'ma speak on this, but then again you and p1 are brothers in the "F Favre, Die Favre" fraternity, so of course you'd to take that side as well.

Let me ask you a question: If I was just given money, never worked a day in my life to earn it, but was able to parlay that (people just giving me money) into millionaire status, couldn't you argue the fact that I didn't deserve it.

I'd think so. You could say that more luck than skill was on my side. And before you give the "a win is a win" bullsh*t I submit September 9, 2009 between the hours of 1 PM and 4 PM at FedEx Field.

The Lions game.


OF COURSE you're going to win games when the other team turns the ball over FIVE times!!!! I mean, you're giving the ball away, true they have to do something with it, but how many times does a team get FIVE turnovers and still lose the game? Favre KILLED them with that horrid INT at the end of regulation. He chooses a better target and they line up for the FG with Ryan Longwell kicking.

I don't get how you all don't see that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I love family guy, have ever since '99... but you have to respect the Simpsons.

Posted by: Rypien11 | January 25, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

F both of em.

GO TEAM VENTURE

Posted by: alex35332 | January 25, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

no way in hell we can trade fat albert with that 100 million dollar contract.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

My understanding was 41 million of that was guaranteed by the REDSKINS, and is not transported in a trade. If a trade transpired, 59 million plus incentives for six years minus this year's pay would be on a new team's books. If I'm right of course. If not, then he's untradable.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I don't get how you all don't see that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:21 AM


I see it. Some of these other guys are just slower than you and me. I'm not naming names, though, because they're also nastier than you and me. Okay -- they're nastier than me -- is what I meant.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I respect longevity. The Simpsons was funny back in the day.

Does anyone remember when Smithers was black?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps...but then he won't have a job.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ding,ding,ding.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

don't get how you all don't see that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

With you and league-source on this one. Pretty obvious.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

RedD, don't START that again... lmao!

Where's Kanye when you need him?

I'mma let you finish, but black Smithers was the best Smithers of ALL TIIIME!

Posted by: DikShuttle | January 25, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I don't get how you all don't see that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse


Red, I don't know what exactly you want me to see.

My whole initial point was that you can't just call that game a total toss-away on the part of the Vikings, and you've got to give credit to the Saints for generating 5 turnovers and capitalizing on the Vikes mistakes.

That's it.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

My understanding was 41 million of that was guaranteed by the REDSKINS, and is not transported in a trade.

Posted by: glawrence007

Don't know where you got that idea from. This is the NFL - the players existing contract is transferred in a trade. You must be thinking about signing bonuses which would be past compensation.

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Hey, this team will be saying good-bye to some players if the plan is to go to a pure 3-4 defense. You have guys like Carter, Jarmin, and Jackson that don't fit as a 3-4 end or linebacker. Moving these guys would be square peg in round hole. Carter wasn't successful in a 3-4 in San Fran; Jarmin and Jackson - to the best of my knowledge - have never played linebacker. Maybe the team will line up some trades, or maybe they will run a hybrid 3-4/4-3 next season, but I think we can expect some changes. BTW, anyone considering Montgomery to be on this team next season might rethink that. I believe he's a prime candidate to be cut real soon. The guy doesn't have the eye of the tiger.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Getting to the Pro Bowl means Fletcher will have to put up his autograph fees. Last I heard it was $125 to sign a child's football helmet. I guess that's up to $150 per helmet. Good goin'....

Posted by: atidwell | January 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

My understanding was 41 million of that was guaranteed by the REDSKINS, and is not transported in a trade. If a trade transpired, 59 million plus incentives for six years minus this year's pay would be on a new team's books. If I'm right of course. If not, then he's untradable.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 11:25 AM

If you trade him, the other team has to pick up his contract and take all the financial obligations that he negotiated with the 'Skins. Of course, the 'Skins could agree to re-imburse the other team for some of those obligations. He's "tradeable," but only at a big financial cost to the 'Skins.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I have something to say RE: Saints/Vikes vs. Vikes lost it/Saints won it:

Agree to disagree.

That is all.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Hey, this team will be saying good-bye to some players if the plan is to go to a pure 3-4 defense. You have guys like Carter, Jarmin, and Jackson that don't fit as a 3-4 end or linebacker. Moving these guys would be square peg in round hole. Carter wasn't successful in a 3-4 in San Fran; Jarmin and Jackson - to the best of my knowledge - have never played linebacker. Maybe the team will line up some trades, or maybe they will run a hybrid 3-4/4-3 next season, but I think we can expect some changes. BTW, anyone considering Montgomery to be on this team next season might rethink that. I believe he's a prime candidate to be cut real soon. The guy doesn't have the eye of the tiger.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse


Jarmon's scouting report has him projecting to be an ideal 3-4 defensive end not a linebacker. The kid is very very strong in a Phil Daniels kind of way. He has a good frame and should be able to add some bulk. I think another 20 pounds puts him right on par with every other 3-4 DE in the league at ~300 pounds. Right now he's probably only 5-10 pounds lighter than Brett Kiesel.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Let me ask you a question: If I was just given money, never worked a day in my life to earn it, but was able to parlay that (people just giving me money) into millionaire status, couldn't you argue the fact that I didn't deserve it...

I don't get how you all don't see that.

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:21 AM

Red, your analogy doesn't fly. The opportunities were given to the Saints, but they had to go out and score the points. None of those TOs were returned for TDs. So the offense had to go out and put together scoring drives to make those TOs count. So unless the league adopted fantasy football scoring rules where they award points for recovering fumbles and picking off passes, the Saints EARNED that win.

A more appropriate analogy is a guy who gets a job because the owner is friends with his dad. He may have been handed the position and not worked to ACQUIRE the opportunity, but if he excels in the job he certainly did something to keep it.

So while I agree that the Vikes did more to lose the game than the Saints did to win it (the Saints DID have a sh*tload of penalties in the game), not giving the Saints props for taking advantage of the extra possessions is a bit shortsighted.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Please do not waste another high round pick on a QB. Get a Tackle you can plug on either side for the next 10 years. QB's can be picked up anywhere.

Posted by: jtrob_1 | January 25, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Don't know where you got that idea from. This is the NFL - the players existing contract is transferred in a trade. You must be thinking about signing bonuses which would be past compensation.

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 11:35 AM


I think what he was saying is right, just worded it F-ed up. The signing bonus is already paid. That money is in the player's pocket. It counts on the salary cap for accounting purposes, but when a guy is traded, the only thing the new team picks up is the base salary (which in actuality, is all the original team is paying anyway).

So if Haynesworth were traded, whatever his base salary is (which is still waaay up there) is what the new team would be paying him.

Hope that clears that up.

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Jarmon's scouting report has him projecting to be an ideal 3-4 defensive end not a linebacker. The kid is very very strong in a Phil Daniels kind of way. He has a good frame and should be able to add some bulk. I think another 20 pounds puts him right on par with every other 3-4 DE in the league at ~300 pounds. Right now he's probably only 5-10 pounds lighter than Brett Kiesel.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 11:48 AM
------------------------------------------
When do these magical twenty pounds appear on him? It is not that easy to hang 20 pounds of muscle on your frame in four months. Hey, I'll grant you all of these guys could put on some weight and maybe play end in a 3-4, but today, that ain't them, and tomorrow, that ain't them either. You're talking about more than one offseason to transform their bodies. If the Redskins want a legitimate 3-4 defense next season, they are going to need to dump some players and grab some others. I think it is a shame that a guy like Jarmin might not be in the mix, but I am sure he and Carter have some trade value.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM

With a nutritionist and proper training/work out routine, you can put on 20 lbs in 4 months. You're talking about a pound/week of mass.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

He's "tradeable," but only at a big financial cost to the 'Skins.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Agreed there, whether he stays OR goes.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

According to this link, the talking heads have AH's deal at 4 years, $48 mil. But $32 mil was due in the first 13 months, so the rest of the contract is essentially 3 years, $16 mil.

I could see someone going for that in a trade for AH.

HOWEVER, this is deceiving, because his signing bonus was $41 mil, and would immediately count towards any cap were he traded.

So if 2010 has a cap, AH is untradeable. If not (as it appears likely), then he is probably quite easy to move.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

And before anyone discounts my math, yes, I realize $32 mil does not equal the supposed $41 mil signing bonus, so it is likely the signing bonus was divided (given the size), and perhaps repackaged as 'roster bonuses' or another 'likely to be earned' bonus category.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think what he was saying is right, just worded it F-ed up.

Thanks brownie. Love you too.

Posted by: glawrence007 | January 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I think you missed the entire point. Did you even read the part where I said he's only a couple pounds lighter than Brett Kiesel? He's strong and right now he's light because we're playing him in a 4-3. If he needed to add bulk it wouldn't have to be all muscle. I guarentee that he could be playing 3-4 DE this year if his knee is healthy at the start of OTAs.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM

With a nutritionist and proper training/work out routine, you can put on 20 lbs in 4 months. You're talking about a pound/week of mass.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 12:11 PM
-----------------------------------------
I don't see it happening. It just isn't that easy. Remember, he has to put on the weight while still retaining his mobility, flexibility and endurance. Maybe if he went on the Barry Bonds training regimen, he might be able to do it, but I think the NFL tests for HGH.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Fletch - poor bastard, reduced to having to be grateful for crumbs, making the Pro Bowl as an alternate.

Posted by: ElDrano | January 25, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't see it happening. It just isn't that easy. Remember, he has to put on the weight while still retaining his mobility, flexibility and endurance. Maybe if he went on the Barry Bonds training regimen, he might be able to do it, but I think the NFL tests for HGH.
Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:22 PM

He’s also gotta rehab his leg the whole time……

Posted by: dlhaze1 | January 25, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't see it happening. It just isn't that easy. Remember, he has to put on the weight while still retaining his mobility, flexibility and endurance. Maybe if he went on the Barry Bonds training regimen, he might be able to do it, but I think the NFL tests for HGH.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------------

What's so difficult about eating more calories? Gaining weight doesn't mean, 'sit on the couch for 4 months', it just means eat more than you burn for a while.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I think you missed the entire point. Did you even read the part where I said he's only a couple pounds lighter than Brett Kiesel? He's strong and right now he's light because we're playing him in a 4-3. If he needed to add bulk it wouldn't have to be all muscle. I guarentee that he could be playing 3-4 DE this year if his knee is healthy at the start of OTAs.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 12:20 PM
----------------------------------------
I read your comment regarding Brett Kiesel. So is Jeremy Jarmin the second coming of Brett Kiesel? I don't think so. Look, the team will probably keep Jarmin because he is a young player with an upside. If you look at him as a developmental prospect for the 3-4, I agree that he could be playing full time DE in a year or two. What I am saying is he will not be seeing considerable playing time in a 3-4 this year. I could see Daniels, Haynesworth and Griffin as the starting defensive line. I could see Alexander and Golston in the rotation. Maybe Jarmin fits in there as a backup, but when you put him in that group he's the light weight. The team needs a brute to backup Haynesworth, or a guy that could allow Haynie baby to move to end. I don't think building a strategy on Daniels starting is prudent. He is too injury prone, so the smart thing to do would be to sign a solid 3-4 end and let Daniels play backup. Pretty soon, Jarmin gets elbowed out of that mix...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The signing bonus is already paid. That money is in the player's pocket. It counts on the salary cap for accounting purposes, but when a guy is traded, the only thing the new team picks up is the base salary (which in actuality, is all the original team is paying anyway).

Posted by: brownwood26 | January 25, 2010 11:54 AM

Not all the guaranteed money is already in the player's pocket. The signing bonus is paid, but there are other GUARANTEED bonuses that are in the contract and that haven't been paid. The new team would also have to pay these, unless the 'Skins give them some side payments to cover them.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

i did respect the simpsons,but they benn around to long and the only thing that made them worth watching was homer.Mike Judge needs to bring back Beavis and Butt-Head,but don't put it on that gay *ss MTV.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

oops been

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

don't put it on that gay *ss MTV.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 12:36 PM

If you like a show, what difference does it make what station it's on? Are you afraid you catch AIDS from watching a "gay *ss" station?

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Colt is more Hawaii 9025O.

Posted by: _Stumped_ | January 25, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Not all the guaranteed money is already in the player's pocket. The signing bonus is paid, but there are other GUARANTEED bonuses that are in the contract and that haven't been paid. The new team would also have to pay these, unless the 'Skins give them some side payments to cover them.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------------

Regardless of what it is called, the balance of the contract seems to be essentially 3 years, $16 mil. Part of it could be bonuses, guarantees, etc, but I don't know too many teams that would turn that down for AH, problems and all.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

If you knock them out of the game, then they can't beat you on the field.

Worked for the Skins against the Broncos when they knocked out Orton and Raiders when they knocked out Grdkowski.

Posted by: p1funk | January 25, 2010 11:11 AM

It can backfire too. The year before this one, when the Skins played the Steelers at FedEx, they had Big Ben on the ropes. Then they took him down and he was out ... and then Leftwich came back to crush the Skins.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember when Smithers was black?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:26 AM

I think that was only the first season, or maybe just even the pilot. They must have figured that being both gay AND black was too much for one character.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Good. He had a better year than Vilma anyway. It's long overdue.

Posted by: pauljr11211 | January 25, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of what it is called, the balance of the contract seems to be essentially 3 years, $16 mil.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 12:42 PM

Not sure where you get this number, but after last year's play I doubt that many teams would be willing to be $5+ mill for Haynesworth. He was good, when he was there, but $5+ mill should get you more than he put on the field last year, not to mention the attitude.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:05 PM

With a nutritionist and proper training/work out routine, you can put on 20 lbs in 4 months. You're talking about a pound/week of mass.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 12:11 PM

"You wanna toe? I can get you a toe. I can get you a toe in about three hours."

Also, I suspect that Jarmon has been working out to build body mass and strength under the supervision of a nutritionist and conditioning coach all season, not to mention since he started rehab. Same thing as what happened to Heyer in his morphing from Baby Huey in college to having some actual definition.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Not sure where you get this number, but after last year's play I doubt that many teams would be willing to be $5+ mill for Haynesworth. He was good, when he was there, but $5+ mill should get you more than he put on the field last year, not to mention the attitude.

-----------------------------------

Bingo. I can't see any team willing to pay that much for a guy who can't stay on the field and, lately, has been a distraction off of it.

Posted by: arizona4 | January 25, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't see it happening. It just isn't that easy. Remember, he has to put on the weight while still retaining his mobility, flexibility and endurance. Maybe if he went on the Barry Bonds training regimen, he might be able to do it, but I think the NFL tests for HGH.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:22 PM

RSH, Jarmon HAS had a head start (since he went onto IR) ... and I think that the big deal about HGH is that there ISN'T a way to test for it (or at least one that isn't prohibitively expensive). That is what I remember from when Jansen said that some huge percentage of the NFL used the stuff.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

you can blood test for HGH. I don't think they test for it right now though.

NFLPA will fight all the way to not allow blood testing.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 25, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:49 PM

I have no doubts that Jarmon can get up to 290-295 by training camp if the coaches want him to. Remember also, Jarmon played DT at 275-277 and played stouter than Monty who is 330. Jarmon will find a role on this team.

Posted by: TWISI | January 25, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression that the 3-4 would be situational and we would still be running the 4-3 most of the time. I agree that we will need to aquire better personnel if we want to run a 3-4 the majority of the time next year but I think Jarmon is more than capable of stepping in a few plays a game at 3-4 DE. I was thinking that maybe we would have a couple different rotations of dline men and backers. The scheme depending on who is resting and who is on the field. Maybe we run the 3-4 personnel agianst 3rd and long and two minute offenses? Maybe we run it randomely throughout the game if the 4-3 isn't getting a pressure?

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember when Smithers was black?

Posted by: RedDMV | January 25, 2010 11:26 AM

I think that was only the first season, or maybe just even the pilot. They must have figured that being both gay AND black was too much for one character.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:45 PM |

Wiki's explain of black Smithers:

"Smithers made his first appearance in "Homer's Odyssey", which was the third episode of the first season, although he can be heard over a speaker in The Simpsons series premiere "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire".[20] In his first visual appearance in "Homer's Odyssey", Smithers was mistakenly animated with the wrong color and was made an African American by Gyorgi Peluci, the color stylist. David Silverman has claimed that Smithers was always intended to be "Mr Burns' white sycophant,"[21] and the staff thought it "would be a bad idea to have a black sub-servient character" and so switched him to his intended color for his next episode.[15] The first appearance of a yellow Smithers was "There's No Disgrace Like Home", the fourth episode of the first season."

Waiting for red (Native American) and brown (Latino).

Posted by: ElDrano | January 25, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the 2010 Pro Alternate Bowl. Congrats to Fletch, he deserved to be an alternate but by no means had a better season than Willis or Vilma. He was somewhere between the 3rd-6th best NFC MLB.

As far as Haynie. He's tradable because his signing bonus would be eaten by the skins and would be on the books for only next year and all the other team would have to take on is his contract, poor conditioning, and his 25 plays a game.

Posted by: Diesel44 | January 25, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression that the 3-4 would be situational and we would still be running the 4-3 most of the time.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 12:58 PM

Who do you understand this from? I don't think anyone from the team has said anything like this. They're still trying to figure out what they've got.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Not sure where you get this number, but after last year's play I doubt that many teams would be willing to be $5+ mill for Haynesworth. He was good, when he was there, but $5+ mill should get you more than he put on the field last year, not to mention the attitude.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------------------

I posted the link above @ 12:16 (embedded so I cant cut-paste).

AH is worth $5.3 mil a year. Sure, we all got frustrated by his comments, but comon... DBs 20 yards off the ball? Tackling optional? Are we really defending the headed-into-retirement DC now?

He was right to call out Blache's style for relying on the DBs rather than the line (where the talent was). Jason Taylor complained the year before about the same thing, so it's not like Haynesworth is in a club of his own here, and JT is definitely not known as a malcontent.

He's still worth $5 mil a year to be a one man wrecking crew up front. Even for only 14 games.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Matt, the option bonus Albert is due in March will count in any trade. That is $21 million, and it is guaranteed.

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Peyton Manning is the man but I can't put him up with the Montana's and Brady's. Peyton gets to play a lot of games in the temperature controlled comfort of the dome. Montana and Brady got it done outside in the mud and snow.

Posted by: coparker5 | January 25, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Montana and Brady got it done outside in the mud and snow.

Posted by: coparker5 | January 25, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

So your going to fault a guy for something he has now control over?

Do you have proof that Peyton couldn't play in snow or mud?

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 25, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

He was right to call out Blache's style for relying on the DBs rather than the line (where the talent was).

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 1:04 PM

You're never right to "call out" your boss in a public forum. And it sure doesn't make you more attractive to other teams. "Hey, let's get Haynesworth! If he thinks we're doing a bad job we can read about it in the papers. Just our kind of player."

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Happy for Fletch. Well deserved.

Posted by: Gweez | January 25, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

soooooooooooooooooooooooo new new post today... must be a day off...

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | January 25, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

don't see it happening. It just isn't that easy. Remember, he has to put on the weight while still retaining his mobility, flexibility and endurance. Maybe if he went on the Barry Bonds training regimen, he might be able to do it, but I think the NFL tests for HGH.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 12:22 PM

RSH, Jarmon HAS had a head start (since he went onto IR) ... and I think that the big deal about HGH is that there ISN'T a way to test for it (or at least one that isn't prohibitively expensive). That is what I remember from when Jansen said that some huge percentage of the NFL used the stuff.

Posted by: dcsween | January 25, 2010 12:52 P
-------------------------------------------
So, Sween, even with HGH, you're asking for Jarmin to recover from a devastating knee injury while putting on twenty pounds of muscle and learning to play an - essentially - new position. That's a tall order for any player.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Matt, the option bonus Albert is due in March will count in any trade. That is $21 million, and it is guaranteed.

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse
------------------------

The trading deadline is significantly past March, right?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Haynesworth contract details

Guaranteed Money:
- Signing Bonus: $5M

- 2009 guaranteed P5 salary: $6M

- Option Bonus before 2010 season: $21M

- 2010 guaranteed P5 salary: $3.6M

- 2011 guaranteed P5 salary: $5.4M

TOTAL = $41M guaranteed

Non-Guaranteed Money:

- 2012 P5 salary: $6.7M

- 2012 Off-Season Workout Bonus: $500K

TOTAL NG by 2012 = $7.2M


Total paid 2009-2012 = $48.2M


More Non-Guaranteed Money:

- 2013 Discretionary Signing Bonus: $20M

- 2013 August 31 Roster Bonus: $500K

- 2013 P5 salary: $8.5M

- 2014 August 31 Roster Bonus: $500K

- 2014 P5 salary: $10.3M

- 2015 August 31 Roster Bonus: $500K

- 2015 P5 salary: $11.5M

TOTAL 2013 - 2015 = $51.8M


Total = $100M (7 years = $48.2M + $51.8M)

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Man, I hate Favre."

I hate his Prince Hamlet-lite decision making process.

Last night, not even a song from Prince could've stopped him from creating that rotten interception smell in Nawlins.

You forget that Favre can be very, very inconsistent after being stunningly consistent.

I'd like for him to tell the vikes his true intentions well in advance of draft day.

And you want him to be truthful and stay out of the league for good.

You see, the vikes losing Favre presents them with a rather nettlesome issue: they've got a Super Bowl ready team with no true quarterback to run it.

And that's where the redskins can sweep in.

Regardless of what folks here say about JC, he's a significant upgrade over S Rosenfels or T Jackson.

The dude threw for 3,600 yards behind a bad line: the should be sold on the idea that Campbell is more than the sum total of his mistakes.

Bruce Allen should sell the vikes on the notion of Campbell as a game manager who hands off to Petersen, and makes the occasional deep throw to Rice.

And perhaps dangling Jason Campbell for a 3rd round pick gives the vikes a better Favre replacement, and a skins with nice options.

We replace Campbell with Bradford/Clausen and use that 2nd and 3rd rounder to snag two linemen.

Yes, this is kinda like taking advantage of another's guy's bad situation.

But hey, it's not the skins' fault that the vikes didn't think to take the time to draft and groom a quarterback who'd take them to the promise land.

But it will be our own fault if we fail to let them help us get some picks that might get us there on our own.

I feel like taking advantage of some Purple Reign.

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 25, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Who do you understand this from? I don't think anyone from the team has said anything like this. They're still trying to figure out what they've got.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Under the impression means assuming. It doesn't mean know for a fact or heard it straight from Haslett's mouth. I was assuming we'd try to run both since we have personnel that fit in both. It makes sense from a rotation standpoint.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

New Redskins offensive assistant Sean McVay is so young, he played college football at Miami of Ohio, but got there after Ben Roethlisberger left.

http://blog.redskins.com/2010/01/22/two-more-coaches-steve-jackson-and-sean-mcvay/

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 25, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Who do you understand this from? I don't think anyone from the team has said anything like this. They're still trying to figure out what they've got.

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Under the impression means assuming. It doesn't mean know for a fact or heard it straight from Haslett's mouth. I was assuming we'd try to run both since we have personnel that fit in both. It makes sense from a rotation standpoint.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 25, 2010 1:17 PM
-----------------------------------------
It makes sense but I haven't heard any detail about what they will do. I don't think they have even confirmed that they will run the 3-4. From the assistant coach hiring of the Steelers linebacker guy, it seems like 3-4 is on their minds. I've read somewhere that Shanahan is liking his 3-4 defense and I have heard some comments by the players about playing in a 3-4. I believe they will play the 3-4 next season. I think the smart way to do it is make a clean break from the old 4-3, get the type of players you need and start educating the defensive unit on the scheme. It would be nice to be unpredictable with many different fronts, but to another poster's point, you'll be showing your cards every time you change personnel.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | January 25, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Jets over Colts and the under. Comic book it.

Posted by: dcsween | January 21, 2010 4:50 PM

Colts cover. Coffee Flats book it.

Posted by: 4-12 | January 21, 2010 5:53 PM


Also, beep beep.

Posted by: 4-12 | January 25, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MistaMoe | January 25, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I think the guy the vikes want would be McNabb.

I think the Eagles are ready to start the Kevin Kolb era and deal Donovan.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | January 25, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

You're never right to "call out" your boss in a public forum. And it sure doesn't make you more attractive to other teams. "Hey, let's get Haynesworth! If he thinks we're doing a bad job we can read about it in the papers. Just our kind of player."

Posted by: League-Source | January 25, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse
------------------------

DEF-initely disagree there. That was the Nazi argument 'We had orders, so....' Where would we be with the water-boarding stuff if people hadn't broken command?

Doesn't fly nowadays. If you know something is wrong, you want to go up the chain first, but if that chain doesn't work (which he specifically said it didn't), then you go public.

Yeah, its a game, I get it. Blache is not a Nazi, but AH has a limited playing career (like everyone) and if he thinks promises made when he signed weren't honored, he's gotta a legitimate beef.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

no mtv is mainstream Beavis and Butt-Head isn't.

Posted by: xpac69 | January 25, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The trading deadline is significantly past March, right?

Posted by: mattsoundworld

Depends on which one you are talking about. The option bonus is due after the March deadline, (which is the one that allows your accelerators to be spread over multiple years. The next deadline is during the 2010 season. The point though is that the Skins have a GM so the decision here will be logical not emotional. Do you pay most of the money left on his contract and then essentially give him away for an unproven commodity?

Posted by: geotherm21 | January 25, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Hail Yes!!! The always professional, hard working, all class, lead by example London Fletcher has certainly earned it and is someone I am proud to root for and am glad to have on the Redskins.

Posted by: mi-ti-bear | January 25, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

DEF-initely disagree there. That was the Nazi argument 'We had orders, so....' Where would we be with the water-boarding stuff if people hadn't broken command?

Doesn't fly nowadays. If you know something is wrong, you want to go up the chain first, but if that chain doesn't work (which he specifically said it didn't), then you go public.

Yeah, its a game, I get it. Blache is not a Nazi, but AH has a limited playing career (like everyone) and if he thinks promises made when he signed weren't honored, he's gotta a legitimate beef.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 25, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

--------------------------------------

He may have had a "legitimate beef" as you put it, but comparing it to the Holocaust or waterboarding (which came to light due to the investigations following the Gitmo photos coming out -- nobody has or will confess to torture voluntarily) is flat-out wrong.

Besides, if he wanted his ideas to get to the top, all he had to do was talk to Clinton Portis... :-P

Posted by: arizona4 | January 25, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

its about time they recognized what a great player London Fletcher is. Congratulations

Posted by: b37bomber | January 29, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company