Network News

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

Keenan McCardell

Made some calls this morning and the Skins are in fact negotiating with McCardell, 37, to bring him into camp. He has good size and has been a quality possession guy for a long time. Not great speed and nearing the end, but the Skins could definitely use someone as a big target for Jason Campbell as a slot guy.

From what I have heard, they essentially offered McCardell the veteran minimum, which would be the logical initial move in this case. There would be no guarantees that McCardell, a former Skins draft pick who never actually played for them, would make the team. This late in free-agency game, guys aren't getting big bucks and Keenan would realize that.

McCardell (6-1, 191) lives in Houston and was offered the minimun by the Texans. So if he's going to sign someplace for that money, might as well do it at home I would presume. But from what I gather, the Skins have some legit interest here - which speaks to the odd way they comprise their roster and how, after spending so many millions on complimentary receivers, they still have a need.

If they step up and give McCardell a decent little signing bonus, I think it gets done. He's a bit part at this point, but has assets the team lacks. Lloyd and Randle El have never proven to be No. 2 WRs to this point in their career - although one of them had better do so in 2007 - and McCardell did manage to start 11 games for the AFC powerhouse Chargers in 2006, though with limited production (36 catches, 437 yards, no TDs).

In 2005, though, McCardell started all 16 games, had 70 catches had nearly 1,000 yards; he caught 9 TDs and had 50 first-down catches - which is exactly the kind of thing the Skins need, someone savvy to move the chains and make catches in the high-traffic areas,

So we'll see what the Skins do over the next little while. Ball is in their court. I was surprised they didn't even take a look at Keyshawn - even with his issues - and to me it makes a lot of sense to throw a bonus at McCardell and a $1 million base and give Lloyd and that bunch a little something to consider. The 16-year vet. would be a positive influence on the younger guys if nothing else, and has been known as a locker room leader type for a long time.

By Jason La Canfora  |  June 20, 2007; 12:24 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bubble Guys
Next: LaVar vs. The Boz???



Posted by: JC | June 20, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: jack | June 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

His production went down because Cam Cameron was fasing him out of the Chargers playbook. He still has gas left.

Go for it! Combined bonus and salary shouldn't go over $1.2 Mil, though!

Posted by: 4th Floor | June 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather see the skins keep a young guy like Espy or a special teams player like thrash over an aging vet. They don't really need a leader in the locker room anyway and thats really the only role I see McCardell playing. Santana Moss and company aren't exactly getting in trouble off the field--they seem to be pretty good character guys. This would be a wasted roster spot in my opinion.

Posted by: Paul S. | June 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

They just want to bring back the only guy left who is playing with a Super Bowl ring achieved under Joe Gibbs' tutelage.

Posted by: duck | June 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Skins have good history with Vet recievers and last hurrahs:

Henry Ellard
Irving Fryar
Andre Reed

I say DO IT!

Posted by: chris larry | June 20, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

All I can really say is wow! That's unbelievable, McCardell? Really? I have two issues with this. First, I would think getting some D-line help ought to be what we are working on before an 87-year old possession receiver. Second, do they really think McCardell is an upgrade of what we have, to me he is James Thrash at best at this point in his career, and truthfully our offense is fine with portis, betts, moss, El, and cooley.....that should be enough weapons, we don't need to waste the money on another WR.

Posted by: jack | June 20, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The Skins should concentrate on locking Cooley up years to come rather than signing 37 year-old receivers. If anything, yes maybe K-Mc will provide motivation for Lloyd to step up, but after the season Lloyd had last year, I can't see how much more motivation that guy needs!

Posted by: CC | June 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

this is slightly baffling. You'de think that with the $$$ spent at the position already and the talent lined up there, we wouldn't be involved in this geezer. Anywho, this must say something about how the coaching staff feels about our depth at WR.

At what point do we address the D-line?

Posted by: SkinzfaninNYC | June 20, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I say no to this move. No more old players. Damn!

Posted by: jm220 | June 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I was really pushing for Keyshawn. I'll take McCardell. D-line whiners - tall possession WR is a big gaping hole for us too. Stop crying. League minimum, not giving away the farm.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | June 20, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The potential addition of an old possession WR to our team would be awesome. That's the one thing we were looking for this offseason that we haven't found so far. I hear he is super-slow.

Posted by: Nate in the NYC | June 20, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Our depth at WR is fine, especially considering that we are a "run first" type of team.

Posted by: CC | June 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

JAck - The team keeps saying they are confident in the DLine they have now. Give these guys a chance. GG admitted he basically left them hanging last year because the D Coaches were more wooried about getting burnt by the receivers.

I can't recall too much positive things being said about our current WR group outside of Moss and involving ARE in a lot of trickery........

Yes to McCardell!

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree that DE is a much greater need and that Thrash gives us everything McCardell would. What are we doing to try and deal for Aaron Schobel of the Bills or Adewale Ogunleye of the Bears? What should we be willing to give up for DEs of this caliber?

Posted by: Matt Houston | June 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

What does Keenan do that Thrash doesn't? Seems like the same kinda guy. I did not like resigning Thrash because he is aging and not productive. And that signing limits the Skins ability to sign anyone else who might be better. Keenan numbers were decent and I do like the idea of Campbell deailing with a possession vet as he develops. I would rather have Keenan over Thrash ... but it makes no sense to have 2 guys to play the same role

Posted by: AL | June 20, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Thrash is an all around kinda guy. Locker Room/Utility Man/5th Receiver Guy/ST Standout/and so forth.

Keenen is a proven receiver who CATCHES the ball if he can get his fingertips on it.

By this comparrison, these are 2 completely different guys that you would have on your team for 2 completely different reasons........

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Tall possession receiver is a glaring hole, not filled by a 87 year old geezer at the end of the line, you really don't think there will be someone better? The Patriots have 11 receivers on there roster right now, meaning Gaffney or Caldwell will get cut (or both), or Antonio Bryant, or Eric Moulds would all be better options than a one-year maybe McCardell, but the truth is at this point no player out there is going to meet that need or else they wouldn't be available. The only significant moves made at this point will be through trades and we should only consider trading for D-line help.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Boy, it will be just like old times - Brunell and McCardell tossing the ball back and forth on the sidelines, just like they used to do in Jacksonville. If Brunell has to go in and run the offense for a play or three, he'll have McCardell as a go-to guy.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse


I don't care what the coaches say in June, everyone in the league knows the only starter on our line that would start on any other line is Griffin when healthy and very very outside shot that Carter (the 2nd half of the season Carter) would crack some lineups. But every other guy at those positions on our team are journeymen at best and we all know it, evidence, a 6th pick started for us last year, a 6th round pick (other than Tom Brady) should never be a first year starter.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

James Thrash...clutch possession receiver. Anyone have a stat on how many 3rd down catches he had for first downs last season? It seemed like he was there when we needed it.

This is what's wrong with this place. Always looking for the big name and not realizing what you have in house.

Posted by: Thrash? | June 20, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that if they bring in KMc, that he'll definitely be on the roster. They're only investing minimum money in him. At the least, it will let them see who is going to step up in camp prove that they can contribute.

Posted by: ngu | June 20, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

And good luck trying to trade for a starting DE and then fitting him in under the available salary cap. A little math says it ain't gonna happen this year. Current available cap after rookie signings is about $3.3 million. Schobel will be too expensive. Chicago won't be doing any more trade talking with the Skins after the Briggs fiasco, so forget Ogunleye.

Meet your newest stud DE, coming to a field near you soon: Marcus Washington.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

He'll be on the bench. He won't have more than 8 catches all year.
THEY LOVE THRASH.. so he's a lock for #4.
Randel El is a lock at THREE with his talent and money spent..
LLOYD.. is just more talented than all the others..

Posted by: Rando in LA | June 20, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

What about a 7th Round pick starting at WR for a team that went to the NFC Championship last year (Colston)?

They also had a 4th, 5th, or a 6th (I can't remember) rounder starting at gaurd who went to the pro bowl as a rookie.

I too am confident in our DLine(Not that it matters)

These are the same Journeymen that landed our D as 2nd in the league in Gibbs 1st year and they were the same journeymen that led us to the cusp of the NFC Championship (If doublemove could have caught a ball)the next season......

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What a joke.

I'm sure this instills loads of confidence in the WR corps.

What the heck, give him a 20 mil signing bonus prorated over 5 years just for kicks Joe.

- Ray

Posted by: Ray | June 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, look kids! We are almost all the same size!

# 53 Marcus Washington
Position: OLB
Height: 6-3
Weight: 250

# 99 Andre Carter
Position: DE
Height: 6-4
Weight: 265

# 55 Lance Briggs
Position: OLB
Height: 6-1
Weight: 240

# 93 Adewale Ogunleye
Position: DE
Height: 6-4
Weight: 260

# 94 Aaron Schobel
Position: DE
Height: 6-4
Weight: 262

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Flag on the Play;

Player development misconduct

On the Redskins FO for not allowing young players to develop and make their shot count. ESPY was close to making the roster last year. If I were the coach, I would be telling him the 5th or maybe even 4th WR spot was his for the taking.

Sometimes all those young guys need is your confidence in them. I am getting tired of this. We have had young WR's show up before and not make the team (Jimmy Farris, Espy, Justin Skaggs). We will never find that diamond in the rough if we dont give a guy a chance.

F McCardell. This smacks of 'gimme some money'

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Zebra - This is what we would call the Kobe Bryant Approach. Get rid of the future to win now.

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse


You can always find exceptions, but a 6th rounder started on a d-line that gave up 4.5 yds/carry and tallied 19 sacks, for a season!!!!! Its ridiculous to even argue about having "confidence" in our d-line. Our defense was good when Gibbs got here because Griffin was healthy and had a monster year, 3 years and many injuries ago, Springs and Smoot were in their prime, Taylor and Clark were playing well and Washington, Pierce, Marshall, and Arrington were playing well...if you remember Matt Bowen and Shawn Springs led the team in sacks that year, the truth is our d-line has been a weakness for almost a decade and needs to be totally revamped. Learn something about football first then tell me about your confidence.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

1) Sign McCardell as "player-coach" and let him teach the young guys how to catch balls and run routes during training camp.
2) Cut McCardell in late August and let him stay as Wide Receivers coach.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The new Gibbs-Speak:

Gibbs says, "We are real happy with the guys we have on the defensive line."

What he really means - "We don't have any cap room to get real starters for the defensive line, so we are going with the guys we have."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

But, my thing is we can get back to 3 years ago. That was some good on the job training the Golston got last year. Campbell was 2-4 as a starter, but everyone seems confident in him?!?!? We've (the FO) done so much for the D this offseason, save for adding to the Dline, that there should be a real difference on the field. Washington will start lining up in the 3 point stance at the line as well....

We have done hardly nothing for the offense and I don't think we can put our trust into (specifically) Lloyd and (to a lesser extent) ARE. Colston was proven in college as far as stats and so forth. Epsy was not.

Oh yeah - Matt Bowen SUCKED!

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Annonyomus Poster - We could have signed plenty of Dline pepople with the Cap Room we have. Sam Adams comes to mind immediately. He signed for the Vet Min, or close to it in Denver. Also, Denver acquired a former 1st round draft pick 3 years ago for a 6th or 7th rounder at a low cost.

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"The Colts might have opened a new era by winning the Super Bowl this year.

They are the first Super Bowl winner since the 1983 Raiders to not finish in the top 10 in scoring defense. In a league that usually evolves into defense-dominated games in the playoffs, offense carries more importance than teams want to admit.

As the cliché goes, defense wins championships. While defense is obviously still an important part of the equation, a defense not accompanied by a top-level offense isn't going to get it done. And having a top-level offense starts with the quarterback position. To win a Super Bowl in the 2000s, you need a quarterback who can beat Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

The days of building a defense alone to win a Super Bowl ended at the turn of the century when Brady started winning Super Bowls and continued last season with Manning.


It sounds simple, but the stat to watch is points scored. If an offense can't score at least 21 points a game, forget about winning a Super Bowl.

In the past four years, five teams averaged less than 20 points per game and still made the playoffs. Four of those teams were eliminated in the first round; the fifth, the 2004 Rams, got past the first round as an 8-8 wild-card team by beating a 9-7 Seahawks team in Seattle. The next week the Rams were blown out by the Falcons 47-17.

The NFL competition committee gets worried when team scoring drops to an average of around 20 points per game. When that happens -- and it often does -- the league considers rule changes to add more offense. The most recent example is when the NFL tightened up the interference and illegal-contact rules against defensive backs. Throwing more flags for tight coverage provided a brief offensive spike.

General managers countered by drafting more speed on defense, and to a certain degree the strategy is working. Teams that use the Cover 2 defense (such as the Bears) have acquired lighter and faster athletes who can cover more ground. The good 3-4 defenses also are finding quicker players in an effort to create a few more big plays.


The teams to watch in 2007 that scored less than 20 points per game last season (and missed the playoffs) are the 49ers, Cardinals, Broncos and Redskins. They all averaged in the 18- or 19-point area and should be better on offense. If they can get three or four points better, they will be right in the playoff hunt.


Say what you want about defenses winning championships; the top teams in the league are getting better on offense. The Patriots have added receivers Randy Moss, Donte' Stallworth and Wes Welker to give Brady more targets. Manning and the Colts could score even more points if first-round draft pick Anthony Gonzalez works out as a slot receiver. Meanwhile, the Chargers added a deep scoring threat for Rivers by grabbing wide receiver Craig Davis in the first round.

While I'm not predicting a year in which scoring will improve leaguewide, improving on offense will be key for a number of teams looking to move forward. A good defense alone isn't enough to get through the playoffs and win a ring.


Posted by: 4th via Clayton | June 20, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

truth is they may be interested in him for the veteran leadership as much as anything...

Posted by: guinness4health | June 20, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Flag on the PLay;

On 4th for crushing the hopes of the great white safety not named Brad Edwards to don a skins uniform.

He sucks now, and before he got here, but he was quite good while here. That is the beauty of Greg Williams system. It can make average players good.

The Zebra is ignoring #40 from last year as we all will soon wake up b/c it was dream ala the TV show Dallas.

And flag on the play for the person who suggested that rock go back to #40. That number should be 'retired' for completely different reasons.

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"POSTED 2:22 p.m. EDT, June 20, 2007


Titans cornerback Pacman Jones is one of three people charged in a shooting outside a Las Vegas strip club that left a man paralyzed, according to media reports.

The Nashville Tennessean passes along a report from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas that Jones is charged with two counts of felony coercion in connection with the shooting at the Minxx Gentlemen's Club.

According to the report, Robert "Big Rob" Reid is charged with one count of felony coercion and Sadia Morrison is charged with five counts including assault with a deadly weapon, battery with a deadly weapon and burglary.


Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The potential addition of an old possession WR to our team would be awesome. That's the one thing we were looking for this offseason that we haven't found so far. I hear he is super-slow.

Posted by: Nate in the NYC | June 20, 2007 01:21 PM

He may be slow, but he has that deceptive kind of slowness that really throws the CBs.

Zebra is right, flag on the play.
(Or the seven other young WRs on the roster all stink.)

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Exactly my point, our FO blows......and once again Denver gets over on us, they totally revamped their D-line, when there are multiple published reports (Fox, ESPN,, NFL Network) that we have been calling all over the league to find D-linemen. Also my point, on no other team in the league would Matt Bowen lead the team in sacks, but that is the crap Williams had to pull to coverup our pitiful D-line then, and now they are all just older and have more injuries. And all I have to say is if your relying on Monte and Golston as the future of your D-line then you have a serious problem. The truth is if they do nothing (b/c of the cap or their incompetence) then once again we'll be in the bottom of the league in D and Taylor and Landry will have 200 tackles between them all 7 yards downfield. The reason our O is promising is our o-line (while aging) is solid, we have a great tandem at running back, a game breaking WR (when healthy) a upper tier TE and a QB that never had a short field and played from behind all of his starts while performing promisingly, and if Betts hadn't fumbled twice he would have been 4 - 2 as a starter. Our O is fine, our D needs to be torn apart after this season and totally rebuilt around Taylor and Landry. We need to draft all D next year and sign some young vets at Corner, LB, and Dline as well, I would dump Wynn, Daniels, Marshall, and Springs. Restructure or dump if they won't Washington, Carter, and Griffin. The truth is that Washington, Springs, and Griffin all are great players but they health hasn't been great and they're cap numbers get huge next year.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

4th via Clayton is R-I-G-H-T! The Redskins will score a lot of points this season. Get it through your heads, people, defense needs only to keep the offense in the game. If we do as we can and run up a lot of points in the first half, the defense will get opportunities to do what defenses like to do: rush the passer and intercept passes because our opponents will be playing from behind under a ton of pressure for points. That makes offense do risky things. In the NFL risk leads to failure. We win!

Posted by: Neil in Durango | June 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Exactly my point, our FO blows......and once again Denver gets over on us, they totally revamped their D-line

you mean the 2nd year in a row. denver outsmarted the whole league last year too. when they signed all the ex-broown d-line. guess what? real GMs already knew they sucked! and now this year mikee goes out and does the same thing again.

please. let's not compare shanahan (also a coach) with gibbs (also a coach). what has he done with all those picks and trades? what has he done with #7? i have more faith in gibbs picking talent than shanahan.

and nate, don't get me started KNOW if spurrier was in a less of a dysfunctional team than the skins he'd been just fine.

Posted by: dealer | June 20, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Dealer! I was bout to say the same thing. At the most, Denver is on the same level as us - Ripe to breakthrough to the next level, but hasn't. At worst, we're much better than them, Offense and Defense.....

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

...without #7...

Posted by: dealer | June 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

HA! and if your d stops no one you better hope you get the ball first. Whoever wrote that article is a moron, look at the Colts run, they did it with DEFENSE. They got Bob Sanders back and flat out shut people down. They held KC to 8 points, they held Baltimore to 6 points, they allowed an average of 16 points a game in the playoffs. If you remember down the stretch of the season with Sanders out they got smoked by team, Jacksonville ran for like 350 yards and Jones-Drew had like 4 TD's beating them 44-17. The truth is their D came together at the right time for a great run, the Super Bowl was over when they picked of a pass for a TD, they won that game with running the ball and defense. (the MVP was Rhodes remember?) They won a game in the playoffs scoring 15 points! The only game that Payton and the O played well in was the Patriots game and that was only in the second half, when the D helped by picking Brady off a couple times. D wins Championships!!!!

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

This is what they should have done last year instead of throwing away 2 mid-round picks and 30/10 on Lloyd... sign a possession guy for the vet minimum.

And where does this guy fit in now? I'd rather utilize Thrash or a young guy like Espy at the 4/5 WR instead of paying 1.2 for a 4th wideout who has no value anywhere else on the football field.

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | June 20, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Jack; I have to say I think you would be b@tching even if we got two FA DE's saying we overpaid.

You come off as someone who likes to complain. A lot of your points are valid, but dont blast people for being optimistic.

Williams has always had creative blitz schemes, even when he had great D lines. So Bowen was not a cover up for a poor d line. He was a beneficiary for sure, but not a Williams cover up.

Denver totally revamped their D line for the 2nd time in 3 years? Did they play in the superbowl? If a team does not make the superbowl then I dont think you can call any of the other 30 teams plans as solid and that they worked.

And I could also argue that if our D had played better, or our O had scored more points, Betts fumbles would have been less costly and we would have won those games.

Shti happens. Just like you can say that corner got beat on the go move for the game winning TD, maybe the DE F-ed up his play and didnt pressure the QB. Specious reasoning.

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Well guys, this is why they pay ME the big money and not you.

Posted by: Vinny Serrated | June 20, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Denver is on the same level as us? They have been a perennial playoff team for a while, we've been once in 15 years. Denver is way above us, and yeah Shanahan has won a SB without Elway, but he has run a great organization for years, and it isn't that easy to win a SB, there are a lot of good teams that don't every year, SB's have a bit of luck involved with them, but being a good team year in and year out, I'd take that. He made a mistake with the D-line and now he's fixing it. (they still had the #14 defense in the league.....I think we were below that a little bit...oh yeah we were 31st)

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Also, you say Bowen was a cover up for having good stats, why then did the Clots get shellacked without Sanders, A SAFETY, in there?

You need an offense as well to win Championships. It takes both. To say one way works is like saying there is only one way a human being looks good. I know a million or so women who look good for all different reasons.

You compartmentalize everything into black and white. All absolutes, not ifs or maybes.

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me;

Shannahan won what as a Head Coach without Elway?

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

People calm down....its vet min......its not a big deal, if he comes in and helps great, if it was a mistake cut him........

And to say Thrash is better is insane....

Posted by: CHRis larry | June 20, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

But Indy lost most of their players from the defensive side (lost startin LB and Both CBs and a former starting safety) and they only replinshed the offense this offseason.

Indy's philosiphy on Defense is the same as GG's - Believe in the system and find players to maximize the system's potential (as Clayton wrote above in the article I posted).

If what you said was true about Indy's Championship run, then why not keep the same people who were making the defense work??

It looks like they (The Colts) have not changed their philosophy of loading up on talent for the offense to work and believing in the scheme on the defensive side.......

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If you look at how teams are ranked offensively and defensively and who makes the playoffs. You can win your division with a great or even good defense (or offense).

There are only a few teams that have both a highly ranked offense and defense. These are usually the dominant teams (Patriots, Colts, Chargers).

If the Skins O and D are both ranked between 8 and 16. Look out!

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line: If defense wins superbowls, why didn't Chicago (everyone's best defense before the game) win this year when they were spotted 7 points from the kickoff by Indy?

You can win a lot of games with a great defense. You can even hang on in most with just a good one, but you can't win it all with just a defense.

But one way to make your defense seem better than it is is to make the opposition play one-dimensionally by scoring regularly to keep them playing catch-up.

I'd strengthen the offense every time. I've had enough years of watching a great D at Miami get blown up by being kept on the field for the whole damn game as Jay "Fiedled" while Rome burnt.

Posted by: Redcoat | June 20, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse


Do we know who in the "front office" thinks this is a good idea? Gibbs? Saunders? Snyder? Cerrato? All of the above or just one of the above?

Any chance he could teach Rogers how to catch a ball?

Posted by: KK | June 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

People calm down....its vet min......its not a big deal, if he comes in and helps great, if it was a mistake cut him........

And to say Thrash is better is insane....

Posted by: CHRis larry | June 20, 2007 03:02 PM

Vet Minimum for a 10+ year veteran is almost 1 million per year.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

If we had at least addressed Dline, I would feel like this was a great offseason. I LOVE the Landry pick, Fletcher was the best option at a need position, and the depth at CB was important. I just think that last year the only good things we did were drafting Rocky and signing R'EL and we overpaid for him, but the incompetence last year (Duckett, Archuletta, LLoyd) cost us the chance to address needs with mid-rounders this year. I am optimistic, I think Campbell and the O could sneak us into the playoffs. But our D needs a lot of work next year, that if they had gotten another legitimate DT and a legitimate DE this year we could honestly talk SB run this year and I would much rather rebuild with another Lombardi in the case then at best a Wild Card birth and cap issues. But not as it stands now, our D isn't good enough to get us there up front. That is why I'm complaining, because the window on Springs, and Washington and Griffin is closing quickly and with a little help up front this could be a very good defense. Without it though, they will be mediocre (decent against the pass this year, poor against the run and not force a lot of turnovers) leaving us in a rebuild mode (on D) after this year.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

A good offense automatically makes it defense better. A bad offense makes a defense worse. I wouldn't say its necessarily true the other way around (ignoring field position).

A lot of this season depends on how well we will be able to grind out first downs and hold onto the ball, which in turn depends on how poised and comfortable JC is in the system on 3rd downs.

Posted by: ngu | June 20, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Danny Snyder was really impressed with McCardell's moves when he appeared on episode #219 of American Bandstand in 1962. This signing is inevitable.

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me;

Elway won what as QB without Terrell Davis?

Posted by: LH | June 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

yeah left out the "not" on the shanahan has won comment. Just saying as a Skins fan (suffering for years w/ losing seasons) I'd love to have Shanahan's lack of success, that would mean my team would be challenging for the division every year and in the playoffs most every year. That wouldn't be so bad.

Posted by: jack | June 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

And I would also say it is not rebuilding mode next year. If Golston progresses as we think he should, and if Montgomery can learn the position only our DE's will need to be upgraded. Carter is only 28, 29 next year. Buzbee sounds like he could be a lunch pail high motor guy. But pick one up in draft or FA anyway.

Rocky Mac is young and if he is as good as we have been led to believe, then he with an aging MArcus should be fine with LBF next year. Marshall can spell the aging MLB.

Springs goes byebye, Smoot (Same age as Carter) will take over as #1 with Rodgers #2 (hopefully) and our safeties are set for years.

All of this is speculation, but so is the fact that we will need to rebuild. After the season plays out, we will know a lot more about all of these buys.

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Check that, not 'buys' but 'guys'.

Fingers tired

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

sorry LH. i totally meant to write TD in there.

on a side note...with everyone hyping JC...are you guys getting a little nervous? or is everyone talking cuz others are talking...jumping on the bandwagon of sort?

Posted by: dealer | June 20, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Just ask yourselves this question: would you rather have Kansas City's 2004 season (4 games scoring over 40 points, 4 others over 30) and finish 7-9 or the Redskins 2004 or 2006 seasons?

I only ask because Weird Al, who oversaw that points-happy KC offense has now brought in his #3 RB from 2004, Derrick Blaylock.

I think Weird Al will recreate KC 2004 (3 good RBs and lots of deep throwing to keep defenses honest at the scrimmage) and he will challenge Grilliams to 'keep up' if he wants to be Head coach in 2008!

I'm not a KC fan but I LOVED watching their games that year. Remember the one with Indianapolis where even though Manning racked up the points they still lost?

Posted by: Redcoat | June 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

good point LH,

Elway was no better than Jim Kelly, and only has SB rings because of TD, the best player Elway has ever played with. That combined with Shannahan, the best coach in Denver's sad history, got them over the top.

Posted by: gethanr13 | June 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse


I like most of what you said there, except, I just don't think that Golston and Monte are the long-term answer, they are solid depth guys but not starters long term, Springs will be gone but that means we need another CB, cause neither Smoot nor Rogers is a lockdown #1 that can go man up against the best WR on the other team. (which according to reports is how our defense will be playing now, more man less zone) And Washington and Carter are both very expensive with one getting old and hurt a lot and the other not worth his price tag. I think regardless of what happens this year, we need 2 ends, a DT, a LB and a CB. That's only 5 players, you draft D-line the first 4 rounds and you sign a top tier CB and a decent LB and your there, its not impossible.

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Dealer - Compare us hyping JC to Romo hosting Miss America's and going out with Country Singers and being shown on E daily news as to who he's dating?

I think JC is doing just fine. All starting QBs are forced to do this (Be the Face of the Franchise) with their respective team.

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

You just defined leads to unrealistic expectations.

Soup will make some mistakes, but he has all the skills.
Remember when:

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Judging Miss Universe. Romo will really need to work out hard if he wants to host Miss America.

Gee, sorry, the guy likes women. Maybe it's insecurity about his name. Also, he caught a 4am flight to be on the field with his team the next day. Was that the day all your boys went home early to play Madden?

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

There is some of the optimism, Jack.

We never really seem to care how expensive a player is, so that never factors into my calculations.

I think Monty will surprise you this year. And Golston just seems to want it in there. I always remember him making an impact, whether direct or not during games.

Posted by: Zebra | June 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Agreed that there is a lot of hype, but that could help build JC's confidence, and we can all agree that it is important for your starting QB to be confident. JC doesn't seem like the kind or guy that will get caught up in the hype or let it put extra pressure on himself. But maybe he just doesn't show that the hype is getting to him. I think he looked awesome at times last year, and he will improve quite a bit this year.

Posted by: gethanr13 | June 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Susan O'Malley Bids Farewell to Washington Sports and Entertainment
June 20, 2007

After a 20-year run and countless successes, Washington Sports and Entertainment President Susan O'Malley has elected not to extend her contract with Abe Pollin's company. The announcement was made jointly today by Pollin and O'Malley to the Washington Sports and Entertainment staff.

Following the completion of her current term, which expires June 30th, O'Malley will work with Pollin on selecting a successor for her position, and will stay on to advise Pollin through a transition period culminating with the Verizon Center's 10th Anniversary celebration in December. A recent graduate of Georgetown University Law School (Spring '07), O'Malley said that she will take some vacation time before announcing her future plans.

While President of Washington Sports and Entertainment, the 45 year-old executive's far reaching responsibilities included all business operations of the Verizon Center, Washington Wizards and the Ticketmaster Washington-Baltimore franchise.

O'Malley became the first female president of an NBA franchise when she took over the reigns of the then-Washington Bullets in May of 1991. A 20-year veteran of the organization, O'Malley had immediate and remarkable success, turning around the business fortunes of the basketball franchise after only one season at the helm. Since that time, her responsibilities grew to manage the entire Pollin sports and entertainment empire.

Many of her customer service and community relations programs have been emulated industry-wide and the team's season ticket renewal rates were consistently ranked among the NBA's best. The franchise currently boasts a full season ticket equivalency base of just over 11,000 patrons and is coming off a season in which the team sold out 23 of its 41 home games, averaging 18,373 fans per game.


Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

SMACK saw you were in Vegas this past weekend. I wish I had known. We could have agreed to meet and I could have behaved as if I didn't know who you were or what you were talking about when you approached me. ;)

Posted by: LH | June 20, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't take offense. I didn't know who I was or what I was talking about most of the time either.

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Can we mix in a lineman instead of the 8th receiver?

Posted by: ArtMonkToTheSticks | June 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I was making a reference to your Verizon Center meet up with 4th.

I was in Vegas this weekend too. Stayed at the Bellagio. Caught the O show. SW at the Wynn was all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by: LH | June 20, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Cap percentages by position:

WR: 70%
Every other position: 30%

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | June 20, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Ricky Bobby,
That's ugly.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

F Romo!

Guys and gals.....take a breath, its not worth this much angst, it might even be...aghast...a good move.....


Posted by: cHris larry | June 20, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Two points: Better play from the seconday COULD produce coverage sacks.
KMc----Even if they sign him to a vet minimum, he wouldn't count that much. The NFL has exemptions on min vet salary to keep these old guys employed.

Posted by: GREG | June 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I already knew what you were talkin about LH. I was LMGO when reading your comment.

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Bellagio, nice. Can't say I cared much for the Wynn. Too far up its own arse for my liking. That's where I got the $13 G&T served in what looked like a shot glass, and a $5 coke for my hungover friend. If it means you need to rip off your customers, buy fewer chandeliers.

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I see you use the word 'arse' SMACK. You're not a Brit are you?

Posted by: Redcoat | June 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: LH | June 20, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

place your orders now for the #17 jersey. The future and Gibbs 2.0 legacy depends on this very year not next year or the year after next year, it's this year and we will be competitive! U heard it here first!

Posted by: stick75 | June 20, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Where's MV Dame or Cindy with the lastest post count?

How long to 65k? (he said hopefully)

Posted by: Redcoat | June 20, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

No Redcoat, but I dated a girl from Bristol, UK for a couple of years, and haven't managed to forget everything yet. And I read a lot of UK websites for soccer news. The forums there are always amusing.

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I lived in the West of England near 'Brizzle' for many years. Happy days, but these days are happier still.

The whole football (Soccer) fanzine sub-genre in the UK was great for the coverage of the sport. Before that you just got what the papers covered, and that with the compliance of the clubs.

Now through fanzines and latterly blogs you can hear what the guy on the - metaphorical - terrace thinks.

As a QPR fan (long, dull story) my favourite fanzine was always 'A kick up the R's"

Posted by: Redcoat | June 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

How does Pacman manage to be at every strip club at once? How many of him are there?

Posted by: SMACK | June 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I appllied to be his double. He wants to be represented at every major strip club at every major city. But, I withdrew after I found out I had to threatned someone with a gun everynight (Especailly since I don't HAVE ONE!!)........

Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Some pretty cool pics of The Greatest, courtesy Time magazine...,29307,1632177_1383678,00.html

Posted by: 4-12 | June 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Spurrier SUCKS and Jim Kelly was not as good as John Elway. I guess Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed were scrubs.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Thurman Thomas - definitely a Scrub
Andre Reed - Scrubbette

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Happy Birthday LaVar, get well soon. Go back to wearing Red.

Posted by: 35332 | June 20, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

New post needed.


Posted by: 4th | June 20, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Around the Horn just debated the authenticity of The Skins contacting Cowher. That to me, means that its out there. Possible Gibbs successor?

Posted by: ArtMonkToTheSticks | June 20, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I just don't think that Golston and Monte are the long-term answer, they are solid depth guys but not starters long term...

Posted by: Jack | June 20, 2007 03:38 PM

And you are who? A Pro scouting director? Player Development Mgr. for a NFL team? A month or two ago, there was an article posted up here where one of the real experts called the DT position the hardest position to learn at the pro level, after QB. The point of the article was that most DTs struggle for the first year or two while learning the game at the pro level.

Just for fun, let's compare Golston's rookie stats against those of a now-proven player.

Kedric Golston

Year Team G Total Tkl Ast Sacks Int Pass Def

2006 Washington 16 44 33.0 11 0.5 0 0 3

Warren Sapp

1995 Tampa Bay 16 26 16.0 10 3 1 4

Based on these numbers, Golston appears to have a promising starting career ahead of him, and perhaps the potential to be a Pro Bowl-type player, unlike your unfounded contentions above.

But hey, thanks for playing. Maybe next time you come by, though, you won't act like such a Jack-arse.

Posted by: Mr. Stats Guy | June 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

New post count needed. Things are lagging here.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

New post count needed. Things are lagging here.

Mr. SG,
That would explain the lack of movement by the FO.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

So we sign McCardell for the vet min plus $100,000 to sign. Costs the team $535,000 against the cap, add the Rule of 51, only costs the team $100,000 against the cap. Tell me how this will affect signing anyone else?

Posted by: Ryan | June 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

So we sign McCardell for the vet min plus $100,000 to sign. Costs the team $535,000 against the cap, add the Rule of 51, only costs the team $100,000 against the cap. Tell me how this will affect signing anyone else?

Posted by: Ryan | June 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

So we sign McCardell for the vet min plus $100,000 to sign. Costs the team $535,000 against the cap, add the Rule of 51, only costs the team $100,000 against the cap. Tell me how this will affect signing anyone else?

Posted by: Ryan | June 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Can you guys tell me the appeal of Strips Clubs...besides the obvious? I know it is hot naked girls dancing and that is very appealing to guys but couldn't Pac get his fix via porn or a woman or two he could actually be with privately?

Posted by: Lisa | June 20, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ah - everyone shut up after Lisa's question! I can't answer it either, but someone at work (a guy and a former NFL player, at that) made an interesting point the other day - he said that when he was single, he never went to strip clubs, but now that he's married, he loves to go every once in a while - maybe a fantasy reminder of forbidden fruit?

Posted by: John D in Houston | June 20, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like to me he was out being famous, given he had a whole crew with him (including a bodyguard, yeah like he needs it).

It's really schoolyard stuff at a very basic level. The apologist talk about how he's from a rough part of Atlanta...what ever.

7 July is the RI blog anniversary n'est pas?

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I am sure Pacman spends enough money to be with the girls privately if he wishes....then he scoops it back up claiming it was a prop. I was just making it rain.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse


Two words:

tig bitties.

oh, and Lappers.

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | June 20, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Lisa, you're right, if he had a brain, he probably could do that. But I reckon it has less to do with a want/need to see naked women, and more to do with an image he's trying to portray, because you know, he's so tough and cool for breaking curfew.

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

somebody mention porn?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

give me some of them fun bags!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

whos got my pearl necklace?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I like the McCardell experiment, he's a cagey vet, who may not get that many catches, but the ones he does get will be important. He'll be great at finding the soft spot in a zone, and he won't drop passes. He'll be a good locker room leader, and a teacher to our receivers. Our current WR corps is high on potential and talent, but probably lack a little in work ethic and savvy. McCardell was always the opposite, and can help improve that. Another important characteristic, is that McCardell is brilliant in the run game. I think that while it might not be our number 1 priority, it will be a good signing.

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I was wrong about this move.

I like the player/coach mentioned by earlier posts.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

McCardell is 6'1.. WTF? We need a big body TALL reciever for the red zone. Yeah.. he's a little taller than our WRs now... but we need a 6'3 220 guys ( at least ) to provide that big target opposite Cooley.

Posted by: cwprice | June 20, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

That's a good read. I think you can put a lot into the time he spent with Monk, and maybe he can have that effect on some of our current guys.

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I think Mcardell would be a great influence to the younger recievers and make them work for their jobs... B LOYD!!! He would also give the redskins a possession reciever to go along with the speedster santana i like this move which would add needed depth.

Posted by: Dave | June 20, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't mind McCardell at a cheap price, but JLC c'mon man, Keyshawn??!! No freaking way.

Posted by: | June 20, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

McCardell, with the slow precise routes, sounds like that guy who use to play for the seahawks...what was his name..

It's that deceptive slowness...

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine the effect he'd have if he could teach someone like Santana the art of a precise route, it would be awesome!

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

It would probably help BL and RAE more, I think.

Maybe it would help Moss on shorter routes...
Moss adjusts to the ball so well imprecise routes may actually help him. But I'd be running Moss on posts and slants all day.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Another bonus to McCardell would be having him run routes against our secondary.

It would probably help their coverage immensely to have a crafty but slow receiver to practice against.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The thought of Soup connecting with Moss on the post.........again and again.

Where is Haiku man when you need him?

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I agree that it will make more of a difference to those guys, but the thought of Moss improving even more make me Salavea!

And I totally agree with the secondary comment, we're looking at you Mr.Rogers!

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm even hoping BL can turn things around.

With all the weapons at WR, I hope AS doesn't get too pass happy again.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Soup surveys defense
Stands tall in pocket, then throws...
Post route Moss, first down!

Sorry, guys it's the best I got.

Posted by: Redcoat subbing for HaikuMan | June 20, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Play Keenan on D,
Need "possession" cornerback!
(And your thoughts, Carlos?)

Posted by: HaikuMan | June 20, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I could line up at WR in the redzone.

Posted by: Sean Taylor | June 20, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Ask, ye shall receive!
Haiku the Magician! But...
I don't do rabbits.

Posted by: HaikuMan | June 20, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

With ARE behind centre, so could I!

Posted by: Jason Campbell | June 20, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I think BL will turn it around, if he doesn't he'll be in the CFL next season!

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Jason posted an article on the main page on Hollenbech.

Posted by: Stumped | June 20, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Time for TDawg to add his 2 cents.

Starting with Wacko Jacko. First, please stifle yourself, you sound like a moron. I live in Indiana and caught just about every ounce of coverage that the media gave to them during their Superbowl run (and trust me-- it was A LOT). Not to mention, I caught quite a few games (including the Skins one!) and analysis. Indy's D was horrible ALL SEASON long. Their defense did not step up until the superbowl because they stood to get a bonus. Every single newscaster in the area knew that they were a lazy bunch waiting for the big payday, while Manning (arguably the best QB in the game) tore it up. They won because their offense was amazing-- solid RB depth, reliable receivers, good TEs, and a stellar QB. They could've put high schoolers on the field for defense and the Colts still would've won the division.

Alas, I shall now taunt you a second time! (With a new post)...

Posted by: TDawg | June 20, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

RE: McCardell.

What's with all the negativity about him here?? Seriously, we gain a great locker room presence that can help to develop our younger guys and get Souperman and Bumbling-Brunell a reliable back-up receiver. Who cares if he doesn't score any TDs?? If he shakes BL out of his daze and provides some leadership, why NOT have him for the veteran minimum? It seems like a solid investment, though I agree that I'd like to see Thrash and Espy get some more playing time and BL go to the CFL.

And lastly, a fast-forward to next year's draft (in my last installment).

Posted by: TDawg | June 20, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I'm definitely biased with this last little rant here, but I think that the Skins have a sleeper #2 receiver for next year's draft that they might be able to snag as late as the 3rd or 4th round depending on next season.

Look up the stats on 6'7" James Hardy of Indiana University. The guy is a force in the Big 10-- and he's big, fast, and a monster on the field and would be an excellent #2 receiver to balance speedy Moss the fellow Hoosier ARE. Just a thought. Check him out. I think he'd be a great fit for the Skins.

Posted by: TDawg | June 20, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

At 6'7" 216lbs, he'd have to have a Todd Pinkston type body wouldn't he??

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. He's a brute, but man-- his speed kills; he burned the secondary of Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan, which is not an easy task (and he's stayed healthy so far).

More info on some of his stats:

Posted by: TDawg | June 20, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Ha, Dan Pierson answered my question at (bottom one):

Posted by: TDawg | June 20, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Todd Stinkston only weighed about 170 soaking wet. But I think one football player from Hoosierville is more than enough. #85 has to play better this year, its sickening what we have gotten in return for a 10M signing bonus and 2 draft picks.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Good work TDawg!

If that bloke has a decent 40 time, I'd say he'll get taken higher than 3rd or 4th round!

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

he burned the secondary of Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan, which is not an easy task

Did you see the bowl games last year? Big 10 was horrendous.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I have a question, why the reference to "bowl" all the time? Superbowl, Worldbowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl etc. I think America is the only place that uses the reference?

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Nevermind, from Wikipedia -

In the USA, a bowl game is traditionally a post-season college football game; however the term "bowl" has become synonymous with a major football event and variations of the traditional post-season match-up between two successful college teams do exist. In college football parlance, the term "bowl" can also be used as a verb: as in a successful team going "bowling". The term "bowl" originated from the Rose Bowl Stadium, site of the first post-season college football games. The Rose Bowl stadium takes its name and bowl-shaped design from the Yale Bowl, the prototype of many football stadiums in the United States.

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

TDawg, next years draft???? Skins news really is slow when we start talking about next years draft.....

Posted by: Lisa | June 20, 2007 11:37 PM | Report abuse

There's just not much else we can talk about, I think we've exhausted the McCardell angle for now.

Posted by: kost52 | June 20, 2007 11:51 PM | Report abuse

We could talk about what circumstances would lead Hamster Nation to call for the return of Scott Brunell...
I know there are a few of you who will actually commit hara-kiri if it happens, but you have to consider the possibility that Campbell will have some struggles. And he will get confused and throw some picks. And the team can't afford to play the whole season max-protect like they did last year.
In short, there are going to be some rough spots. I'm a big Campbell fan, but if it was easy anyone could do it.

Posted by: cload and daggar | June 21, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

cload - I think he will probably be given 4-5 games, and if after that Joe decides that JC's play is directly causing us to lose games, then he'll give Brunell a call.

I would have no problem if they left Souperman at the helm for the entire season regardless of how he plays, but that's just not going to happen.

I do think though, that he'll be fine, and will end up starting all 16 games, have a QB rating in the mid 80's, he won't make the Pro-Bowl, but will get a mention in the voting.

Posted by: kost52 | June 21, 2007 12:20 AM | Report abuse

I'm snatching up kost's explanation. The McCardell story is exhausted, we know about LaVar and have talked about him, and news is kinda slow until camp picks back up. I'm jes trying to do my part to get toward the 100K! Next year's draft still seems dreamy and magical, though I suppose it downplays any potential problems/ successes we might run into this season!

Say, I'll be visiting ol' MD this weekend-- anyone gonna be around Frederick this Saturday night? I *might* be around, we could show those NYC blokes how we roll in the Old State Line.

Posted by: TDawg | June 21, 2007 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Or, we could list all the available 285-305 lb. DE prospects for Jack.
Or maybe his idea of an upgrade is "anyone we don't have".

So Mr. Jack, I don't want to hate on you, but you have to be a little more specific about how you want to go about upgrading the d line. I think that Carter and Griffin are solid starters in their positions -- at least, from a salary cap perspective, we have to roll with them. I think that Golston is a possible quality starter at DT -- if you look at his prospect profile coming out of college, it was his health that caused him to slip, not his talent. Montgomery as a backup DT hasn't had a chance to really prove himself one way or the other, but ultimately there's only so much tinkering you can do without purely guessing.
So that leaves Left DE. If you can find someone near 280/290/300 who can take on the RT/TE against the run and provide some decent push on passing downs, then let's start talking about a deal. I know KK doesn't think we can afford to sign anyone, but I'll bet we can figure something out.
I know there's some risk involved in leaning on Daniels, but you need to convince me that there's a better option out there.

Posted by: cload and daggar | June 21, 2007 12:25 AM | Report abuse

The Saints just released a DE, and he's a big'un too, 300lbs. But he's 34, and on the downside of his career, I don't see him being an upgrade, maybe a depth move, but not an improvement.

Posted by: kost52 | June 21, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

So -- put yourself in Gibbs' shoes -- what do you look for to make the decision to pull Campbell?

Posted by: cload and daggar | June 21, 2007 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, this is a tough one, but I have to say that I'm going to put my trust in Joe-- I think that our secondary is pretty good right now, and I think that we have a solid linebacker corp, with Marcus Washington becoming a pass rusher now and LFB holding things down in the middle. I'm hoping that our guys on the D-Line step it up, but cload's right-- we don't have too many options now.

... hence the "next year's draft" talk! :-D

Posted by: TDawg | June 21, 2007 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Oy, this FO. We spend all of last year getting speedy downfield receivers, yet suffered because we had a quarterback who nullified that capacity by having the throwing arm of something between a wet noodle and a plastic spoon. Now that we have a guy with a cannon in as our primary quarterback, we start looking at overdrawn-at-the-athletic-bank 37-year-old 'possession' receivers that's probably only good for a short gain between Geritol tablets every game? Sheesh.

As to comments about the condition of the D-line, I could harp again, but it's pointless. I have my lingering doubts about the depth and capacity of the D-line to make a concerted interior rush to take the double-teaming off the ends. However, we haven't the salary cap to fish out anyone decent at this point, so it's going to be a null argument. We just have to resort to praying that Griffin doesn't get injured, and that what we have on defense is enough.

Ah, yes, to be a Skins fan on this blog - countering hopeless optimism with the cynical fears that nothing has changed, despite every effort made to do so....

Posted by: FlimFlam | June 21, 2007 12:37 AM | Report abuse

I think that pulling Campbell would be a catastrophic mistake-- we know he has potential and is making progress, but to put Brunnell in there to replace him??? I'm not sure that screen passes and little shuffles are gonna take us to the playoffs or to a season of .500. Heck, I'd almost rather see Casey Bramlet take over instead of Brunell!

In an ideal world though, Campbell will stay solid, our receivers will step up and Gibbs will rely on what he called "core Redskins values" of running the ball down the gut to loosen up the noose on Campbell.

I say if he's injury-free, let him go 16 games and see what happens for better or worse and address it next off-season (or perhaps we already have with Jordan Palmer?)

Posted by: TDawg | June 21, 2007 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Cload - It will depend on the overall team play as well. I would say he has a little equation in his head which would be something along the lines of, is keeping JC in there for experience a better chance to be beneficial overall compared to the chance of Brunell getting us into the playoffs this year.

Posted by: kost52 | June 21, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

The only reason I think there is a chance JC will get pulled is because we're not a team in a situation like SF or ARI, where any improvement is what is required. For us, with an aging team, we need a playoff run. I think if we finish 8-8, the team will be disappointed.

I think that if we're playing good football, and we're a chance for the playoffs, but JC is turning the ball over a lot, the may bring in Brunell.

Posted by: kost52 | June 21, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Just a reminder-- Peyton Manning threw 29 picks his rookie season.

Posted by: TDawg | June 21, 2007 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Yeah I know, I just think that because we aren't in a rebuilding mode, JC will be on a shorter leash than other young QB's. Although I suppose the other Manning has never been dragged. So maybe I'm wrong, who knows!

Posted by: kost52 | June 21, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse


Thank you, everyone in hear just swallows the party line and assumes because the coaches say they are confident in what by all measurable accounts is a putrid D-line that everything is gonna be ok. I too hope this will be a good season but don't piss down my back and call it rain, our D-line stinks and they did nothing about it. I'm not a scout so I don't know that Golston and Monte aren't gonna develop, I do know that 6th and 7th rounders rarely become productive long term starters and I think the fact that we gave up 4.5 yds/carry and got 19 sacks with Golston starting indicates how pitiful our depth was not how good he is. Also, not being a scout I don't know how is available, I do know that I would rather have Sam Adams or Jimmy Kennedy, I also know there were several ends available in FA and we didn't sign a single one. I'm just trying to wake you delusional people up to the fact that another great safety and some middle of the pack corners and an old middle linebacker isn't going to make us a top 10 defense again. Will we be better? Yes. Will we be good? Don't know... Will we be elite again? Not a snowballs chance in that hot place..

Posted by: Jack | June 21, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

guys....get off the d-line thing.Everyone from fans to the media thinks they have this thing figured out.For those who actually feel that our coaching staff has no clue of what they are doing,you have no clue.These guys are here to win and they will.Williams and Gibbs have put their trust and accountability in this unit.Bottom line here is let it go and if we/they fail,have your fun.The pickup of Keenan is a solid move.No offense the James,but we do need a solid possession receiver.He is a guy who can move the chains.

Posted by: old school | June 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh you guys and the verdamnt D-line.

They have TWO PROMISING DRAFT PICK TACKLES. They have a potential all-pro Tackle if the injury problem can be overcome. They have a pass rushing defensive end and recent 1st round draft pick. Who hadn't played defensive end for awhile and is a bit small. They have TONS of good linebackers. So ... maybe they are thinking 3-4-4? Do you think they could "scare up" enough guys for that?

The backfield IS most important. If it isn't ask yourself the following. Of the 2 high round draft picks the Skins lost, Champ Bailey and LaVar Arrington which HURT THE TEAM MOST when they left? In spite of what people say about LaVar as soon as he replaced Holdman the level of defensive play picked up significantly. They got into the playoffs. He definitely was NOT a BOZ.

Nevertheless Bailey (and he too has injury problems) hurt the most when the lost him. In fact they really could use both he and Springs + Smoot and Rogers to field a decent defense.

Those skill players on defense are CRITICAL. Look at how important some of these guys turn out to be? They are the ones who turn defenses around from one year to the next. That's just the facts of life in the NFL. Both Snyder and Jones signed a guy who was considered the best of the best not too long ago. Can you remember who he was?

Now McCardell. He would have been a decent replacement for Art Monk. But Gibbs overlooked the guy ... cut him before even giving him a chance. So ... maybe he can help Loyd and Randle El with their respective games. A hell of a character guy!! A MISTAKE by Gibbs.

They DO NEED someone. Marty fired Charley Taylor (CT). Monk isn't a coach. Neither is Gary Clark. Roy Jefferson is gone. Bobby Mitchell is gone. Ricky Sanders? Who do you call? Maybe Keenan McCardell?

Sheesh do you really believe he could be worst than wasted 1st rounders Westbrook and Gardner? Vince Lombardi is rolling over in his grave reading this blog. He's the one who first found and coached Brown and Harraway and made them into the Redskin's greatest running tandem. He sure as hell would never have passed up a McCardell.

Posted by: periculum | June 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

2 words: Brandon Lloyd.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Why are we not attempting to get any kind of Dline help, Darwin Walker sounds to be affordable and capable. We still need a stud, but we also need some dline depth, too. Gregg Williams is an idiot. Many scouts last year, figured out how to pick apart his defense. Everyone says that we need to depend on our corners to get coverage sacks, but does anyone know how hard it is to stay with a receiver forever. Plus how about getting mistakes and interceptions, cuz we are bugging the QB. We have the highest payroll, the oldest coaches and the worst record and what exactly has changed from last year, adding smoot and fletcher, cmon, I think we can do better.

Posted by: mhartz1 | June 21, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I'd have to say any move to bring in keyshawn or Mcardell is a mistake. James Thrash has made big plays everytime he's been called upon to do so. One of the young receivers will step up this year and grab a roster spot, and I'm fine with that. We don't need no stinkin WR's. We run the ball 90% of the time anyway. Any more than 3 WR's is a waste.

Posted by: Max | June 25, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company