Network News

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

Medlock signed to challenge Gano for place kicking dutites

The Redskins were expected to bring in place kickers to challenge Graham Gano in training camp, and it appears Justin Medlock could be among the group.

The team today announced the signing of Medlock, whom the Kansas City Chiefs selected in the fifth-round of the 2007 draft. Kansas City released Medlock after the 2007 season opener.

The former UCLA All-American spent the 2008 offseason and training camp with the St. Louis Rams. Medlock, 26, made 40 of 46 field-goal attempts, including a long of 52 yards, last season for the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League.

By Jason Reid  |  February 12, 2010; 5:15 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ray Wright hired as strength and conditioning coach
Next: Darrell Green turns 50 with a burst of speed

Comments

cool.

Posted by: Bigfoot_has_a_posse | February 12, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Some Drama, at last - I personally liked Gano - pretty good kick offs, and he seemed to have a nice leg.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | February 12, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Kicking "dutites" ??? :)

Posted by: Lisa_R | February 12, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

choice typo if ever...

Posted by: _Stumped_ | February 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Once Gano was signed, did the offense ever get close enough for him to attempt a field goal??

Posted by: RedskinJim1 | February 12, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I thought Gano performed well and showed a big leg on kick offs. My fear is that Danny Smith will mess him up with direction kicking. Just let the guy kick it through the end zone, Duh.

Posted by: VegasJim | February 12, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I was reading about one of his techniques - muscle confusion - .....

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 12, 2010 3:36 PM
==========================
Now we know what was wrong with JC...

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | February 12, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Looks like he was signed out of medlock.

Thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Rypien11 | February 12, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Wow, some Actual News up here, and on a Friday afternoon, to boot.

Too bad I was attending to my work dutites and missed all the hoo-hah.

Posted by: NateinthePDX | February 12, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Nate,

I'm out of town this coming week. But after that = 4xBeer[cubed].

Posted by: _Stumped_ | February 12, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

=brain confusion.

Posted by: _Stumped_ | February 12, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Stumped, you know I'm not that strong with the maths, but that aside, I agree with the plan to prove that equation of yours in a serious lab experiment. However many rounds it may take.

Posted by: NateinthePDX | February 12, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of serious lab experiments, how are the kids?

Mine are like some kind of invasive species...kudzu comes to mind.

Posted by: _Stumped_ | February 12, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of kids, I gotta run and join the family, but I'll be back online later and might just regale you with the tale of the five-year-old who cut his own hair the other day...

Posted by: NateinthePDX | February 12, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Peace.

Posted by: _Stumped_ | February 12, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Medlock???

Isn't he a little old?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | February 12, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

No to...
Pierce
Porter

Yes to...
Dansby
Foote

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Dansby is coming here.

You heard it here first.

Posted by: Rypien11 | February 12, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Medlock???

Isn't he a little old?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | February 12, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse


He can make up for his limited range with his sleuthing crime fighting abilities.

I have an idea for the pilot episode. It stars Kareem Moore and the working title is "The case of the missing football". In this episode the football is stolen from Kareem by a very unlikely person. The thief turns out to be a saint.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | February 12, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Dansby is coming here.

You heard it here first.

Posted by: Rypien11 | February 12, 2010 8:16 PM

or 378th

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The Giants appear to be the front runner for Dansby, but if Shanny and Allen want him Danny will pay the freight.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I have an idea for the pilot episode. It stars Kareem Moore and the working title is "The case of the missing football". In this episode the football is stolen from Kareem by a very unlikely person. The thief turns out to be a saint.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | February 12, 2010 8:21 PM |

Nice!
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | February 12, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The Giants appear to be the front runner for Dansby, but if Shanny and Allen want him Danny will pay the freight.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse


I think with the release of Pierce, the Giants can guarantee Dansby more PT and a more central role in their defense. I don't see where the Skins make room for him.

Posted by: p1funk | February 12, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The four most common draft mistakes
The NFL Draft is one big crap shoot? Not if you listen to me.

By Todd McShay
Scouts, Inc.

This article appears in the Feb. 22 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

An NFL scout recently told me, "Even after all these years, we don't have a Moneyball formula for success. But we are getting closer." Until then, the NFL draft will remain about as unscientific as any sports endeavor. As long as scouts and GMs have to scramble to evaluate roughly 1,000 college football players at four different levels, every now and then a Pierre Garçon (Mount Union, sixth-round pick) is going to have more catches in one season than a Mike Williams (USC, first round) will have in a career.

So what's that scout talking about? Well, just because there's no secret to guaranteeing a sweet draft doesn't mean there aren't some must-follow tendencies that can help avoid disasters. As we head to the scouting combine, which starts on Feb. 24, then on to draft day, here are some mistakes the know-it-all suits shouldn't make. (But most assuredly will.)


1. They will ignore the big four. At the top of the draft, four crucial positions -- QB, offensive tackle, cornerback and pass- rusher -- should trump all others. It's a supply- and-demand thing. As the league's emphasis on passing puts those positions at an ever-greater premium, the elite talent pool at those spots remains basically the same. Notice wide receivers aren't included on this A-list. You can get them anytime. Two of this season's top five wideouts -- Miles Austin and Wes Welker -- weren't even drafted. On the other hand, all five of 2009's leaders in QB ratings were among the first 33 picks. Catchers depend on passers, not the other way around.

Look at this season's Super Bowl teams. At the big-four positions, the Saints and Colts combined to produce five Pro Bowlers. The average draft position of those guys was 44; two were first-rounders, two others early second-rounders. The teams generated nine more Pro Bowlers from the other positions. Those guys were drafted, on average, with the 80th pick, not including Colts center Jeff Saturday, who was undrafted. The Chargers (five of their past six first-rounders played one of the big-four positions) get it. The Lions (four wideouts and a linebacker in the top 10 between 2003 and 2007) don't.

So while All-America safety Eric Berry is tempting, the St. Louis Rams shouldn't think twice about snatching a defensive tackle, Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy, at No. 1. A combo of Suh and, say, LSU safety Chad Jones (a likely second-round pick) will win more games than Berry and, say, second-round DT Dan Williams will.

Posted by: TWISI | February 12, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

This article appears in the Feb. 22 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

An NFL scout recently told me, "Even after all these years, we don't have a Moneyball formula for success. But we are getting closer." Until then, the NFL draft will remain about as unscientific as any sports endeavor. As long as scouts and GMs have to scramble to evaluate roughly 1,000 college football players at four different levels, every now and then a Pierre Garçon (Mount Union, sixth-round pick) is going to have more catches in one season than a Mike Williams (USC, first round) will have in a career.

So what's that scout talking about? Well, just because there's no secret to guaranteeing a sweet draft doesn't mean there aren't some must-follow tendencies that can help avoid disasters. As we head to the scouting combine, which starts on Feb. 24, then on to draft day, here are some mistakes the know-it-all suits shouldn't make. (But most assuredly will.)


1. They will ignore the big four. At the top of the draft, four crucial positions -- QB, offensive tackle, cornerback and pass- rusher -- should trump all others. It's a supply- and-demand thing. As the league's emphasis on passing puts those positions at an ever-greater premium, the elite talent pool at those spots remains basically the same. Notice wide receivers aren't included on this A-list. You can get them anytime. Two of this season's top five wideouts -- Miles Austin and Wes Welker -- weren't even drafted. On the other hand, all five of 2009's leaders in QB ratings were among the first 33 picks. Catchers depend on passers, not the other way around.

Look at this season's Super Bowl teams. At the big-four positions, the Saints and Colts combined to produce five Pro Bowlers. The average draft position of those guys was 44; two were first-rounders, two others early second-rounders. The teams generated nine more Pro Bowlers from the other positions. Those guys were drafted, on average, with the 80th pick, not including Colts center Jeff Saturday, who was undrafted. The Chargers (five of their past six first-rounders played one of the big-four positions) get it. The Lions (four wideouts and a linebacker in the top 10 between 2003 and 2007) don't.

So while All-America safety Eric Berry is tempting, the St. Louis Rams shouldn't think twice about snatching a defensive tackle, Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy, at No. 1. A combo of Suh and, say, LSU safety Chad Jones (a likely second-round pick) will win more games than Berry and, say, second-round DT Dan Williams will.

Posted by: TWISI | February 12, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

2. They will be seduced by looks. Scouts, GMs, even esteemed members of the media get too wrapped up in 40 times and 225-pound bench press reps. In many cases -- see: Smith, Akili; Jones, Matt; Gholston, Vernon -- superhuman physical gifts make usually rational minds race with possibilities. It's why you'll hear about Tim Tebow playing H-back soon. Too often, scouts think a freakish body automatically translates into freakish success. It doesn't.

I've heard the buzz as it happens. Did you see that?! The furor overwhelms reasonable analysis. Mistakes and shortcomings that pop up on film or the police blotter fade into the background. Coaches are especially optimistic about being able to turn raw athletic ability into refined production. They think they can take special athletes and coach 'em to become special football players. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, guys like Clay Matthews and Austin Collie slide down the draft board, then make an immediate impact. The same arc will be followed this year by Texas WR Jordan Shipley and Penn State DT Jared Odrick. Neither will be a combine terror. They'll be happy to make their noise in the NFL.

3. They will pay no mind to minds. As one scout told me recently, "You can't win with dumb players in the NFL anymore." This Jeff George-inspired rule isn't so much about human intelligence as football intelligence, not book-smart guys but playbook-smart guys.

And yet book-smart evaluators still pay too much attention to academic All-America teams and the Wonderlic test. A 4.0 GPA or 40 on the Wonderlic doesn't necessarily mean a player will be able to read a screen or outfox a defender. Savvy GMs know the least-seen part of a player's combine performance, the personal interview, is the most important gauge. To be fair, more front office people are watching film with players and giving them pop quizzes to see what they've got between their earholes.

The importance of mental agility is starting to sink in. Rey Maualuga had first-round athleticism but slid to the second because teams saw the blunders he made in diagnosing plays and how he relied too much on raw ability to compensate. Maualuga had a solid rookie season for the Bengals (63 tackles), but it is now clear why he was the third USC LB drafted in 2009.

Here's a good test for this season's GMs. Watch where South Florida DE Jason Pierre-Paul goes in comparison to Georgia Tech DE Derrick Morgan. Pierre-Paul is a physical freak, and a team may get flak for passing him by to get to Morgan. But what that team will know is that Morgan is far more versatile and game aware than his counterpart, who hasn't shown much more than pure pass-rushing ability.

Posted by: TWISI | February 12, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

4. They will choose need over value. Everyone who has a say in a team's draft starts with the idea that the biggest holes need to be filled first. It's a fair philosophy in a football utopia. But in the real world, hole-filling can't be the only -- or primary -- factor in determining which guy to take.

Look at what the Vikings did in the 2007 draft. After scoring only 17.6 ppg, they needed help on the offensive line, a replacement for QB Brad Johnson and a serious upgrade over No. 1 receiver Travis Taylor. The only solid spot in the offense, in fact, was running back, where 27-year-old Chester Taylor had gained 1,504 yards from scrimmage. But necessity didn't force Minnesota to reach for Brady Quinn or Ted Ginn Jr. at No. 7. Instead, they went with the best value on the board, some kid named Peterson. Think they wish they'd gone a different way?

The Colts are the NFL's best at balancing value and need. In the past four drafts (despite picking after the big-four positions have been poached), they've gone 4-for-4 with top choices: RB Joseph Addai, WR Anthony Gonzalez, OG Mike Pollak and RB Donald Brown. None was a sexy choice. All offered bang for the buck at the spot they were chosen. If team president Bill Polian also filled team needs, well, that was a nifty bonus. More to his point, a perennial contender restocked its shelf with starting-caliber players.

The Bills sit on the opposite side of this balancing act. They've consistently targeted need over value and failed miserably. From 2006 to 2008, the Bills reached for DT John McCargo, RB Marshawn Lynch and CB Leodis McKelvin. Not one of them was a starter by the end of this past season. That's a drafting disaster. Buffalo fans had best hope their team has learned its lesson as it debates whether to reach for QB Jimmy Clausen at No. 9. It's a position of need, for sure, but, personally, I see him as the No. 28 prospect in the draft. Buffalo would be better off taking a top offensive tackle, Oklahoma's Trent Williams or Rutgers' Anthony Davis. A QB like Colt McCoy or Tony Pike will be waiting for them later.

And if all else fails, they can try to trade with the Raiders.

Posted by: TWISI | February 12, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't usually watch the Olympic openings, but this one boggles the mind.

Posted by: RomoLongballs | February 12, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 12, 2010 9:53 PM

Easy..You cut the slow, overpaid, and malcontent of a RB. Take the financial hit now and sign Dansby.

That’s the beauty of an uncapped season, get out from all the horrendous contracts and start over. But they only have this offseason to do it.

There will be football in 2011. Even football isn’t recession proof, and nobody wants to hear about billionaires arguing with multi millionaires during a recession. So I foresee a salary cap in 2011.

March 5 cuts
Portis - future is as a one-cut situational runner with no speed who can pass block, if LT can be cut then Portis should even if he had a reasonable contract (which he doesn’t).
ARE- nuff said
R. Thomas (cut or injury settlement)
Samuels (see R.T)
Betts (more of the same)
Sellers – worthless
Collins- old
Smoot- gonzo
Hall-?, I cut him, this was a top 3 Vinny blunder.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Hall-?, I cut him, this was a top 3 Vinny blunder.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 10:41 PM

Can't see how you cut Hall on March 5th. If you cut Hall, it must be after you find his replacement in FA or the draft. IMO, you bite the bullet on Hall since he is a play maker and keep him.

================

Nice post(s) TWISI. Would have been nice to have that article sent to VinDanny years ago.

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 12, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

The four most common draft mistakes
The NFL Draft is one big crap shoot? Not if you listen to me.

By Todd McShay
Scouts, Inc.
=================

Okay, tanks for all that, TWISI.

The NUMBER ONE draft mistake is listening to what a dope like Todd McShay is typing.

Clausen will not only go in the first round, he'll be drafted in the top 10. And McFail doesn't even have Clausen going in the first round.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | February 12, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Curz-

Blache’s zone-heavy scheme was utilized to essentially protect against DeAngelo Hall's weaknesses, man coverage and tackling. He played in 13 games last year and had FOUR picks while whiffing on tackles and getting beaten several times a game. He’s paid like a top 5 corner and he isn’t in the top 20. So Hall is the one who Vinny Cerrato committed all the money to, and the Redskins have to live with that, unless Danny wants to right a big check.

Here is three UFAs to consider: Dunta Robinson, Nick Harper, & Leigh Bodden.

The only caveat to judging the personnel on the D is that Blache was such a mediocre DC that the D can only play better individually and as a whole with a competent DC.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I count 8 teams drafting after us who need QBs:

Seattle
Cleveland
Oakland
Buffalo
Jacksonville
Denver
San Fran(they are a QB away from being consistent playoff contenders)
Carolina

Not surprisingly, all these teams are drafting in the top half of the draft.

This trend will continue...

The Rams have spent 4 of the last 5 first round selections in the trenches: 2OL and 2DL. They seriously need to take Clausen or Bradford, and NOT another linemen, unless they wanna keep drafting top 5!

With only one QB with a first round grade available, we can make a trade with any of those 8 teams. WE only need 1 outta those 8 teams to believe they can get their Franchise QB.

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Greg Blache never mixed up his schemes and it never took long for opposing offenses to figure it out.

Eli Manning knew what Blache's defense was gonna do every play.

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

With only one QB with a first round grade available, we can make a trade with any of those 8 teams. WE only need 1 outta those 8 teams to believe they can get their Franchise QB.


`


assuming the Rams take Clausen or Bradford

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

your mom's a dutite!

Posted by: RomoLongballs | February 12, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Diesel, would you still cut Hall if he was paid more appropriate to his play?

I hear what you are saying, but w/5 draft picks and UFA pool smaller (at least early in FA, I think that after training camp starts and teams start to cut down that more options would be available) you don't cut Hall on March 5th.

Once his replacement in in house, then I have no problem cutting him. The only reason I cut him on March 5th is if he is owed a signing bonus and the plan is to move on.

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 12, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

With only one QB with a first round grade available, we can make a trade with any of those 8 teams. WE only need 1 outta those 8 teams to believe they can get their Franchise QB.

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:18 PM
=================================
good post, Vicc..
And general consensus has Cleveland and Jacksonville the deepest in OLine talent. Lets make a deal.

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | February 12, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I went thru it before, the top teams all draft players in roughly the same proportion. 1/3 on the lines, 1/4 in the secondary and 15% at LB.

You can draft with need in mind. Peterson example is hardly the norm. Any fool can find an example to make a point.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 12, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Hall is a keeper.

Diesel44 is right that he is not top 20, in fact he's not even top 32.

Hall is a great #2 corner at best.

We as fans need to stop comparing pay with play. It's not fair to the players and quite frankly their salary is none of our business!

Damn the media for endangering athletes by glorifying their salary!

Hopefully no salary cap will stop this fan obsession with their pay. Teachers need more pay, entertainers need less pay. Of course we're the perpetrators, life is not fair. blah blah blah

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 12, 2010 11:24 PM

"Hall-?, I cut him, this was a top 3 Vinny blunder"

That's why I put the ? in there. I'm more interested in the 2011 season and beyond.

This roster compounded with an overall weak FA pool due to an uncapped season and with currently only 5 picks is headed for a 6-8 win season.

If 2011 is a capped year why not purge the roster of Vinny and Dan’s mistakes and start with Shanny and Allen’s guys. We as fans (not me or probably you) are use to making a splash in the offseason and believing that we are 1-2 players a way. This is why we are 10+ games under .500 in the last 10 years.

2010 should be about rebuilding and if that means 1 step back to take 2 steps forward in 2011…then sign me up.

To answer your question if Hall was paid like Lito Sheppard, I would keep him.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Vicc recently said "the macksquito comes around to insult others AND offer no football or Redskin insight.
Hey mack1...talk about sports much?"

THEN the macksquito offers:

Maybe he can do something with that noodle armed Andre Carter.

Posted by: mack1 | February 12, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse


`

U know mack1, on second thought, don't quit your day job buddy...i mean what type of noodles is Andre Carter armed with? Pasta, Lasagna? What's he gonna do with them?

mack1, i hate to say it but I'm more impressed with your knowledge, or rather lack thereof, on politics. hehe

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

the only way we can cut Hall is if
1. we sign a solid replacement like Dunta Robinson
2. we decide to keep Rogers
3. we use a mid round pick on a corner and get very lucky

our reserves who would have to move up are Tryon and Barnes.. you have confidence in them to be at least a nickel corner ? how about westbrook ? Smoot is worthless now.

the Eagles replaced BOTH starting corners (taylor and vincent) one year with Brown and Sheppard, so it can be done.. but they used the top of their draft to do it. we dont have that kind of flexibility with our other needs.. so what this means is that we can assume we keep one corner already on our roster to start, and must replace the other via free agency, while hoping we have at least one decent reserve corner already on our roster..

more likely, we can assume corner is a priority in 2011..

my guess is we tender Rogers and let him go if someone else gives us a 3rd rounder for him.. otherwise, he stays for a year. if he goes, we have to keep Hall for a year, while we turn the 3rd rounder into a corner that is a faster learner than Barnes

if Rogers stays, you might get your wish to see Hall go, but it means we need to find a starting level corner in free agency.. who you want ??

Posted by: shally | February 13, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

if Slot receivers tend to be more smaller and quick type receivers then Tryon is well suited to be our nickel CB.

Tryon dramatically improved in year 2 from year 1.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Well Diesel, you're right about purging the roster of VinDanny's mistakes and the roster of over priced players now that the opportunity is there. And if Hall is not cut this year, how hard is it to cut him if/when a salary cap returns.

Like you, I am looking at beyond 2010 so now is the time to make the tough decisions to lay the ground work for the future even if it means agonizing through another 4-6 win season.

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 13, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: shally | February 13, 2010 12:04 AM

Posted by: shally | February 13, 2010 12:04 AM

I like the thought you applied to your post.

Here is three UFAs to consider: Dunta Robinson, Nick Harper, & Leigh Bodden.

Tyron (4th rd), Barnes (3rd rd), and Westbrook (undrafted) would have to step up.

I’d take a CB rotation of Robinson, Rodgers, Tyron, Barnes, and Westbrook.
To say salaries doesn’t matter is concept only appreciated by Vinny/Danny, especially when you can take a mulligan.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Well Diesel, you're right about purging the roster of VinDanny's mistakes and the roster of over priced players now that the opportunity is there.


`

Pardon my intrusion, but is there a difference between a VinDanny mistake and an overpaid player?

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

To say salaries doesn’t matter is concept only appreciated by Vinny/Danny, especially when you can take a mulligan.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM


`

I'm not sure if this was indirect response to what I said earlier...

But I feel like I should mention it again...What a person makes is none of our business!

Everytime a person learns what others are making, that person typically acts like a judgemental a-hole.

We might as well say every QB who is making more money than Drew Brees is overpaid!

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

mock draft analysis 205 draft boards

#1 - Suh 46%, Clausen 45%, Bradford 7%
#2 - Suh 51%, G.McCoy 36%, Okung 11%, Berry 1%
#3 - G.McCoy 45%, Berry 42%, Okung 5%, Suh 2%, Morgan 2%, Clausen 1%
#4 - Bradford 43%, Okung, 25%, Clausen 23%, G.McCoy 3%, Berry 3%, Campbell 1%
#5 - Okung 43%, Berry 23%, McClain 7%, Davis 6%, Campbell 5%, Williams 3%

Posted by: noonefromtampa | February 13, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Maybe we can start electing All-Pros, Pro-Bowlers, and HOFamers using a production versus pay type scale.

If DeAngelo Hall sucks, he sucks. If he's good, he's good. And that has nothing to do with how much he makes.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:27 AM

While I don't care what you make for drawing cartoons, I do care what a team pays a player when it affects the overall roster. If said player is not playing up to their contract then they should no longer be employed.

Does that make sense or would you understand if I draw you a cartoon and Yes Drew Brees will be soon be paid his worth. It works both ways.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

well it's official

it's snowed in 49 out of 50 states this winter

Posted by: noonefromtampa | February 13, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

I understand that Diesel44,

But who are we gonna get or lure to our team from the money we'll save from Portis and Hall's contract.

If there is one thing we should all know, it's that Danny can sign any player he wants to any contract irregardless of cap situation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040304

here's a small excerpt:

"Each year that Daniel Snyder owns the Washington Redskins, it becomes more difficult for me to believe in the NFL's "salary cap."

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Pardon my intrusion, but is there a difference between a VinDanny mistake and an overpaid player?

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:19 AM

Yes. The Redskins have put themselves in a position of having to overpay to get players to sign here. With a salary cap, these players contracts had to be re-worked sometimes multiple times in order to sign needed FAs.

Taking advantage of 2010's uncapped year and going with younger players that may not "cost" as much will help to change this philosophy (if doing so equals wins and playoffs in 2011 and beyond). More importantly, if the cap returns, then the Skins are in better shape if overpaid players are cut now.

Redskins have limited themselves because they too often overpaid for players, which is one of VinDanny's mistakes.

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 13, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Now I do want us to bring in players who want to earn money by playing their hearts out!

I only asked Curzon, b/c drafting Jason Campbell was a mistake, but he's not overpaid.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:44 AM

Blaming Snyder is sooo 2009. If the Redskins are going to succeed moving forward then it’s going to take Shanny and Allen getting rid of Vindanny’s mistakes.
Snyder will be the perfect owner with “FOOTBALL” people in house.

If you or anyone thinks anything differently then check back in 50 years when Snyder dies.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

I only asked Curzon, b/c drafting Jason Campbell was a mistake, but he's not overpaid.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:50 AM

Agree, but it is much easier to live with and get rid of a cheap mistake as opposed to an overpaid mistake.

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 13, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

"Blaming Snyder is sooo 2009..."

Posted by: Diesel44

*chuckle*

In Shanny and Allen we trust.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

I only asked Curzon, b/c drafting Jason Campbell was a mistake, but he's not overpaid.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 12:50 AM

Not overpaid, we overpaid to draft him...1, 3, & 4th.

Sorry Vicc, I like you...just chatting about foosball.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Curz-

Nice shooting the shat with someone who knows what they're talking about for a change.

Don't take such a long hiatus moving forward.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Pardon me, guys, but I disagree about letting Hall go. Look around at the secondary of last season and point out any player that really played lights out. You might say Doughty, but he disappeared at the end of the season. Rogers and Landry bit on double moves. Horton free lanced and got benched for it. Tryon improved but he also bit on some fakes. Smoot is getting slow and he let a few defenders get behind him. Nobody aside from Doughty and Horton tackled very well. When you have three former first rounders sitting in your secondary and those kind of mistakes were made, maybe the problem isn't the players involved. Maybe the problem is the scheme and the coaching. I, for one, was happy to see Jerry Gray go. As much as I hate to say it, Blache really disappointed me last year. His insistence on playing the corners so far from the line of scrimmage exposed the corners to more fakes and I just think it made it easier for receivers to blow right past them. I think the secondary play will improve dramatically with Slowik as the secondary coach and Haslett as the defensive coordinator - without changing the personnel, although I think Smoot might be in danger if he continues to slow down.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 13, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Just saw the Dolphins let Joey Porter go, but had to take him back because of the salary cap impact. They have to wait until March 5 to release him, when the salary cap disappears. The guy has an attitude but he is still a player, has a background in the 3-4 and I am sure the linebacker coach knows him well from Porter's days in Pittsburgh. Do you think he could be coming to the Redskins after the Dolphins officially cut him?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 13, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Do you think he could be coming to the Redskins after the Dolphins officially cut him?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 13, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

I was wondering that myself, but I doubt it. Porter became a malcontent in Miami b/c the coaches used Cameron Wake to cut into his playing time. He wants to be a full-time every snap player.

I don't think the Skins are going 3-4 full-time, and I don't see where he'd fit into a 4-3 scheme for this team.

Basically, coming here would be trading one part-time gig for another.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 13, 2010 8:24 AM |

Porter has too much of a me personality for my liking. I say pass.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 12, 2010 9:53 PM

Easy..You cut the slow, overpaid, and malcontent of a RB. Take the financial hit now and sign Dansby.

That’s the beauty of an uncapped season, get out from all the horrendous contracts and start over. But they only have this offseason to do it.

There will be football in 2011. Even football isn’t recession proof, and nobody wants to hear about billionaires arguing with multi millionaires during a recession. So I foresee a salary cap in 2011.

March 5 cuts
Portis - future is as a one-cut situational runner with no speed who can pass block, if LT can be cut then Portis should even if he had a reasonable contract (which he doesn’t).
ARE- nuff said
R. Thomas (cut or injury settlement)
Samuels (see R.T)
Betts (more of the same)
Sellers – worthless
Collins- old
Smoot- gonzo
Hall-?, I cut him, this was a top 3 Vinny blunder.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 12, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse


It's not just a $$ issue, it is a playing issue. The Giants cut Pierce and now they have a big opening in their LB corps. What do we do with Dansby if we sign him? Do we get rid of Orakpo, McIntosh or Fletcher? Do we use him as a part-time player in a 3-4 package?

My point is that the GMen can offer him more in terms of his role on the defense.


Also, what's the point in getting rid of Hall? That's STUPID. Who do we start in his place? Tryon? Westbrook? Barnes? Do we blow another draft pick on a corner?

He's a fine cornerback and the idiots who are calling him a "#2 corner" need to go ahead and name 32 cornerbacks that you'd start over him. Yes we overpaid for him, but CB is one of those positions that folks usually overpay for, and since we are going uncapped, the $$ doesn't matter anymore, right?

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

sum funny stuff,

"I have an idea for the pilot episode. It stars Kareem Moore and the working title is "The case of the missing football". In this episode the football is stolen from Kareem by a very unlikely person. The thief turns out to be a saint."

Man that's funny.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

p1funk wrote:

What do we do with Dansby if we sign him? Do we get rid of Orakpo, McIntosh or Fletcher

I say Rocky, he's not all that. Fletch is aging rapidly he's one offseason away from being too slow. I would rather a younger tackling machine be there.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

p1funk wrote:

What do we do with Dansby if we sign him? Do we get rid of Orakpo, McIntosh or Fletcher

I say Rocky, he's not all that. Fletch is aging rapidly he's one offseason away from being too slow. I would rather a younger tackling machine be there.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse


Dansby has been playing ILB in a 3-4 with AZ. If we give him Rocky's spot, then we're talking about converting him to a 4-3 weakside linebacker when we aren't in a 3-4 alingment.

Or he could go to NYG and be their starting middle linebacker right off the bat. Once again, I think the playing opportunity that NYG can offer him is more attractive.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

funk,

I agree with you, just trying to answer your earlier question. I also think the Giants are closer to winning than we are and of course that would be part of his decision too.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

moe,

weather report please!

I am obviously too far north. We received 5 inches of snow here in Myrtle Beach and it's a balmy 33 degrees now. We haven't had snow in years and rarely anything that sticks. The kids have enjoyed it, but what do they know?

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I'm trying to figure out why people thought Bryan Cushing was better than Orakpo. He played more, sure. But Orakpo is the impact guy.

Outside of those two, it wasn't much of a first round for pass rushers. Tyson Jackson didn't show much, BJ Raji came off the bench, Aaron Maybin might actually be a bust. Aaron Curry wasn't billed as a fierce rusher in the first place. Larry English has talent but we haven't seen much of it yet.

Maybe that's why teams are focusing on linemen this year. How good are Suh and McCoy? They're very good indeed. But the top two picks? Thatwould be a little hard to swallow in a normal year.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Cushing played more and didn't get as abused in pass coverage as Orakpo.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

http://www.hogshaven.com/2010/2/12/1307276/bills-strong-safety-donte-whitner?ref=CBS

I saw this on hogshaven last night. It's only a rumor, but I was like why would the Bills trade Whitner? Then I saw that Whitner is now 2nd string SS on the team. The second part would be why would the Skins want Whitner? Also, the Bills are looking for a veteran QB to compete with what they have on the team. A Whitner/Landry pairing would be strong.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"Pardon me, guys, but I disagree about letting Hall go."

Indeed.

If anything, after that dumb-azzed fight on the sidelines of the falcons' game, Mr. Hall needs to see himself more as a team player and less as a guy with a beef.

K Barnes needs some face time, and F Smoot replaced by a functional FA corner.

The team didn't take Greg Toler (a player it showed interest in before last year's draft) and took Barnes--a guy who looks like a player--meaning it had to have seen something in Barnes other than a highlight reel youtube hit.

J Tyron is a guy perfect for covering another team's slot receiver.

CR is the player who vexes us weekend talent evaluators.

You'd think by now, Carlos Rogers would be a great player to have considering that D Hall takes the weight of covering another team's stud receiver off his hands.

But like most things that have come near his hands, Rogers has dropped the opportunity to move up in status as one of the league's better corners.

But above all, the team's corners and safety groups could use two players who are pure: a real free safety and a real 'shut down' type corner.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

With the pundits insisting that DLs will go one and two in the draft, thought I'd take a look at defensive linemen taken in the top six since 2000. It's not an impressive crop. Best would be Mario Williams and two from the beginning of the decade, Julius Peppers and Richard Seymour. Two ends and one interior rusher.

Latest rumor has St Louis reaching for Bradford at number one. Hard to imagine with his injury history. Teams don't seem to have fallen in love with Clausen the way the Lions and Jets did with Stafford and Sanchez, perhaps because of Notre Dame's record. Stafford's senior year wasn't much to write home about, but he had the classic arm that scouts associate with success. Then again, so did Jeff George.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Cushing played more and didn't get as abused in pass coverage as Orakpo.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 13, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse


Cushing also had 133 tackles. Orakpo had 50.

By way of perspective/comparison, London Fletcher had 142 tackles.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Put it this way: I suspect that if Notre Dame had finished with 10 wins and a middling Bowl victory, Clausen would be the clear favorite for the top choice. Simply because he'd be the QB St Louis is looking for.

Of course, he's the same QB now that he would be then, but that's not how people think. They go by the won-loss record. Ask Archie Manning.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Cushing played more and didn't get as abused in pass coverage as Orakpo.Posted by: 1965skinsfan"

And despite playing a whole lot more, had seven fewer sacks.

Why would the number of tackles made (an artifact of the scheme and playing time) be more important than pressures and sacks?

Because the Skins decided to force Orakpo to play SAM linebacker.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

As Fletcher explained it after one game when he had a particularly high number of tackles: 'that's not necessarily a good thing.'

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"Cushing played more and didn't get as abused in pass coverage as Orakpo.Posted by: 1965skinsfan"

And despite playing a whole lot more, had seven fewer sacks.

Why would the number of tackles made (an artifact of the scheme and playing time) be more important than pressures and sacks?

Because the Skins decided to force Orakpo to play SAM linebacker.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse


Do you really need an explanation as to why "tackles" are a critically important stat for a linebacker?

Sacks and pressure are also a product of scheme - Orakpo got the vast majority of sacks when he went to hand-down DE on passing plays. Cushing did not line up in the same way.

Essentially Cushing gave up 7 fewer sacks for 83 more tackles.

Cushing also had 4 picks and 2 forced fumbles.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

As Fletcher explained it after one game when he had a particularly high number of tackles: 'that's not necessarily a good thing.'

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse


I'm sure he was saying that it's not necessarily a good thing for team defense. But when we are talking about the individual play of a defender it's a very good thing.

I'm not a pro defensive football coach, but I'm pretty sure the primary purpose of a linebacker is to "tackle the ball-carrier".

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"I'm not a pro defensive football coach, but I'm pretty sure the primary purpose of a linebacker is to "tackle the ball-carrier".
Posted by: p1funk"

Except when it isn't. For instance, when it's to take on a blocking TE so that someone else can make the tackle. Or close off the outside to funnel the play to the middle of the field. Or blitz to apply pressure to the QB.

Let's face it: the experiment of Orakpo at the SAM was made for reasons other than it was Orakpo's best position.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Except when it isn't. For instance, when it's to take on a blocking TE so that someone else can make the tackle. Or close off the outside to funnel the play to the middle of the field. Or blitz to apply pressure to the QB.

Let's face it: the experiment of Orakpo at the SAM was made for reasons other than it was Orakpo's best position.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse


Whether or not Orakpo is in the right position was not necessarily the point of the discussion.

We were talking about the validity of Cushing's body of work.

I'm not surprised that Cushing got DROY, but I was surprised that it was by such a wide margin.

But Cushing exceeded Orakpo's performance in pretty much ever statistical category except sack total.

Why is it that sack total ought to be the most important indicator for establishing the "impact" of a defensive player?

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why folks are pushing for Hall to be cut:

1) Yes...he was overpaid, but he was constantly around the ball and is makes agressive plays for INT's

2) He's weak in run support, but with an upgrade at Rogers' position, we could have formidable starting DB's.

3) We need depth at CB...Tryon came on a bit as a slot corner. Smoot is not as bad as some make him put to be but we need to get younger, bigger and faster.

SICWIDIT

Posted by: rickyroge | February 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"I'm trying to figure out why people thought Bryan Cushing was better than Orakpo. He played more, sure. But Orakpo is the impact guy."

That's what I said.

"Why is it that sack total ought to be the most important indicator for establishing the "impact" of a defensive player?Posted by: p1funk"

Didn't say it was. Didn't say Cushing was a poor player or had a poor season, either. It does appear that some folks here (and probably in the RoY voting) value stats like total tackles above other measures, like sacks and QB pressures. My question would be, why?

Fact is, Orakpo and Cushing are hard to compare. Cushing will probably remain right where he is, while Orakpo may well not. He'll probably wind up as a knuckle down pass rusher (if Goodell doesn't eliminate that)which is probably what he should have been all along.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Skins930 | February 13, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Certainly I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

I guess the simple answer that I'm presenting is that people thought Cushing was better than Rak because he statistically outperformed him in every category - except sacks.

Your statement that Orakpo is the "impact" guy certainly suggests that you value sack totals over/above any of the other things that linebackers do considering that was the one thing that Orakpo really excelled at.

I guess my question would be: "Why do you consider Orakpo to be the 'impact' guy over Cushing?"

According the Houston Texans website, Cushing led the team in tackles (133), sacks (they credit him with 5) and tied for first with INTs (4).

It would seem Cushing had a much bigger impact on defense for the Texans than Orakpo did for the Redskins.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Yes we overpaid for him, but CB is one of those positions that folks usually overpay for, and since we are going uncapped, the $$ doesn't matter anymore, right?

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 9:13 AM

I don't have time to adequately respond. Here's what I wrote last night.

Blache’s zone-heavy scheme was utilized to essentially protect against DeAngelo Hall's weaknesses, man coverage and tackling. He played in 13 games last year and had FOUR picks while whiffing on tackles and getting beaten several times a game. He’s paid like a top 5 corner and he isn’t in the top 20. So Hall is the one who Vinny Cerrato committed all the money to, and the Redskins have to live with that, unless Danny wants to right a big check.

Here is three UFAs to consider: Dunta Robinson, Nick Harper, & Leigh Bodden.

The only caveat to judging the personnel on the D is that Blache was such a mediocre DC that the D can only play better individually and as a whole with a competent DC.

That’s the beauty of an uncapped season, get out from all the horrendous contracts and start over. But they only have this offseason to do it.

There will be football in 2011. Even football isn’t recession proof, and nobody wants to hear about billionaires arguing with multi millionaires during a recession. So I foresee a salary cap in 2011.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Cushing is a better LB.

Orakpo is a better player.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

thanks for the link, Skins930..

Looks like Shanahan wants exactly what Jason Campbell isnt. Jason has inconsistent accuracy, no passion, and according to some.. He doesnt study the game to improve. If Shanahan watches game tape, he will see that JC, when on the sidelines, doesnt even study defensive formation photos between series of downs.

According to Lesley Visser;

"Shanahan explained what he wants in a quarterback, and Campbell would do well to listen up.

"I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution," said Shanahan. "I've been around a lot of leaders and they do it different ways -- Joe Montana, Steve Young and John Elway. But they all had a deep desire to be the best."

Shanahan likes his quarterbacks both aggressive and fearless. And he doesn't just draft one to have one. He waits.

So what will Redskins do? Draft a quarterback in the first round and offensive linemen with the next two picks? The Redskins have the fourth pick overall, but it's highly unlikely Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford will last that long. So is free agency the way to go?

What's out there? Campbell, a restricted free agent, had his best year statistically, but in the event that he doesn't win Shanahan's complete approval, would the 28-year-old take a one-year deal? There is Kyle Orton, Denver's restricted free agent who performed well, if not spectacularly. Matt Moore in Carolina played better than Jake Delhomme, beating the Giants, Saints and Vikings at the end of the season. It seems likely, though, that the Panthers will keep him tied up.

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | February 13, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

U know mack1, on second thought, don't quit your day job buddy...i mean what type of noodles is Andre Carter armed with? Pasta, Lasagna? What's he gonna do with them?

mack1, i hate to say it but I'm more impressed with your knowledge, or rather lack thereof, on politics. hehe

Posted by: Vicc | February 12, 2010 11:52 PM

Are you try to tell us the word "facetious" wasn't covered in your GED prep course?

Posted by: mack1 | February 13, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I believe we should have drafted Greg Toler ahead of Barnes last year in the third round

Im currently at Saint Paul College the same School Greg Toler came from and he is 6 ft 1 plus he runs a 4.33.. He might be the starting corner across from Cromartie next year!

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 13, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Yee-Haw good buddy. Every kicker needs competition going into camp. This is a nothing move unless the guy MEDLOCK proves to be the second coming of MARK MOSELEY. Is he a straight on kicker?

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 13, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"I believe we should have drafted Greg Toler ahead of Barnes last year in the third round"

Im currently at Saint Paul College the same School Greg Toler came from and he is 6 ft 1 plus he runs a 4.33.. He might be the starting corner across from Cromartie next year!

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 13, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Was at the gate at SAINT PAUL's last night admiring the sight. Always wanted to see the campus first hand. Unfortunately it was 8:45 p.m. so I didn't see much. The guard and I gassed about TOLER and WILLARD BAILEY. I'll never forget a REDSKINS scout on the draft team screaming in the backgroun d on draft-day t.v., "TOLER. TOLER, ***it" when VINNIE selected KEVIN BARNES with the third round pick.

I've followed GREG's progress in ARIZONA hoping against hope the coaches in PHOENIX were too stupid to see his talent. Alas, such was not the case.

You are right, he will be a fixture in the NFL for a long time while BARNES' memory goes a-glimmering. Be proud St.PAULS, you did well.

Listen to me REDSKINS brass, take TERRELL WHITEHEAD, ED WANG, ADRIAN TRACY and MATT McCRACKEN in the FA post-draft. These guys are all solid players that probably will get pushed out of this year's draft because of the flood of well-regarded underclassmen.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 13, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Your statement that Orakpo is the "impact" guy certainly suggests that you value sack totals over/above any of the other things that linebackers do considering that was the one thing that Orakpo really excelled at."

Hmmm... I guess I'm saying (not 'suggesting') that a really good pass rush is the fastest way for the defense to have an impact on a game. And Orakpo justified Charley Casserly's preseason eval as 'clearly the best pass rusher out there.'

Cushing had a great year. The Texans had a much better season overall than the Skins.

Maybe I'm just still disappointed that Blatche spent a year trying to make Orakpo into a SAM linebacker. I can understand why he did -- he had Carter in front of Brian and he needed a big guy to take on those TE blockers -- but you could see this is a special player.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

OK. So the plan is to cut Hall and make a run at one of the 3 UFAs you mention.

You can scratch Nick Harper off the list. When he was the No. 1 CB for the Titans with Finnegan out, the Titans secondary was the worst in the league. Plus he's 35 years old. I'd rather overpay Hall to be my No.1 CB than bring in that guy.

D. Robinson is nothing intriguing. Last year he had 64 tackles and no (none, as in zero) interceptions, compared to D.Hall 58 tackles and 4 ints. The Texans secondary was nothing to write home about.

L.Bodden had 55 tackles and 5 picks. Not exactly a stat line that is blowing away D.Hall.

None of those guys have the reputation of being shut-down corners, and if you bring them in to be your No.1 CB, then they are going to expect to be paid like No.1 CBs.

I watched almost all the Skins games last year, and Hall was the most consistent player in our secondary. He's not the surest tackler but he wasn't getting beaten "several times a game". You are thinking of Carlos Rogers.

He's still only 26 years old and he's got ProBowl potential. I'd rather overpay him and count on him to rediscover that form rather than send him packing and give another big contract to someone who isn't really better.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

One of the lesson's learned from the Saints is that a defense can cover a myriad of flaws if they can create turnovers. Hall is the only DB on the team that has shown a consistent ability to create turnovers when the opportunity is there. I'm not letting Hall go. He's heading into his prime years, and I'd bank that his best football is ahead of him.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

From Devin Thomas's blog

Can’t Keep My Mind Off Football
February 11, 2010

I am excited about having Coach Shanahan take over the team. The way I look at it, it’s like Phil Jackson taking over the Lakers. We have so much talent, now we have a leader who will make sure that talent produces on the field. You couldn’t ask for a better coach to represent our team.

Everyone knows about Coach Shanahan’s success and his ability to build a team and put a plan into action. When you have a great leader, his attitude trickles down through the players. It starts at the top and works its way to the bottom. The coach reflects the team. Look at the Steelers, they have a tough, defensive minded coach and they’re a tough, defensive minded team.

Coach Shanahan is a disciplined, well respected coach, he will make sure we don’t keep having problems with penalties and that everyone is in the right places at the right time. With him on the field and Bruce Allen in the front office I think we’re going to surprise some people next season.

For me, it’s great to have another year under my belt, another year toward getting into that comfort zone on the field. I take away from my experience everything I can, so next year I’ll have an edge to help us win any way I can. We lost a lot of close games, some devastating losses. We don’t want to repeat that next year. It’s like in college, from freshman to senior year, you’re naturally more mature and able to handle situations better with experience.

I’m so excited I’m already starting to hit the weights pretty hard. The Super Bowl was here in Miami, and being around that atmosphere and the buildup before the game makes you want to be in the same position the Saints and Colts were in. Tracy Porter is a guy I know, I can relate to him and he’s a Super Bowl champion.

I’m ready to play this game the way it needs to be played to get us into the playoffs. I’ve already called my guy at the gym to tell him I’m ready to get back into it. You want to take your mind off the game for a while, but right now, with a new coach, everything is so crystal clear for the upcoming season as to what kind of success we can have.

I can’t keep my mind off football.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I originally put a ? besides Hall, as in something to consider.

He had 4 picks in 13 games. The phrase playmaker is an overused term unless you apply it in this manner. For example if the other team needs to make a play then throw at Hall. Jarirus Byrd, Asante Samuel, Darren Sharper, & Charles Woodson are playmakers.

His contract is a joke and if he is around next year then we are stuck with him and even worse his contract. So in 2011, when there is a CAP, he will not only hurt us with his play but on the books as well.

My point of listing the UFAs is that you can get similar play at a more cost effective and 2011 cap friendly price. Not one of those CBs would be paid like Vinny overpaid for Hall.

I’d be happy with a CB rotation of: Robinson, Rodgers, Tyron, Barnes, & Westbrook.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

TRUE STORY

I went to Redskins Park for training camp during his rookie season. We had VIP access to the players and Devin Thomas was the ONLY player that refused to sign autographs. I was literally 5 feet away from him and he gave plenty of attitude when asked by a Redskins PR person to sign autographs. Even she was like "what a total azz"

Other notes: Malcolm Kelly is a BIG dude with huge hands...Antwan Randle-El is smaller than me and I'm 5'10, 190lbs....Santana Moss is more stocky than I thought...

Having said all of that about Kelly...I like what he is becoming on the field. He's hungry...has a "anything to help the team attitude."

Hope he has a big year next year.

Posted by: rickyroge | February 13, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I meant Devin Thomas...I hope he has a big year

Posted by: rickyroge | February 13, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:11 PM

Is there any rule preventing the Skins from re-doing contracts of their highly compensated players this offseason? Couldn't the Skins re-work the deals of Haynesworth, Hall, etc; for example pushing a bigger portion of their overall contract into 2010. That way if there is a lockout or a cap in 2011, the Skins would be in better shape. Given that Allen is a strong cap guy, I would think that he'll address contracts that would be crippling to the franchise into the next CBA.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Jarirus Byrd, Asante Samuel, Darren Sharper, & Charles Woodson are playmakers

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:11 PM

I'm throwing out the Byrd, Sharper comparison because of the difference in positions. As far as Samuel, and Woodson, well they played in defenses that allowed them to be more aggressive. How will Hall be in a similar defense here in DC.? Hopefully we'll find out in 2010.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:24 PM

I'm obviously not a contract/labor expert, but I don't see why they couldn't. The old FO made it an offseason tradition to extend guys to get under the cap.

For the record I would keep Hall if he had a reasonable contract.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:24 PM

Could be mistaken, but I thought that Haynesworth's hit in 2010 is huge (maybe one time the old FO used some foresight).

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 13, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 2:37 PM

I used them in the context of being playmakers.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The phrase playmaker is an overused term unless you apply it in this manner. For example if the other team needs to make a play then throw at Hall.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse


I think Hall is rightly criticized for being a below-average tackler, and you can point to some specific plays to illustrate the point - the bad angle on Mannigham against the Gmen, unable to bring down Delhomme.

But this notion that Hall is just getting beat all the time in coverage and coughing up plays is ludicrous.

When did that happen last year? How many games did he get picked on and was unable to stop a drive? How many big plays did he get torched on? How many receiving TDs did he give up?

If you are going to serve up the dude's reputation like that at least back it up with some specifics...

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Albert Haynesworth hit the free-agent jackpot Friday morning by reaching agreement on a seven-year, $100 million deal with the Washington Redskins that could end up maxing out at $115 million based on his performance, according to sources.

The deal, which was reached early Friday morning, includes an NFL-record $41 million in guarantees. During the first 13 months of the contract, Haynesworth will earn approximately $32 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3939011

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 13, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 2:41 PM

"If you are going to serve up the dude's reputation like that at least back it up with some specifics..."

He's earned his reputation and this is why he's 26 and on his 3rd team.

"But this notion that Hall is just getting beat all the time in coverage and coughing up plays is ludicrous."

Blache’s zone-heavy scheme was utilized to essentially protect against DeAngelo Hall's weaknesses, man coverage and tackling. He played in 13 games last year and had FOUR picks while whiffing on tackles and getting beaten several times a game. He’s paid like a top 5 corner and he isn’t in the top 20.

I either rework his deal or cut him. This team needs to purge it's roster of all the bad contracts and Hall's is one of Vinny's top 3 mistakes.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse


So in other words, you don't actually have anything specific to back up the criticism with.

I mean, can you think of one play? For someone with an apparently notorious reputation of getting abused in coverage can you recall one play last year when DHall just screwed the pooch and got toasted?

Yeah, he's with his 3rd team...so is your precious Leigh Bodden, and if the Skins sign him it would be his 4th team.

In Atlanta, Hall was a 2x Pro Bowler. If you are going to write him off b/c of his time in Oakland, then that's just ignorant - is anyone besides Nnamdi A successful in Oakland?

He was the best CB with the Skins since the time he's been here and has been the sole source of turnovers in the secondary. He's not the culprit on coughing up big plays - you want to point the finger at Landry and Rogers for that.

I think he's overpaid, but your criticism of his play and career are a bit over the top.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 3:08 PM

I get it.

YOU believe Hall is a top 5 CB and he’s elite.

I’ve watched every play for the last 20 years. I’m not going to cite specific plays for you. Maybe you can cite the game changing plays Hall has made or the #1 WRs he has shut down.

I'm just mentioning players like a Bodden as players that would give you similar pay for less money..

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Their first two priorities will be quarterback and offensive line. In five years, Jason Campbell has shown that he has skills, but Shanahan must hope that Campbell's best football is ahead of him.

"I need to see more of him," said Shanahan. "I'm looking forward to it."

Shanahan explained what he wants in a quarterback, and Campbell would do well to listen up.

"I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution," said Shanahan. "I've been around a lot of leaders and they do it different ways -- Joe Montana, Steve Young and John Elway. But they all had a deep desire to be the best."

Shanahan likes his quarterbacks both aggressive and fearless.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It looks like JC17 will not spend more than a year here by what I am hearing from Shanny....

Posted by: 4thFloor | February 13, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Cushing played more and didn't get as abused in pass coverage as Orakpo.Posted by: 1965skinsfan"

And despite playing a whole lot more, had seven fewer sacks.

Why would the number of tackles made (an artifact of the scheme and playing time) be more important than pressures and sacks?

Because the Skins decided to force Orakpo to play SAM linebacker.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 10:28 AM

DUDE...NOT ONLY WAS CUSHING Def ROY...HE WAS ALSO 1st TEAM ALL PRO....ALL PRO DUDE!!!?

IN HIS ROOKIE YEAR???

And you think Orakpo had a better year because of some garbage sacks in Oakland hyped up his rookie stats....GTF outta here...

Posted by: 4thFloor | February 13, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

We trade our number 4 draft pick and our fourth round pick to SF for their two first rounders and their second round pick. Here is our draft picks:

Offensive Tackle | Hillsdale | SR   
 Jared Veldheer Height: 6-9 | Weight: 321 | 40-Time: 4.90

Offensive Tackle | Virginia Tech | SR 
   Ed Wang Height: 6-5 | Weight: 309 | 40-Time: 4.95

Center | Florida | JR 
   Maurkice Pouncey | Florida | JR  Height: 6-5 | Weight: 318 | 40-Time: 5.25

Offensive Guard | Texas Tech | SR 
   Brandon Carter Height: 6-7 | Weight: 344 | 40-Time: 5.25

Running Back | Southern Cal | JR 
   Joe McKnight Height: 6-0 | Weight: 190 | 40-Time: 4.40

Cornerback | Maryland | SR 
   Nolan Carroll Height: 6-1 | Weight: 202 | 40-Time: 4.45

We also trade Cooley for a second round pick giving us four picks in the first two rounds

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Shanahan explained what he wants in a quarterback,

"I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution," said Shanahan. "I've been around a lot of leaders and they do it different ways -- Joe Montana, Steve Young and John Elway. But they all had a deep desire to be the best."

SOUNDS LIKE COLT BRENNAN TO ME! HE HAS THE ACCURACY, PASSION AND HE WANTS TO BE THE BEST. SHANNY'S TYPE OF QB.

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I get it.

YOU believe Hall is a top 5 CB and he’s elite.

I’ve watched every play for the last 20 years. I’m not going to cite specific plays for you. Maybe you can cite the game changing plays Hall has made or the #1 WRs he has shut down.

I'm just mentioning players like a Bodden as players that would give you similar pay for less money..

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse


And can you cite any specific references where I said that D.Hall is a top 5 elite CB??

I don't think that you could...and why does that not surprise me? Why doesn't it shock me that you would just generalize about my comments in a way that doesn't actually reflect anything specific about what I said?

So you're "not" going to cite any specific plays even though you've watched them all for 20 years, or is it that you "can't"? You just refuse on principle to actually backup your assessment of the guy's playing career with some actual examples...interesting way of trying to make a point.

As far as game-changing plays, here's one:

Against Tampa Bay, the Skins are down 10-0 and TB is driving with the ball close to midfield. D.Hall picks off Josh Johnson and returns the ball 22 yards to help setup a Suisham FG and change the momentum of the game. The Skins go on to score a couple more TDs and win a squeaker.

That's a momentum-changing play that got the Skins out of a serious funk to help them salvage a game.

Second, as you pointed out, the Skins don't play alot of man-coverage, so asking what #1 receivers DHall has shut down is moot. But I'll say this - the Skins gave up 19 passing TDs this year, and DHall's "man" caught 2-3. Go to NFL.com and watch the highlights of the big broken plays on the long passing TDs that the Skins gave up and the guys you'll see who wet the bed in coverages are Laron Landry, Carlos Rogers, and Fred Smoot (once or twice).

So again, we can agree that DHall is overpaid, but this crucifixion of the guy's career and play is just asinine.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Laron Landry, Carlos Rogers, and Fred Smoot (once or twice).

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 4:22 PM

I keep seeing people wanting to get rid of Smoot. I thought Smoot played well as a nickel and dime back last year. When he replaced Carlos, I thought he was solid. I also hope that he gets more experience playing the FS spot in certain packages. I think he's astute enough to make plays at that spot.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

And can you cite any specific references where I said that D.Hall is a top 5 elite CB??
Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 4:22 PM


Thanks, That's my point. I just wanted you to admit that he’s not a top 5 CB, but Vinny paid him top 5 money and he's not even a top 20 guy.

That's why they should rework his contract or cut him. This FO did not build this roster and they have ONE chance to get rid of the bad contracts or they will be stuck with them in 2011 when there is a CAP. Take a mulligan on all the bad contracts and build with 2011 and beyond in mind.

Seems almost elementary.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/02/09/2010-free-agency-primer-quarterbacks/

In the coming weeks, we'll hear a lot about NFL owners and the NFL Players Association meeting -- and disagreeing -- about a new collective bargaining agreement. The deadline for a new deal is midnight March 5.

Don't hold your breath.

In March 2006, ownership approved by a 30-2 vote the current agreement that gave players 59 percent of league revenues. That pact included an opt-out clause the owners exercised just 18 months into the the new deal. They say their $8 billion-per-year business is down $220 million annually from 2005, citing player salaries and payments for palatial new stadiums. The union, backed by its new chief DeMaurice Smith, says it's being asked by ownership to take an 18 percent slash in that revenue figure and wants each team to open their books and show the loss of income.

This is known as a stalemate, folks, with the worst-case scenario being a complete shutdown of the game (via an owners' lockout) in the spring of 2011. The countdown to that potential death knell has begun. There will, however, be a NFL season in '10, albeit with some twists.

...

The saber-rattling has begun. Smith was asked during Super Bowl week about the possibility of readying his union for a lockout in 2011. "On a scale of 1 to 10," Smith said. "it's a 14."

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

... = 16Share
Without a new CBA, the '10 season will be played without a salary cap, the parity-based system that has been in place (and been the envy of professional sports) since the advent of the free agency era in 1993. With an uncapped year, though, will come deterrent mechanisms the two sides put in place when the last CBA was ratified in hopes of avoiding this very scenario.

The next few weeks will show just how motivated the two sides are. If they're not, here's what happens next month when the free agency flag drops:

-- There will be no limit on players salaries; and that means maximum or minimum. The wealthiest teams can shower cash as they please, while teams looking to cut costs in this economic environment could choose that route. Last year's salary cap had a $123 million ceiling and $108 million floor.

-- Instead of players needing four accrued seasons to reach free agency, they will need six. That's particularly bad news for 212 players who just played out contracts and were poised to hit the market. They'll be restricted free agents and subject to the one-year tender system, with a maximum salary of $3 million.

-- Teams can designate a second unrestricted free agent with the "transition" tag to restrict movement, meaning he'd get a one-year deal equal to the average of the top 10 players at his position or 120 percent of his '09 salary, whichever is higher. Transition players can sign with another team, but the tag gives their current team the right to match the offer. Teams will have just one "franchise" tag (which guarantees a one-year deal equal to the average of the top-five players at a given position, or 120 percent of '09 salary, whichever is higher), as in the past.

-- The eight teams that reached the divisional round of the playoffs will have tighter restrictions relative to signing other team's free agents, and the four teams that played in the conference championship games cannot sign a free agent until they lose one.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"DUDE...NOT ONLY WAS CUSHING Def ROY...HE WAS ALSO 1st TEAM ALL PRO....ALL PRO DUDE!!!? IN HIS ROOKIE YEAR???And you think Orakpo had a better year because of some garbage sacks in Oakland hyped up his rookie stats....GTF outta here...Posted by: 4thFloor"

That's an interesting point, o shouting one. Cushing was injured and couldn't play in the Pro Bowl. I don't see a designation as a starter. He was in fact first team on the AP All-NFL team, which is 'selected by a national panel of the media'. He finished third among LBs with 5 votes behind Dumervil (46) and DeMarcus Ware (37).

I don't think Orakpo had a better year. I think voters placed too much weight on total tackles and not enough on rushing the passer. But face it, Orakpo spent much of the year learning to play linebacker rather than pass-rushing.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Orakpo had a better year. I think voters placed too much weight on total tackles and not enough on rushing the passer. But face it, Orakpo spent much of the year learning to play linebacker rather than pass-rushing.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 5:30 PM |

I don't think voters placed ENOUGH emphasis on total tackles. Why else would London be an alternate?

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 13, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I believe we should have drafted Greg Toler ahead of Barnes last year in the third round

Im currently at Saint Paul College the same School Greg Toler came from and he is 6 ft 1 plus he runs a 4.33.. He might be the starting corner across from Cromartie next year!

Posted by: PardenMiSwage | February 13, 2010 12:55 PM

======================
I read somewhere that allegedly all of the skins scouts wanted Toler... But, the Front Office wanted the local player (Barnes) to help fill the seats.
Insane.. Toler will be perennial all-pro.. Barnes??
Better players and a winning record fills seats..not local U Maryland guys.

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | February 13, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I read somewhere that allegedly all of the skins scouts wanted Toler... But, the Front Office wanted the local player (Barnes) to help fill the seats.
Insane.. Toler will be perennial all-pro.. Barnes??
Better players and a winning record fills seats..not local U Maryland guys.

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM | February 13, 2010 5:53 PM |

Toler is a native Washingtonian and went to a local school (VA). So the FO could've made the same local product splash by picking Toler. Maybe the Skins just liked Barnes better (the old college competition thing). Putting Toler in multiple pro bowls, after a 10 tackle, one pass defensed season is just crazy.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Toler is a native Washingtonian and went to a local school (VA). So the FO could've made the same local product splash by picking Toler. Maybe the Skins just liked Barnes better (the old college competition thing). Putting Toler in multiple pro bowls, after a 10 tackle, one pass defensed season is just crazy

Thank you. Barnes is younger, bigger and probably had more upside considering the competition he faced in the ACC. You think people would have learned about jumping on rookie cornerbacks after Tryon's improvement this season. Relax let them play another couple seasons and lets see what we have in Barnes before you start complaining that we should have went with someone else.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | February 13, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank you. Barnes is younger, bigger and probably had more upside considering the competition he faced in the ACC. You think people would have learned about jumping on rookie cornerbacks after Tryon's improvement this season. Relax let them play another couple seasons and lets see what we have in Barnes before you start complaining that we should have went with someone else.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | February 13, 2010 6:14 PM |

Boy I know I did. I was all over Tryon his first season but was impressed with the huge improvements he made this past season. Not the greatest and still made mistakes but leaps and bounds above where he was.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 13, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Better players and a winning record fills seats..not local U Maryland guys.

Posted by: SkinsneedaGM

I went MD. Maryland can't fill its own stadium.

I have season tix for the skins, no problem filling the largest stadium in the league.

Toler is a Tyron clone with his size (5'10) and speed. Barnes has better height (6'1) and will be a player when he is given a chance.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Toler is a Tyron clone with his size (5'10) and speed."

Toler's a good young player, but if AZ is truly thinking of starting him next season, they could be in for trouble.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 13, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

We trade our number 4 draft pick and our fourth round pick to SF for their two first rounders and their second round pick. Here is our draft picks:

Offensive Tackle | Hillsdale | SR   
 Jared Veldheer Height: 6-9 | Weight: 321 | 40-Time: 4.90

Offensive Tackle | Virginia Tech | SR 
   Ed Wang Height: 6-5 | Weight: 309 | 40-Time: 4.95

Center | Florida | JR 
   Maurkice Pouncey | Florida | JR  Height: 6-5 | Weight: 318 | 40-Time: 5.25

Offensive Guard | Texas Tech | SR 
   Brandon Carter Height: 6-7 | Weight: 344 | 40-Time: 5.25

Running Back | Southern Cal | JR 
   Joe McKnight Height: 6-0 | Weight: 190 | 40-Time: 4.40

Cornerback | Maryland | SR 
   Nolan Carroll Height: 6-1 | Weight: 202 | 40-Time: 4.45

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, That's my point. I just wanted you to admit that he’s not a top 5 CB, but Vinny paid him top 5 money and he's not even a top 20 guy.

That's why they should rework his contract or cut him. This FO did not build this roster and they have ONE chance to get rid of the bad contracts or they will be stuck with them in 2011 when there is a CAP. Take a mulligan on all the bad contracts and build with 2011 and beyond in mind.

Seems almost elementary.


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse


I think your point was to dog the guy, but we don't need to rehash that. I'd still be interested in knowing the 20 CBs you'd start ahead of D.Hall.

Even so, I wish it was as elementary as asking a guy to rework his contract. He's not going to take less money, and the Players Union wouldn't even allow that.

Cutting him just leaves a void for us at our #1 CB spot, and none of the guys you mention inspire tons of confidence.

It's a hefty contract, but I wouldn't say it's "bad". A "bad" contract is giving lots of $$ to a guy who performs poorly. For instance - giving 7 million to Clinton Tortoise is "bad". Or giving into Rogers demands and paying him like a #1 CB would be "bad". D.Hall has been our best CB since he got here, so you can't say he's performed poorly.

Personally, I think Hall will really shine once we address the real leaks in our secondary - namely Rogers' coverage breakdowns and Landry's incompetence at FS. If we can strengthen those things, then teams will have to force more into the secondary, and Hall will have more opportunities to exploit the mistakes. As it is teams have just figured out how to pick on Rogers and Landry, which means they'll avoid Hall.

Posted by: p1funk | February 13, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

We trade our number 4 draft pick and our fourth round pick to SF for their two first rounders and their second round pick. Here is our draft picks:

Offensive Tackle | Hillsdale | SR
Jared Veldheer Height: 6-9 | Weight: 321 | 40-Time: 4.90

Offensive Tackle | Virginia Tech | SR
Ed Wang Height: 6-5 | Weight: 309 | 40-Time: 4.95

Center | Florida | JR
Maurkice Pouncey | Florida | JR Height: 6-5 | Weight: 318 | 40-Time: 5.25

Offensive Guard | Texas Tech | SR
Brandon Carter Height: 6-7 | Weight: 344 | 40-Time: 5.25

Running Back | Southern Cal | JR
Joe McKnight Height: 6-0 | Weight: 190 | 40-Time: 4.40

Cornerback | Maryland | SR
Nolan Carroll Height: 6-1 | Weight: 202 | 40-Time: 4.45

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 7:07 PM |

...and why would San Fran do that?

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 13, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

They need a franchise QB and they will be gone by the time they pick.

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

from Devin Thomas' blog,

"I am excited about having Coach Shanahan take over the team. The way I look at it, it’s like Phil Jackson taking over the Lakers."

Select the obviously off-based comparison

a. Mike Shanahan is like Phil Jackson

b. The 2009 Washington Redskins coming off a 4-12 are like the LA Lakers in the post Shaq era

c. Mike Shanahan taking over the Redskins is like Phil Jackson taking over the Lakers

d. all of the above

e. answer c

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

They need a franchise QB and they will be gone by the time they pick.

Posted by: KurtShanaman | February 13, 2010 7:31 PM |

I don't think so...there isn't ANY franchise QB's in this draft. A busted up okey dokey, Jacksonvilles Tebow, McCoy? All have way too many question marks. Add Clausen and thats 4. Which 4 teams do you see taking QB's before San Fran at 13? Why wouldn't San Fran use their 2nd 1st rounder or their 2nd rounder on a tier 2? That's if they don't think Alex Smith or Shaun Hill can do it until a real draft of QB's come around.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 13, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

from NFL.com

"Westbrook ‘not sure’ if he’ll be back with Eagles"

Brian Westbrook wants to play football in 2010. Whether that happens with the Philadelphia Eagles, he isn’t quite sure.

“I’m not sure. That’s one of those things that really is up to them,” Westbrook told Rather. “I’m under contract another year, and I would love to be in Philadelphia. There’s no other team that I would love to play for more than the Philadelphia Eagles. But it’s a situation where in the NFL, younger, cheaper is better for teams. It’s one of those things. It’s part of the business. I experienced it when I was younger, and I experience a different aspect now. You have to try and find out, for the team, what’s better for them.”

You'd think this would vex iggles' fan and put hope in skins fans, but, alas, the Philadelphia franchise had the smartz to build youth around McNabb--Maclin, Jackson, Avant, McCoy--so now other guys do what Westbrook excelled at.

And they don't get hurt as much.

Two very solid speedy backfield players--Leon Washington (jets) and Brian Westbrook (eagles) might be free agents in three weeks.

I wonder how one of them would look in burgandy n gold as a Portis back up (Washington more than Westbrook).

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

No way on Westbrook. Way on Washington.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 13, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

How would you rate Hall's play last season? I would say he performed poorly. To say he was the best of a unit that was terrible is a hollow endorsement.

Here’s how I would rate the guys that logged significant playing time.

Hall (D) 4 picks. Can catch but can’t tackle and struggles in coverage.
Rodgers (D). Can’t catch but can tackle and was beaten just as often.
Landry (D). Played out of postion and was overall a non factor. Had 2 strong games @ SS.
Doughty (B). Limited physcially but played both SS/FS and was the most consistent player.
Horton (D). Regressed from promising rookie season. Benched and then injured.
Smoot (C). Lost a step but played well in spot duty for Hall/Rodgers. Ok as the Dime.
Tyron (C). Played well when he played. Next year will be 3rd CB.

Do you understand my point of cutting a guy that isn’t performing up to his contract? You can find an adequate replacement who will give you similar play for less pay. If you had a one time chance to take a mulligan on the contracts of guys like Portis, ARE, R. Thomas, & Hall, why not.

You want a list of 20 CBs better. The stats represent the 2008 season which is relevant because Vinny signed Hall after that season.

Darrelle Revis, 72 attempts, 4.96 YPA, 51.39 Forced INC%, 1 TD, 5 IN
Nnamdi Asomugha, 29 attempts, 4.97 YPA, 62.07 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 1 INT
Charles Woodson 65 attempts, 5.69 YPA, 56.92 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 7 INTs
Corey Webster,66 attempts, 3.92 YPA, 65.15 Forced INC%, 1 TD, 3 INTs
Sheldon Brown,63 attempts, 4.84 YPA, 44.44 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 1 INT
Chris Johnson, Oakland Raiders 49 attempts, 5.39 YPA, 53.06 Forced INC%, 1 TD, 3 INTs
Ron Bartell, St. Louis Rams 93 attempts, 5.77 YPA, 48.39 Forced INC%, 2 TDs, 3 INTs
Carlos Rogers, 105 attempts, 5.69 YPA, 47.62 Forced INC%, 4 TDs, 2 INTs
Samari Rolle, 44 attempts, 4.07 YPA, 52.27 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 3 INTs
Kelvin Hayden, 42 attempts, 6.21 YPA, 45.24 Forced INC%, 1 TD, 3 INTs
Quentin Jammer,85 attempts, 5.95 YPA, 38.82 Forced INC%, 4 TDs, 1 INT
Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, 76 attempts, 6.41 YPA, 43.42 Forced INC%, 4 TDs, 4 INTs
Antoine Winfield, 63 attempts, 6.27 YPA, 39.68 Forced INC%, 3 TDs, 2 INTs
Nick Harper: 85 attempts, 5.81 YPA, 38.82 Forced INC%, 2 TDs, 2 INTs
Courtland Finnegan: 79 attempts, 7.66 YPA, 44.30 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 5 INTs
Richard Marshall, 39 attempts, 4.51 YPA, 35.90 Forced INC%, 3 TDs, 1 INT
Mike Jenkins, 38 attempts, 4.34 YPA, 39.47 Forced INC%, 2 TDs, 1 INT
Aqib Talib, 35 attempts, 5.80 YPA, 34.29 Forced INC%, 2 TDs, 4 INTs
Asante Samuels 78 attempts, 6.51 YPA, 41.03 Forced INC%, 3 TDs, 4 INTs
Al Harris, 44 attempts, 7.30 YPA, 45.45 Forced INC%, 2 TDs, 0 IN

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 8:38 PM

Your post suggests, again, that the skins need a real shut down corner type and true free safety.

It also points out the degree to which D Hall is way overpaid.

Let's get K Barnes some face time.

Let's find a decent free agent corner.

Why?: changing the front 7 with amping up the talent level of the back 4 leaves you where you started.

And from what I remember, that wasn't such a great place.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

This is what was said coming into last year by a scout about Rodgers.

My two cents: It’s a shame that his playing time was cut down after the acquisition of the horrible DeAngelo Hall, and when Shawn Springs got healthy. I don’t understand how the Redskins could put guys like Hall and Fred Smoot on the field before this guy. Despite being thrown at 105 times (3rd most in NFL) Rogers held his own. His low YPA and high forced incompletion percentage should earn him respect from around the league.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

In March 2006, ownership approved by a 30-2 vote the current agreement that gave players 59 percent of league revenues. That pact included an opt-out clause the owners exercised just 18 months into the the new deal. They say their $8 billion-per-year business is down $220 million annually from 2005, citing player salaries and payments for palatial new stadiums. The union, backed by its new chief DeMaurice Smith, says it's being asked by ownership to take an 18 percent slash in that revenue figure and wants each team to open their books and show the loss of income.

Posted by: Vicc | February 13, 2010 5:03 PM |

One take on this situation is that rookie salaries have gotten out of hand. And they have. San got rediculous $$$ for a QB coming out ot college with 16 starts. So decrease the 59% rev going to the players and take it out of rookie salaries. The Union can tell its members that their $$$ are safe and the owners can cut rookie salaries down to a reasonable level and everybody is happy except the next rookie class who hasn't even showed up yet so they can't complain.

Posted by: TLoad | February 13, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

"The Texans promoted Wright to their top position in 2009. Wright also spent seven seasons as Houston's assistant strength and conditioning coach. New offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan worked with Wright during his time on Houston's staff."

Kind of surprised at how complaisant the Texans have been about the Skins' personnel grabs. With Kyle S you could see the father/son angle but why would they part with this guy without a peep?

Posted by: TLoad | February 13, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

This is what was said coming into last year by a scout about Rodgers.

"... Despite being thrown at 105 times (3rd most in NFL) Rogers held his own. His low YPA and high forced incompletion percentage should earn him respect from around the league."

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 8:50 PM |

Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp. The sounds of Rodgers biting on double moves.

Posted by: TLoad | February 13, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"One take on this situation is that rookie salaries have gotten out of hand."


Another take on the situation is that it illustrates the irony of how the league pimps the draft, then bitterly complains that the selected 1-3 rounders feel they deserve to get paid.

Those guys are the kids spent their high school years sitting on the couch watching the draft and they see it as a media/sports lottery.

They play 3-4 years for free in college programs with millionaire coaches who preach honesty and loyalty up until the next contract comes along.

And with each sweaty summertime drill, workout, and ounce of committment, they pledge to get up on the stage next to Goodell, get an NFL team hat and jersey, and later, the contract that'll put their momma and baby momma in neighborhood they never thought they'd ever live in.

They see the same money in football the owners see and it's ridiculous that they are all at loggerheads about who should get what when all we want is what they want: good football and labor piece.


Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"One take on this situation is that rookie salaries have gotten out of hand."

Another take on the situation is that it illustrates the irony of how the league pimps the draft, then bitterly complains that the selected 1-3 rounders feel they deserve to get paid.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 9:35 PM |

Nobody disputes that they should get paid. There are, however, a lot of disputes about getting paid like Sanchez. From the Daily News:

"A 22-year-old quarterback, still three months away from his first NFL pass, owns the distinction of being the highest-paid player in Jets history.

Former USC star Mark Sanchez hit the jackpot Wednesday with a five-year contract that includes $28 million in guarantees - a team record. The bare-bones amount of the deal is $44.5 million, although the true value, based on easily attainable incentives, is $50.5 million, sources said."

Posted by: TLoad | February 13, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Toler is a native Washingtonian and went to a local school (VA). So the FO could've made the same local product splash by picking Toler. Maybe the Skins just liked Barnes better (the old college competition thing). Putting Toler in multiple pro bowls, after a 10 tackle, one pass defensed season is just crazy.

Posted by: TWISI | February 13, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Disagree. But as the old Zen-master said about Charlie Wilson's War..............we'll see.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 13, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

And with each sweaty summertime drill, workout, and ounce of committment, they pledge to get up on the stage next to Goodell, get an NFL team hat and jersey, and later, the contract that'll put their momma and baby momma in neighborhood they never thought they'd ever live in.

They see the same money in football the owners see and it's ridiculous that they are all at loggerheads about who should get what when all we want is what they want: good football and labor piece.


Posted by: MistaMoe | February 13, 2010 9:35 PM

+++

Sorry Moe. Please allow me to disagree.

They haven't proven a damn thing, so they are not worth massive guaranteed contracts. I say rookie contracts should be incentive based. Too many busts. Doesn't do the team that drafted them any good at all to bust. Why should they get paid if they can't perform at the professional level?

That's the rub. Veterans who have proven their worth don't get to make that kind of money very often. If you are great and set the league on fire and stay healthy, then they should get paid big. But if you are some over-hyped rookie punk we falls in love with the night life, won't show up for off season work-outs and under performs over the term of the contract, then why should they get paid?

They shouldn't.

It's all about what you leave on the field as a pro, not about what you did before. That's why incentive based contracts should rule with rookies. You want to earn big bucks? Go earn it.

I look at some ass wipes like Jamarcus Russel at the Raiders and wonder if he might have put in the effort if he were making $350,000 plus incentives up to $5mil a year. What a swinging-richard.

Do you think Carlos and Landry would be pissing all over Skins fans with their BS attitude "nothing I can do about it" if they were earning in relationship to their PERFORMANCE vs their potential? If there weren't PENALTY for blowing games by repeating the same STUPID mistakes over and over again unapologetically? If the team had the freedom to cut their stupid asses because they played like morons instead of pros? Cap implications from guaranteed contracts is why they are still on the roster - and that's the dumbest reason to keep some of those idiots.

I could not care less how much they sweat during summertime workouts to get on the stage with Goodell. Good for them -way to prepare LIKE A PRO. But if you can't perform at the NFL level and stay healthy, than what are you worth anyway?

Incentives, not guarantees. Let the competition begin.

Players have no business looking at what the owners make and saying - "Hey, that's mine." F - THAT! Owners take all the risk. If the players want to risk share, then they deserve big bucks, but guaranteed contracts for unproven rookies is just stupid.

Posted by: edvar | February 14, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: edvar | February 14, 2010 12:25 AM

umm....agree 100%!

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 14, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

I agree to a point that rookie contracts should be corralled in some way, this statement however, edvar, is insane:

"Owners take all the risk."

Really? Even after all the brain damage research, with the studies that say playing in the NFL takes years off your life, players have died, been paralyzed while practicing/playing....yup no risk there....

Also the Cap rules were a battle the owners won during last CBA, so he weird cap rules are on them.

I never get the mentality to pimp old rich robber barrons over the dudes who ball on sunday for our pleasure (and yes pain). I won't even go into the fact that revenue is generated on the backs of the players. Maybe you would want to pay to see snyder and Jerry jones debate?

But whateves your management over labor....but to say "no risk" is encumbered by the players is well....not accurate.

Posted by: chrislarry | February 14, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the "Free Market?"

If the Jets want to pay somebody $50 million before their first snap, let 'em.

I don't hear anybody crying about how much the owners are making.

Posted by: Thinker_ | February 14, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the "Free Market?"

If the Jets want to pay somebody $50 million before their first snap, let 'em.

I don't hear anybody crying about how much the owners are making.

Posted by: Thinker


The NFL doesn't want to be like the MLB where only a few teams are viable year in and year out.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 14, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted Nov. 25, 2009 @ 11:49 a.m.
By PFW staff
The Redskins, who had gone with two quarterbacks on their 53-man roster for most of the season, now will add a third.

Richard Bartel, who was signed out of college by the Cowboys and spent time with the Browns, will be the No. 3 QB behind Jason Campbell and Todd Collins. Bartel was signed off the Jaguars' practice squad, where he had spent the bulk of the season.

In three preseason games with the Browns this season, Bartel completed 15-of-18 passes for 177 yards, compiling a 103.5 passer rating.

Additionally, the Redskins signed FB Jonathan Evans to their practice squad and released QB Andre' Woodson from the practice squad.*****

I completely forgot this. Thought Andre was still with the team.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 14, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

You want a list of 20 CBs better. The stats represent the 2008 season which is relevant because Vinny signed Hall after that season.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 13, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse


Well that's some pretty convenient selective stat-picking considering the first half of 2008 was the low-point of D.Hall's career in Oakland.

He got the contract based on his performance WITH THE SKINS in the second half of the season...why don't you dig up those stats and compare them with Carlos Rogers?

So you would really start Carlos Rogers over D.Hall?? Seriously?


""This is what was said coming into last year by a scout about Rodgers.

My two cents: It’s a shame that his playing time was cut down after the acquisition of the horrible DeAngelo Hall, and when Shawn Springs got healthy. I don’t understand how the Redskins could put guys like Hall and Fred Smoot on the field before this guy. Despite being thrown at 105 times (3rd most in NFL) Rogers held his own. His low YPA and high forced incompletion percentage should earn him respect from around the league.""

I don't know what anonymous scout you picked this year-old quote from, but the reason his playing time got cut was because as the season wore on he become more and more unreliable in coverage.

Instead of relying on the "2 cents" of Mr. No-Name Scout, I will go with the judgment of the coaching staff that works with Carlos Rogers...the same coaching staff that decided to bench him twice in 2 seasons.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: edvar | February 14, 2010 12:25 AM

umm....agree 100%!

Posted by: Curzon417 | February 14, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

A third on that note. Had a situation like that once. I thought about it a bit because I had never faced that attitude before. Then I terminated the employee, and kept rolling just as the owners are getting ready to do now. And I'm all for it. If there can be performance pay for teachers, there sure as hell can be the same for professional football players.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 14, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 8:19 AM

Link from football outsides showing the top ten salaries for cornerbacks this past year. I t seems to me that Hall's contract isn't that far out of line to his peers.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2009/under-cap-top-ten-cornerbacks

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 8:19 AM

Link from football outsides showing the top ten salaries for cornerbacks this past year. I t seems to me that Hall's contract isn't that far out of line to his peers.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2009/under-cap-top-ten-cornerbacks

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse


Interesting to see Dunta Robinson making more than D.Hall.

Another interesting link to cornerback stats is:

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=CB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=60&numgames=1

I'm not sure what to make of their overall ratings (they have Nnamdi A. ranked 14th; I don't know what their formula is), but there are a wide selection of stats that you can toggle through to gauge performance.

D.Hall is predictably bad in the run-support stats.

But he's also ranked 4th out of 57 cornerbacks (who played at leats 60% snaps) behind only Darelle Revis, Leon Hall and Charles Woodson in opposing QB rating when the ball is thrown into his coverage.

Carlos Rogers is ranked 54th out 57.

Interestingly enough D.Hall has more "stops" (defensive solo tackles that constitute an offensive failure) than Carlos Rogers. OUt of 55 CBs that played 60% of the snaps, D.Hall is 32nd in that category while Rogers is 55th out of 55.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 9:12 AM

That was interesting. Rogers really had a poor year in coverage last year. Maybe the contract thing affected his play, but that was poor.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

"but [Hall}'s also ranked 4th out of 57 cornerbacks (who played at leats 60% snaps) behind only Darelle Revis, Leon Hall and Charles Woodson in opposing QB rating when the ball is thrown into his coverage.Carlos Rogers is ranked 54th out 57."

Really good post. Thanks.

Wonder if the above has something to do with QBs avoiding Hall and throwing at Rogers.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 14, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Wonder if the above has something to do with QBs avoiding Hall and throwing at Rogers.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 14, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

And why not. With LOS's 'tude, he was probably tipping the coverage, maybe inadvertantly.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 14, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"What happened to the "Free Market?" If the Jets want to pay somebody $50 million before their first snap, let 'em. I don't hear anybody crying about how much the owners are making."


Perception of the "Free Market" is a funny thing in this country right now.

The very same people who pay union dues cry 'Socialism' when the government wants to corral the very same issues the unions want addressed.

And all the "Free Market" people want the salaries of athletes capped, not understanding that the principles of same mean the open market--and not a pre-planned structure--should dictate who gets paid what.

If anyone is to be faulted with regard to NFL rookie contracts, it is the owners: after all, they should trade out of the 1st round--regardless of talent needs-- and let some other team take on the money risk.

You choose to miss out on a Manning in the 1st round hoping find a Brady in the 6th round.

You pay proven end of their contract vets to supplement your roster of middle round, low paid draftees--kinda like what the Patriots do, btw.

And if you do find that mercurial Brady in round 6, he'll have to prove himself before you pay'em: and isn't that situation what a smart businessman would want anyways?

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"Carlos Rogers really had a poor year in coverage last year. Maybe the contract thing affected his play, but that was poor."

Carlos Rodgers and Jason Campbell went into the season hoping for the kind of play that would equal a big contractual payday.

Instead, they each got played.

Each now is kinda, sorta, maybe expendable from the vantage point of the new management structure.

Trade them?: there's enough tape on them that shows what they can and cannot do.

Only with Campbell you get the trade gurus to think that, "If the toys around him are improved, maybe his play really improves."

Carlos Rodgers might not be a redskin after March 5th as he's dropped one to many toys--and burned way too often-- to justify keeping him around to play.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: chrislarry | February 14, 2010 1:22 AM

You make some good points. I was speaking about financial risk, not health - which probably should be part of the discussion. I agree there are some risks involved in playing a game they choose to participate in. Putting some better health coverage (short and long-term) into the contracts would make a lot of sense here.

Posted by: edvar | February 14, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

KARLOS DANSBY WANTS 2 PLAY FOR THE SKINS HOPE WE CAN GET THIS GUY..... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/14/dansby-has-a-four-team-wish-list/

Posted by: Felz2o2 | February 14, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

From ESPN Insider:

Redskins eying Pennington?
10:44AM ET
Chad Pennington | Dolphins
Top Email

New coach Mike Shanahan recently told CBS Sports what he'll look for in a QB: "I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution."

Some feel Jason Campbell never got a fair shake in Washington, but Shanahan might be looking to go another direction and obtain his own QB through the draft, free agency or trades. There is the possibility that Shanahan drafts either Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, but there are a lot of questions about both guys and he may not be willing to wait on their development.

There's also some buzz Brett Favre is a possibility, but in his comebacks, Favre has tried to go to places where he can win immediately and have a lot of autonomy with the offense. This would not be the place.

So that brings us to Chad Pennington, a guy who is accurate and has shown a passion for the game. Shanahan may opt to have a QB that's for a facilitator as he gets his pieces into place, so if he does choose to slow-play this position, this is a prime option. He's relegated to the backup role in Miami behind Chad Henne, so they'll likely have to give up a mid-round draft choice for Pennington.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 9:12 AM

That's a pretty cool site. I hadn't stumbled across that one before.

So the site ranked Rodgers 28th overall and Hall tied for 37th.

Interesting..


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

New coach Mike Shanahan recently told CBS Sports what he'll look for in a QB: "I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution."

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 12:44 PM |

"No. 2, to be passionate about ...". Better yet, can actually:

1. Read defenses
2. Spot open receivers
3. Quick release
4. Avoid intended receiver "lock-on"
5. Exude confidence
6. Be a team leader

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Well that's some pretty convenient selective stat-picking considering the first half of 2008 was the low-point of D.Hall's career in Oakland.

He got the contract based on his performance WITH THE SKINS in the second half of the season...why don't you dig up those stats and compare them with Carlos Rogers?

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 8:19 AM

The scout only listed the top 55 CBs from the 2008 season. Hall wasn't in the top 55.

So you want to take the word of the coaching staff, the same coaching staff that you want to blame for wasting talent and poor schemes?

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

He's relegated to the backup role in Miami behind Chad Henne, so they'll likely have to give up a mid-round draft choice for Pennington.
Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 12:44 PM

This one sentence made the previous sentences in that post meaningless. Age, injuries, no thanks.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

What happened to the "Free Market?"

If the Jets want to pay somebody $50 million before their first snap, let 'em.

I don't hear anybody crying about how much the owners are making.

Posted by: Thinker_ | February 14, 2010 6:58 AM |

The Jets were in a tough situation. They are trying to sell seat licenses for their new stadium and they could not afford to lowball the guy, have him hold out, and the season go down the tubes. As it turned out, things did go well for them - they got to the conference championship game - without a lot help from Sanchez, although he did finish on an upward trend.

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The NFL doesn't want to be like the MLB where only a few teams are viable year in and year out.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 14, 2010 7:58 AM |

Now if only the NFL could figure out a way to get a franchise in LA, the country's leading media center, ...

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The NFL doesn't want to be like the MLB where only a few teams are viable year in and year out.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 14, 2010 7:58 AM |

Now if only the NFL could figure out a way to get a franchise in LA, the country's leading media center, ...

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

He's relegated to the backup role in Miami behind Chad Henne, so they'll likely have to give up a mid-round draft choice for Pennington.
Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 12:44 PM

This one sentence made the previous sentences in that post meaningless. Age, injuries, no thanks.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Twisi, I kind of agree, however I think there is a mistake in the post, everywhere else I've looked it says he's a UFA. If he doesn't cost us a pick I'm cool with giving him a shot. But honestly, I don't see how he's any different then Todd Collins who outperforms Campbell every time he gets to play.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 14, 2010 1:58 PM

Giving up a pick is my only objection. If they sign Chad and trade Campbell then cool. Build the line, get a stud RB, and hope Colt is ready to roll.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Redskins eying Pennington?"

The question being asked must be, "Who would hold the quarterback position warm while the #4 draftee q-back gets himself league ready?"

Pennington?: No.

Garcia?: I could be warm to him.

Delhomme?: The guy is a question mark all to himself.

Mike Vick?: I thought it was a serious question.

David Carr?: Why not?

Joey Harrington?: Only if he stops playing the piano.

David Garrard?: Why not?

Gus Frerotte?: Let the headbanging laughter ensue.

Pat Ramsey?: A second helping of #11? No.

Sage Rosenfels?: Maybe, yeah, sure, why not?

Jason Campbell?: Why keep what the question itself suggests you don't want?

Otherwise, why are you even asking the question?

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The scout only listed the top 55 CBs from the 2008 season. Hall wasn't in the top 55.

So you want to take the word of the coaching staff, the same coaching staff that you want to blame for wasting talent and poor schemes?

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse


Look, I don't know why we're talking about 2008. It's not surprising that Hall wasn't in the top 55 that year b/c his first 7-8 games in Oakland were atrocious and I'm sure that really tanked his stats.

And yes. I'll take the opinion of any professional coaching staff over Mr. Anonymous Couch Potato Scout any day of the week...are you saying you wouldn't?

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

So the site ranked Rodgers 28th overall and Hall tied for 37th.

Interesting..

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse


...and Dunta Robinson is ranked 50...and he makes more than D.Hall...

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 9:12 AM

That was interesting. Rogers really had a poor year in coverage last year. Maybe the contract thing affected his play, but that was poor.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse


Carlos has always been questionable in coverage. There was an 8 game stretch at the start of the season last year when he played out of his mind and then his play really dropped off again, but apart from that stretch he's never been a standout cover guy.

I think last year the 411 about Rogers really got out to teams and everyone saw the easy way to exploit him in coverage by running double moves.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"but [Hall}'s also ranked 4th out of 57 cornerbacks (who played at leats 60% snaps) behind only Darelle Revis, Leon Hall and Charles Woodson in opposing QB rating when the ball is thrown into his coverage.Carlos Rogers is ranked 54th out 57."

Really good post. Thanks.

Wonder if the above has something to do with QBs avoiding Hall and throwing at Rogers.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 14, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse


I'm sure tempted to think that, but the stats from that sight actually show that D.Hall got thrown at more times than Carlos Rogers: 64 (Hall) to 61 (Rogers).

Even with more attempts getting thrown D.Hall's way opposing QBs had a cumulative QB rating of 54.2 against D.Hall versus 112.5 against Rogers.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

...and Dunta Robinson is ranked 50...and he makes more than D.Hall...

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:27 PM

Robinson was franchised, 1 year 10 mil. He is now a UFA.

I still think Hall has upside, I'm just not as enamored by him as you are and hate his contract. That same site ranked him tied for 37th OVERALL and Rogers 28th.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 2:18 PM |

Also, Kerry Collins, Rex Grossman, Chris Simms, Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson.

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 3:10 PM

Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson?....You can't be serious. Why don't you also include JaMarcus Russell in your list.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson?....You can't be serious. Why don't you also include JaMarcus Russell in your list.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

REDSKINS get JaMARCUS RUSSELL in the draft day deal with AL DAVIS? We get their eighth AND RUSSELL rather than their second rounder. What a deal. Yee-Haw good buddy.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 14, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Carlos has always been questionable in coverage. There was an 8 game stretch at the start of the season last year when he played out of his mind and then his play really dropped off again, but apart from that stretch he's never been a standout cover guy.

I think last year the 411 about Rogers really got out to teams and everyone saw the easy way to exploit him in coverage by running double moves.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 2:33 PM

Everyone on this board is so down on CR. He had a tendency to get burned on double moves for a stretch in the middle of the season, especially against the Broncos and Eagles. But this was the exception. He has been outstanding since he has come to DC. Those couple of plays have now been etched in your minds and you can't get them out. This whole discussion of DBs has been pi$$ poor. Sure am glad the fans don't have a say in this.

Posted by: skinfanman | February 14, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson?....You can't be serious. Why don't you also include JaMarcus Russell in your list.

Posted by: TWISI | February 14, 2010 3:19 PM |

Mr. McEnroe: these are add-ons to a list that includes the likes of Ramsey, Harrington, Carr and Frerotte.

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

He has been outstanding since he has come to DC.

Posted by: skinfanman | February 14, 2010 3:41 PM |

Dude. Put the pipe down and then revisit this howler in about 4 hrs or so and enjoy it along with the rest of us.

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I still think Hall has upside, I'm just not as enamored by him as you are and hate his contract. That same site ranked him tied for 37th OVERALL and Rogers 28th.


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 14, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse


I think the overall rankings are a bit bogus - I don't even know what the formula is. I was citing Dunta Robinson as an example. I don't think D.Rob is better than D.Hall, but I certainly think he's better than the #50 CB in the league.

Just like I wouldn't rank Tramond Williams or Terrell Thomas or Michael Jenkins or Brandon Flowers ahead of NNamdi A.

The site shows some other interesting stats and the one that stands out to me is the opponents QB ranking against the man's coverage because that is taking into account a number of important factors like completion % against the guy, yards, and TD/INT ratio - D.Hall was 4th in the league there.

That's an indicator of the kind of promise and performance that makes me feel like his contract - while hefty - isn't necessarily "bad"; and tells me we've still got a Pro Bowler waiting to break out once again.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Everyone on this board is so down on CR. He had a tendency to get burned on double moves for a stretch in the middle of the season, especially against the Broncos and Eagles. But this was the exception. He has been outstanding since he has come to DC. Those couple of plays have now been etched in your minds and you can't get them out. This whole discussion of DBs has been pi$$ poor. Sure am glad the fans don't have a say in this.

Posted by: skinfanman | February 14, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse


Couple of plays? The same crap was happening last year. Last year he got benched at one point as well. His infamous "double move" quote was from a season or 2 ago. He's been getting burned that way his whole career.

You need to go to the website I referenced earlier and look at the stats yourself. The criticism of Rogers is far more than anecdotal...

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skinfanman | February 14, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse


Of the 57 cornerbacks in the NFL that played at least 60% of the team's snaps, Carlos Rogers ranked 54 out of 57 in opposing QB rating when the QB threw into his coverage.

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=CB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=60&numgames=1


Or you can check out this website where the guy formulated a "Stop-Rate" metric. (Go down to the last chart). Carlos Rogers was the WORST as in LAST PLACE in the league in this scale.

http://www.aaronschatz.com/extra-points/2010/stat-day-pass-tackles-cornerbacks-0


Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I never get the mentality to pimp old rich robber barrons over the dudes who ball on sunday for our pleasure (and yes pain). I won't even go into the fact that revenue is generated on the backs of the players. Maybe you would want to pay to see snyder and Jerry jones debate?

Posted by: chrislarry | February 14, 2010 1:22 AM |

Crummy commie.

Posted by: TLoad | February 14, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"What happened to the "Free Market?"

If the Jets want to pay somebody $50 million before their first snap, let 'em.

I don't hear anybody crying about how much the owners are making.

Posted by: Thinker__"


I was watchin' ESPNNews right before the Super Bowl, and they had this foreign sports reporter from Cuba or Venezuela, asking I believe Meacham, "When do you, uh, tink, that , uh the NFL will, uh achieve, uh ,cosciousness-uh, and distribute the moneys more fairly among the people??" And Meacham just muttered something like, "Yeah we got to attack the seams in the zones ", or something like that..

Posted by: frak | February 14, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I never get the mentality to pimp old rich robber barrons over the dudes who ball on sunday for our pleasure (and yes pain). I won't even go into the fact that revenue is generated on the backs of the players. Maybe you would want to pay to see snyder and Jerry jones debate?

Posted by: chrislarry | February 14, 2010 1:22 AM |


They can all suck an egg as far as I'm concerned.

I don't sympathize with any billionaires or their operating costs, and I don't sympathize with people who make a million dollars playing a schoolyard game with a ball, and then have the audacity to moan about securing a financial future for their families.

If owners are losing cash on their investment, they are free to sell it for a hefty price.

Players who want to secure a future for their family shouldn't piss away their paychecks on Escalades, boats, jewelry and nightclubs...or they can do what the rest of us do and get a real job for a living.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe you would want to pay to see Dan Snyder and Jerry jones debate?"


Our crack team on crack has secured a transcript of one such challenge:

Jones: "My stadium is bigger than yours."

Snyder: "Is not."

Jones: "Is too."

Snyder: "Not."

Jones: "It is too, and I got me another Hall of Famer in Emmitt Smith."

"What do you say now, Mista Failed Six Flags?"

Snyder: "One word: Shanahan."

Jones: "Damn, that changes the whole conversation."

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Man, I miss Paul Tagliabu (sp?)

Posted by: coparker5 | February 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I was watchin' ESPNNews right before the Super Bowl, and they had this foreign sports reporter from Cuba or Venezuela, asking I believe Meacham, "When do you, uh, tink, that , uh the NFL will, uh achieve, uh ,cosciousness-uh, and distribute the moneys more fairly among the people??" And Meacham just muttered something like, "Yeah we got to attack the seams in the zones ", or something like that..

Posted by: frak | February 14, 2010 5:01 PM |

Dude. You broke character. When did that happen? What's next? Breakin' wind?

Posted by: DLoad | February 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"If owners are losing cash on their investment, they are free to sell it for a hefty price."

Trivia Question:

Name the last professional sports franchise sold at a financial loss to the owner.

Take your time answering this one.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 14, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

If a player doesn't think that football pays him enough, he should look for employment somewhere else.

Posted by: jmy999 | February 14, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Just getting you ready for Sharks Olympic hockey:

On Tuesday, the USA with Joe Pavelski goes against Switzerand. Canada, with Thorton, Marleau, Heatley and Boyle plays Norway. Russia, with Nabakov in goal, plays Latvia.

The first Shark on Shark action takes place on Wednesday when Sweden, with Douglas Murray, takes on Germany and the Sharks backup goalie, Thomas Greiss.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 14, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

They can all suck an egg as far as I'm concerned.

I don't sympathize with any billionaires or their operating costs, and I don't sympathize with people who make a million dollars playing a schoolyard game with a ball, and then have the audacity to moan about securing a financial future for their families.

If owners are losing cash on their investment, they are free to sell it for a hefty price.

Players who want to secure a future for their family shouldn't piss away their paychecks on Escalades, boats, jewelry and nightclubs...or they can do what the rest of us do and get a real job for a living.

Posted by: p1funk | February 14, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, what he said. Shoulder to shoulder baby.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 14, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

What a last few months it has been. First the Skins and Agent Z crashed and burned and then the Wiz and Agent 0 crashed and burned. Let's hope the Wiz can get as good a draft position as the Skins did but it won't be easy having to go through the lottery. The Wiz are going to have to start from scratch and are in worse shape than the Skins. Meanwhile with spring training just around the corner it will be a chance to see if the W's, who crashed and burned a long time ago, have made much progress on their long climb to respectability, what with the phenom Strasburg on the roster.

Posted by: DLoad | February 14, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anna_Molly | February 14, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

On the labor dispute, I'm 80% with the players. The league needs a rookie salary cap and the players shouldn't be so stuck up about it. In return, free agency (or other alternatives) should occur sooner, especially since football careers are so short.

I've long thought that a player's cap hit should lessen if they have played for a team beyond a certain number of years. For example, in year 7, a player's cap hit might be 95% of his salary, in year 8, 90%, etc. That gives the current team greater ability to re-sign a player

Both sides have been terrible to retired players. Inexcusable.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 14, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Redskins eying Pennington?
New coach Mike Shanahan recently told CBS Sports what he'll look for in a QB: "I need a quarterback, No. 1, to be accurate, and No. 2, to be passionate about the game, about the preparation, the study and the execution."

Some feel Jason Campbell never got a fair shake in Washington, but Shanahan might be looking to go another direction and obtain his own QB through the draft, free agency or trades. There is the possibility that Shanahan drafts either Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, but there are a lot of questions about both guys and he may not be willing to wait on their development.

There's also some buzz Brett Favre is a possibility, but in his comebacks, Favre has tried to go to places where he can win immediately and have a lot of autonomy with the offense. This would not be the place.

So that brings us to Chad Pennington, a guy who is accurate and has shown a passion for the game. Shanahan may opt to have a QB that's for a facilitator as he gets his pieces into place, so if he does choose to slow-play this position, this is a prime option. He's relegated to the backup role in Miami behind Chad Henne, so they'll likely have to give up a mid-round draft choice for Pennington.

Any thoughts??

Posted by: robbkels | February 15, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Out of the top 30 spots, I think Shanahan tries to change 5-7 guys this offseason. Its very hard to make more changes than that since for each guy you demote, someone needs to fill in.

Top spots for change are along the OL, RB, LDE and QB. Some of the changes will come from guys on the roster moving up, some from FA and draft.

Among top 30 guys, I'd guess the 1st wave to move down or out would include: Smoot, Daniels, Portis, Heyer, R Thomas, L Jones, Cartwright, Betts.

Shanahan may also move down/out Rogers, Griffin, ARE, Campbell, Rabach and Landry.

That is 14 guys. Which is way too much turnover for 1 year. I suspect Shanahan is thinking its a 2 year process, and he'll keep the guys that he thinks have the best chance to improve.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 2:38 AM | Report abuse

So that brings us to Chad Pennington, a guy who is accurate and has shown a passion for the game. Shanahan may opt to have a QB that's for a facilitator as he gets his pieces into place, so if he does choose to slow-play this position, this is a prime option. He's relegated to the backup role in Miami behind Chad Henne, so they'll likely have to give up a mid-round draft choice for Pennington.

Any thoughts??


Posted by: robbkels | February 15, 2010 2:15 AM


On one hand, I think Pennington would be good here. On the other hand, if the O-line isn't drastically improved, Pennington would never get a chance to survive the season, much less succeed. He's old, injury prone, and immobile--the 3 things that'll get you killed playing behind the current Redskins O-line.

So if he's a one-year stopgap so we can go heavy drafting O-line this year and put off drafting a QB til 2011, then I'm for it. If he's supposed to be a replacement for JC or a guy to put in front of Bradford for a year, then I'm not thrilled by the prospect.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 5:41 AM | Report abuse

wont do us any good waiting for 2011 to draft a franchise QB.. we will be picking somewhere in the middle of the pack (Shanny's WORST career record was 7-9) and the odds of finding a franchise QB thereabouts are significantly lower. IF either Bradford or Clausen is the guy, you pull the trigger this draft and use the rest of it, if needed, along with free agency to fix the Offensive line.

2011 is when you fill in the other odds and ends. but, if you are still looking for the key piece, a franchise QB, you are already way behind the curve. otherwise you are consigned to hoping you can find the next Tom Brady late in the draft, or the next Drew Brees in free agency. Good luck on that one.. or, you have determined you are going to try and win a championship with the likes of Brister, Griese, Plummer or Frerrotte.
Say what you might about Shanahan, he seems to have learned from that experience and went with Cutler when he had a chance.

You say Cutler is flawed ? Yup. you might be right, but if you dont take a chance you are doomed from the get go.. the days of capping off a dominant team with a caretaker like Doug Williams are over. Look at the teams in the playoffs, or the final eight last year. They all basically had franchise
QB's (or HOF level free agents in Farve/Warner) or top tier QB's.. the league has become more of a passing team now and if you cant pass, you wont win in the playoffs

or look at it conversely, other than Peterson, teams with the elite running backs were nowhere to be found at the end of the day. you have to be ABLE to run some to keep a defense honest, but you pass to win now, more than ever. That makes the QB the focal point of the offense. the only way you put off taking a QB at the top of this year's draft is if you feel NEITHER of the QB's are the real deal.. if you do, you are unlucky this year, and hope for better luck in a QB-rich draft in the next year or two

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Shally, you have a lot of confidence in the 2010 Skins...I'll skip through the streets if this team goes 7-9 after the debacle of '09. And let's not overrate this team just because Shanahan never had a team worse than 7-9...Gibbs never had a record worse than 7-9 either, and as we all know he did worse than that twice in his 4 year comeback. Past success is no guarantee of future success.

But it doesn't matter where a QB is drafted, so long as he's right for this situation. Bradford and Clausen may fit here, maybe they don't. But considering Dan Marino, Ben Roethlisberger, and Drew Brees were all selected out of the top 10, this mindset of taking advantage of picking in the top 5 to get a QB is flawed at best.

The Skins can't whiff on this pick. If Russell Okung is nothing more than a solid starter, that's better than what's on the O-line now. Considering all that goes into what making a QB successful, the Skins are better off taking the best possible player at #4.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

But considering Dan Marino, Ben Roethlisberger, and Drew Brees were all selected out of the top 10, this mindset of taking advantage of picking in the top 5 to get a QB is flawed at best.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 7:21 AM

I agree with brownwood and respectfully disagree with Shally. Just because a guy is taken in the top 10, that doesn't make him a "franchise QB". Jamarcus Russell? Heath Schuler? Akili Smith? Ryan Leaf?

It's not clear that Clausen or Bradford is going to be a franchise QB. I'm trusting Mike Shanahan (and the Redskins medical staff) to make the call on this one.

Posted by: Agree2Disagree | February 15, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The Skins can't whiff on this pick. If Russell Okung is nothing more than a solid starter, that's better than what's on the O-line now. Considering all that goes into what making a QB successful, the Skins are better off taking the best possible player at #4.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 7:21 AM

Agreed 100%. Shally has expressed my concerns clearly. The mindset of having to pick a top 5 QB in this draft, can lead the team down a road of continued lethargy if that QB prospect isn't deserving of such a high pick. The key is to luck into a franchise QB. The best way to find such a player, is to draft a prospect that exhibits most of the elite traits. I don't want this team to reach for a QB @ #4, trying up resources at that position if another player is more talented, and at a critical position of need for the Skins. We'll see if Bradford, or Clausen fits the bill. If not, don't draft them @ #4. As for Pennington, as I said before, if the Skins have to give up a mid-round pick for him, it's a bad deal for the Skins. Better to invest a pick into a developmental prospect at QB, coach him up Shanny's way, and hope he's productive in 3 years.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Right, A2D...if Allen/Shanny thinks Bradford has to the goods, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I just don't see how a guy who hasn't run a pro-style offense yet and is coming off an injury to his throwing shoulder is such a dramatic upgrade that it warrants passing on a chance to build the O-line with the #4 and #36 overall picks. Building the O-line should be the overwhelming priority of the '10 offseason.

And no to Clausen as well. He's coming off ankle surgery and I think he's a smug SOB anyway...dude fits the profile of a Cowboys QB if I ever saw one.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

As for Pennington, as I said before, if the Skins have to give up a mid-round pick for him, it's a bad deal for the Skins. Better to invest a pick into a developmental prospect at QB, coach him up Shanny's way, and hope he's productive in 3 years.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 7:54 AM


Agreed, Pennington is only worth our while if he's a FA and can be signed at a modest salary. Trading for an old, injury prone QB is senseless.

My hope is that the Skins are able to get OL help at #4 and #36 and that Dan LeFever is available in the 4th round. That's your developmental QB right there AND you can build the O-line. If he's not there in the 4th, I'd be just fine waiting until next year to address the QB position.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

shally,
I think your logic is flawed. You seem to think that if the Redskins don't take a quarterback high this year their chances to get a franchise QB will vanish next year because the win-loss record will put the Redskins at the end of the draft. So? They can trade up if they really want a QB at the top of the 2011 draft.

I like the idea of OT first and QB second this year in the draft. Although the overall quality of QB's in this draft is poor, there are some guys with skills that are lower round picks because of one or two things wrong with their mechanics. They are not day one starters, but with a year to learn and be coached out of their problems, they could be blue chip QB's in a year or two.

I think Tony Pike is one of those guys. This guy can make all of the passes, but he sometimes doesn't plant when he throws and he's a little light for someone that's 6' 6". If he spends a year putting on some weight and fixing his footwork, he could be a real beast. He'll probably go somewhere in the middle of the second round.

And if doesn't look like your second round pick is developing this year, next year you trade up in the draft for someone with a higher pedigree. Meanwhile, you have an anchor at left tackle and hopefully, you have sprinkled in talent elsewhere on the line.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Shally, you have a lot of confidence in the 2010 Skins...I'll skip through the streets if this team goes 7-9 after the debacle of '09. And let's not overrate this team just because Shanahan never had a team worse than 7-9...Gibbs never had a record worse than 7-9 either, and as we all know he did worse than that twice in his 4 year comeback. Past success is no guarantee of future success.

But it doesn't matter where a QB is drafted, so long as he's right for this situation. Bradford and Clausen may fit here, maybe they don't. But considering Dan Marino, Ben Roethlisberger, and Drew Brees were all selected out of the top 10, this mindset of taking advantage of picking in the top 5 to get a QB is flawed at best.

The Skins can't whiff on this pick. If Russell Okung is nothing more than a solid starter, that's better than what's on the O-line now. Considering all that goes into what making a QB successful, the Skins are better off taking the best possible player at #4.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse
I agree with you, brownie, about taking best possible pllayer at #4. But I think you are being too pessimistic about 7-9. We should have won 3-5 more games last year, if we had an experienced coach who could manage the game. 8-8 is very doable. Playoffs may not be.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 15, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

We should have won 3-5 more games last year, if we had an experienced coach who could manage the game. 8-8 is very doable. Playoffs may not be.

Posted by: frediefritz | February 15, 2010 8:12 AM


Fritz, I could see that as a best case scenario but necessarily as a predicted outcome. There's going to be some growing pains with this new regime, especially if the team goes QB at #4 instead of a player that can come in and help right away. You have a coaching staff that runs a WCO but has an offense built for the run-oriented Gibbs offense. There's no way the necessary offensive overhaul happens all in one offseason.

Then add a potential change in defensive philosophy, and there's going to be a heckuva lot of change while navigating a tough schedule (our AFC schedule alone pits us against Tennessee, Indy, and Houston). I could see 8-8, but I'd expect more of a 6-10 season.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, what he said. Shoulder to shoulder baby.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 14, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse


Solidarity, bro.

We're shoulder to shoulder on a range of issues including cranky ballers, fat-cat billionaires, and Ernie Grunfeld's retardicity.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

z

"The league needs a rookie salary cap and the players shouldn't be so stuck up about it....I've long thought that a player's cap hit should lessen if they have played for a team beyond a certain number of years...That gives the current team greater ability to re-sign a player..."

Then we both need to be in the room with the negotiators as I've been posting this for a few months now.

Not the rookie pay scale: that's gonna happen.

But we are in complete agreement that once a player has achieved 'tenure' (4-7 years in the league), his sal cap number should be prorated to where he's more affordable to the team.

This would allow vets to get paid (that's the real labor issue IMO) and have more stability. It would also allow teams to keep guys they've spent money and time developing over a series of years.

Player movement would continue, but teams could re-do a vet's deal to where remaining with the team that drafted him is also a better option.

It would also end the dreaded 'franchise tag' situation.

The only real issue from the league's point of view is that teams like the skins and cowpokes could afford such an arrangement like this better than low market teams like the packers and bills.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

"We should have won 3-5 more games last year, if we had an experienced coach who could manage the game."

3-5 more wins is 9-7 at best and 7-9 at worst.

And worst of all, Zorn and Cerrato would still be running things.

Sometimes subtraction is addition.

Going 4-12 is the mark of losing, but we gained by getting a better head coach and solid FO structure.

We won by losing.

And that's some math I can accept.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

moe....sniff, sniff....smell that....smells like pitchers and catchers.....reporting day is thursday for the sawks....reports are saying that Dice is already down there, and appears to be in good shape....not a bad #4, after Lester, Beckett, Lackey....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"Although the overall quality of QB's in this draft is poor, there are some guys with skills that are lower round picks because of one or two things wrong with their mechanics."

You have to remember that what influences the perceptions of quarterbacks in this draft is that three very solid players--Jake Locker, Marc Sanchez, and Matt Stafford--aren't in it.

And they were supposed to be.

Two, go back and look at all the whiny issues scouts had with Sanchez and Stafford, and gauge them against their onfield performance before judging any of the kids at the position in this draft.

There are some very solid quarterbacks in this draft who will excel provided they land in the right situation.

For the skins, it makes sense to create the right situation 1st--improve the offensive line--then add a quarterback from round 4.

This means you re-sign Campbell and draft: Okung, Iuapti/Ducasse, LeFevour, Tate, and add linemen depth in FA.

That's a situation where a kid can sit and learn and later, step in to find success.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Beantowngreg

I'm already in baseball mode.

I'm trying to figure out what money Jeter, Mo, and Girardi deserve as the big talk in Yankeeland is that each guy's contract is up at the end of the season.

And boy, will they get paid handsomely.

I mean, if A Rod is worth $300 mil, what are Jeter/Mo worth?: and their game is clean and free of needles.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

moe, I'm getting into baseball mode myself...they have to re-sign DJ, and Moe, right?? I mean, they're like 'core' yankees, right? Both guys can still bring it, and its not like when Posada was due, they shied away from shelling out the dough...I expect both guys to re-up....I'm still confused as to who is gonna be a big bat in the sox lineup....we're full up on punch and judy types...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

MistaMoe,
I could live with your draft scenario except for LeFevour. I'm not sold on the kid. He played against inferior competition in college. Yes, he looked pretty solid in the East-West Shrine game, but that was against a lot of guys that won't be playing in the NFL. A big component of his game is scrambling, and he's not going to look so fast against NFL defenses. No, I'll take Pike in the second please, after Okung in the first and before as many offensive linemen as Shanny wants to bring in.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"But it doesn't matter where a QB is drafted, so long as he's right for this situation. Bradford and Clausen may fit here, maybe they don't. But considering Dan Marino, Ben Roethlisberger, and Drew Brees were all selected out of the top 10, this mindset of taking advantage of picking in the top 5 to get a QB is flawed at best."

Marino was picked like 27th, In the great QB draft of '83
J. Elway 1st
T. Blackledge 7th
J. Kelly 14th
T Eason 15th
Ken O'brian 24th
D Marino 27th

Posted by: boysheadcoach | February 15, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Brees was drafted 1st in the second round

Posted by: boysheadcoach | February 15, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Geez, where did everybody go? Not like it's a holiday or anything...

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

i'm here brownie..

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Good to know Greg...how 'bout a faux PFT post?

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

not sure what that means??

Is that what people think?? That I make that stuff up??

Seriously??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Haha, right.

PFT does have that Karlos Dansby has the Skins on his short list of desired landing spots (along with the Giants, Chargers, and Dolphins). I'm not excited by the prospect of spending big money this offseason, but he would definitely help the transition to a 3-4 (if it happens).

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: boysheadcoach | February 15, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I've got to disagree here. While certainly it doesn't have to be a top 5 pick it pretty much has to be a 1st round pick and since our only first rounder is in the top 5 we should take our shot at the best qb if we decide QB is a need position. Again, I defer to Shanny's evaluation of JC and his decision on if we need a QB. However, if he decides we do, then it should either be Bradford or Clausen, or a free agent. This stuff about getting a guy after round one doesn't really pan out. Romo and Brady are the exception.

All five of 2009's leaders in QB ratings were among the first 33 picks.

Even more detailed:

Players selected in the 2009 draft could have started 16 games; those picked on 2008 have 32 possible starts, and so on. By adding up the players’ possible starts and comparing them to their actual starts, we are able to see how much impact they had as a group, again on a very basic level.

From 2004 through 2009, 17 quarterbacks were taken in the first round. Of a possible combined 1,024 starts, the players in this group actually have started 638, or 62 percent.

In that same period of time, 27 offensive linemen were taken in the first round, and they have started 1,093 games out of a possible 1,328. That comes out to 82 percent.

Comparing first-round quarterbacks to first-round linemen, then, it would appear that if the goal is to avoid a bust, taking a lineman first is the way to go.

But let’s take a look at selections in the second round. The 29 linemen selected have started 1,077 of a possible 1,648 games, or 65 percent.

The eight second-round quarterbacks have started 49 out of 352 games. That’s a paltry 14 percent. Just looking at that number, one would have to say that the potential for a second-round quarterback being a bust is alarmingly high.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Let’s look at those second-round quarterbacks individually:

Year Team Quarterback Starts:
Actual/Possible
Percentage
2006 NYJ Kellen Clemens
9/64 14%
2006 MIN Tavaris Jackson
19/64 30%
2007 PHI Kevin Kolb
2/48 4%
2007 MIA John Beck
4/48 8%
2007 DET Drew Stanton
1/48 2%
2008 GB Brian Brohm
1/32 3%
2008 MIA Chad Henne
13/32 41%
2009 MIA Pat White
0/16 0%

No quarterbacks were drafted in the second round in 2004 or 2005.

Out of the eight names, you can indentify two who most think could end up being unquestioned starters, Kolb and Henne. If Henne can take control in Miami, White may change positions. It may be premature to write off Clemens and Jackson although neither has take possession of the job when given the opportunity to do so. It is not premature to affix the “bust” label to Beck, Stanton, and Brohm.

Just to take a peek a little further in the past, we looked back at the second-round quarterbacks in the 2000-2003 drafts. It turns out that only two quarterbacks were taken in the second round of those four drafts. Both were selected in 2001. One, Drew Brees, certainly is one quarterback who is the exception to the rule. Although he didn’t start until his second season, and was just OK that year and in 2003, he broke out in 2004 and has been a stud ever since.

The other 2001 second-rounder was Quincy Carter, drafted by the Cowboys. He did start 31 games in three seasons there, but he never developed into a solid starter, and he was out of the league after starting three games for the Giants in 2004.

One can only theorize as to why so few second-round quarterbacks work out. One possibility may be that since quarterbacks are so highly valued, teams may reach to take them. You can see some quarterbacks who may have had second-round talent--players such as J. P. Losman, Jason Campbell and Brady Quinn--being snatched up in the first round because teams are so anxious to get their signal caller. That leaves lesser talent available in the second round.

That also might account for why about half as many quarterbacks were taken in the second round (8) as in the first round (17). With the quarterback talent so depleted by the time the second round arrives, most teams may decide to address other needs there and take a flyer on a developmental quarterback later in the draft. The numbers of offensive linemen drafted early were almost evenly split between the first round (27) and the second (29).

Certainly, there is more risk taking a first-round quarterback than there is in selecting a first-round offensive lineman. But you are taking much, much less of a chance if you take an O-lineman in the second round than if you take the quarterback.

Drafting a quarterback this year is not the only option the Redskins have to address the position. But on the list of possibilities, it appears that drafting one in the second round may be the least desirable.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Dude, you can scrounge up as many QB stats as you want, at the end of the day you can't completely guard against drafting a bust. Getting picked in the top 5 didn't keep Akili Smith or Ryan Leaf or Heath Shuler or Tim Couch from completely sucking. My guess is Drew Stanton and John Beck and Kellen Clemens would all still suck if they were taken a round earlier.

Unless the guy is a complete turd with no work ethic and no leadership skills (like Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell), the team has more to do with a QB becoming a bust. If you bring the guy in to be this messiah and don't give him a team to work with, you set that player at a HUGE disadvantage. Not many QBs can win games by themselves. What sets the Flaccos and the Ryans and the Sanchezes from the rest of the pack is that the teams that drafted them had a solid O-line and a ground game to support them. The Redskins don't have that right now.

So build the O-line, keep the defense tight, get your QB next year. I still don't rule out one of the QBs already on the roster looking a lot better with an improved supporting cast to work with.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

redskinhead

"I could live with your draft scenario except for LeFevour. I'm not sold on the kid. He played against inferior competition in college."


Despite your argument, I think the 4th round is where we can find a guy to be the next guy. What about the other q-back possible 4th round choices?:

Tim Tebow?

Colt McCoy?

Tony Pike?

Jevon Snead?

(who else?)


Me, I go with LeFevour, from what I saw in the Senior Bowl, he throws a nice deep ball: something lacking in the redskin's present passing game.

The 'inferior competition' argument does and does not work as any guy who is an accurate thrower will be against who ever is covering the guy he is trying to get the ball to.

Tim Tebow faced probably the best competition over the most extended stretch, but he's a one-dimensional sideshow who'll need the kind of work and patience none of us are ready to give or wait for.

McCoy, like Bradford, comes in injured, Snead needs to remain in college, and Pike looks good only when he's throwing to M. Gilyard.

So who's left?

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

beantowngreg

"...they have to re-sign DJ, and Mo Rivera, right?? I mean, they're like 'core' yankees, right? Both guys can still bring it,..."


A lot of it has to do with the next off season as it will be studded with some very good baseball players (Carl Crawford, for instance).

We keep hearing that the NBA Free Agency will be star-sudded in 2010, but so will the MLB.

I think the Yanks, like other teams, want to hold on to money now hoping to spend it carefully later.

To me, Jeter and Mo play not for money, but the game. This really means you can't pay them enough to do what they love.

But you do have to assuage their egos abit by offering them something to both memorialize their role in the history of the team and compensate them for being the icons that they are.

And what amount of money that is, well, it'll be more than just a little bit north of what A Rod gets--and they both deserve it.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm with you Moe, I'd take LeFevour in Round 4 and give him a shot at the starting gig come 2011...worst case scenario, you have a solid backup with a low salary. Taking a QB at #4 means you're making a bet that the guy is going to be a franchise guy and you'll have to pay him like one, whether he earns the title or not.

Getting two young studs for the O-line at #4 and #36 is playing it safe and playing it smart, IMO. Regardless of what end of the spectrum you're on in the JC debate, I'm pretty sure we all agree that OL is far and away this team's biggest problem and desperately needs to be addressed.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

zfjr,
You are providing a one side argument to a many faceted question. You say 2 out of 8 quarterbacks chosen in the second round might not be busts. That's a success rate of 25%. Isn't that pretty good for draft picks outside of the 1st round? Out of all of the players picked in the second round over the last three years, how many are still with the team that drafted them?

Look at it another way. How many QB's taken in the first round have been true successes? I would bet 25% is just about right. Campbell? Quinn? Losman? You named those quarterbacks yourself who were picked in the first round and didn't work out. Your failure rate in the first round is probably every bit as bad as the second round.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Getting two young studs for the O-line at #4 and #36 is playing it safe and playing it smart, IMO."

I think you have to use the jets, ravens, colts, vikings, and saints as the model for moving forward.

Each team created the best situation for its quarterback by making sure its offensive line could block sometimes with just five guys and a back taking on blitzers.

That's stellar tackle and interior line play.

That's a back who excels at blitz pick up and is also a fine check down option.

Too, if the improved line improves Campbell's game, that's a winner too, isn't it?

Draft Okung, Iuapti/Ducasse, LeFevour, Tate to get things better.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 15, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

100% agree, Moe. I just hope LeFevour is still on the board when we pick in the 4th round. A good combine might send him up to the late 2nd/early 3rd round. I was hoping we could pull Iupati in the 2nd round, but it looks like he could go as high as the mid 1st round.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

MistaMoe,
Pike. Tony Pike. The kid can play. He needs some work on his feet, but relative to deficiencies in other quarterbacks coming out, this is easier to fix. He's tall, and if you can pack another ten pounds on him, he's a another Joe Flacco. You said that he doesn't look good when he's throwing to Gilyard. Gilyard is going to be a player in the NFL, I have no doubt, but that statement is unfair and just wrong. Armon Binns had almost 900 yards receiving last year and most of those yards came from Pike. D.J. Woods packed on another 640. Pike can spread the ball around and he can hit his receivers in stride. I am telling everyone who wants to hear it, this guy is going to be a great QB for someone.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Happy 50th Birthday, Darrell Green

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I was hoping we could pull Iupati in the 2nd round, but it looks like he could go as high as the mid 1st round.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting off the Iupati hype machine. He's going to get over drafted because of all his pub. I'm hoping onto the Maurkice Pouncey train for my 2nd round pick.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"he's a another Joe Flacco"

in other words an average qb that will succeed with great line play, running game, and defense.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

zfjr,
You are providing a one side argument to a many faceted question. You say 2 out of 8 quarterbacks chosen in the second round might not be busts. That's a success rate of 25%. Isn't that pretty good for draft picks outside of the 1st round? Out of all of the players picked in the second round over the last three years, how many are still with the team that drafted them?

Look at it another way. How many QB's taken in the first round have been true successes? I would bet 25% is just about right. Campbell? Quinn? Losman? You named those quarterbacks yourself who were picked in the first round and didn't work out. Your failure rate in the first round is probably every bit as bad as the second round.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

sorry, should have listed credited this in the original post thought I did but had to chop it up due to length and lost it I guess. The first paragraph of that post was me, the rest was from Rich Tandler:

http://www.csnwashington.com/pages/landing_redskins/?blockID=179245&feedID=2993

I happen to agree with him though. I think if we decide we're getting a new QB we should take the shot at Clausen or Bradford. The rest of the QBs in the draft are projects, IMO none will be ready to play within 3 years. With one exception. I think Jevon Snead is the biggest sleeper in the draft, we could get him in the 4th maybe and properly coached he could be the best of the bunch. These are part of what the ESPN insider "Draft Lab" says about him which can be paraphrased into essentially can make all the throws, has all the tools to be the best QB in the draft, had poor talent around him and was poorly coached:

The problem with grading Snead on a pure numbers basis is that the scouting notes indicated his receivers made numerous errors last year. There were at least nine passes where Rebel receivers either ran the wrong route, ran the route incorrectly, didn't fully run the route out to its completion or let a defender cut them off for a pass. And that was in addition to the seven drops they made on accurate passes. Subpar receiving play may be one of the reasons his metrics were so poor and it also may be a key component in why Snead did not come back for his senior season.

The Football Scientist Lab Result: Add continued improvement in the decision making area with a group of solid NFL-caliber wide receivers to Snead's well documented accuracy and it could equal one of the top 10-15 quarterbacks in the league. He gets a TFS seal of approval as long as he is paired up with a solid positional coach and offensive coordinator.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Wow, DG is 50 already? Kinda puts his amazing career in even more perspective, IMO...if you're turning 50 just two years after being a 1st ballot HoF'er, that's nothing short of incredible.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 15, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting off the Iupati hype machine. He's going to get over drafted because of all his pub. I'm hoping onto the Maurkice Pouncey train for my 2nd round pick.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse
I agree, TWISI, I think Iupati has moved up to the first round. But there should still be a good T/G available at #37. Along with Okung, that guy, and Dockery, they would form a good nucleus for an OL. Might need to keep Rabach for another year as the glue to keep a strong YOUNG OL together!

Posted by: frediefritz | February 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

2010 Offseason Needs

1. Left Tackle: Left tackle is a huge need for the Redskins, Chris Samuels suffered a possible career-ending neck injury this year. Russell Okung will be an option at No. 4. If not, hopefully Charles Brown will fall to pick #36.

2. Quarterback: They need a franchise guy. Jason Campbell has improved each season, but he has taken 81 sacks in the past two years and could be damaged goods. His career record as a starter is 23-32. IMO this isn’t the year, sign a FA like McCown, Pennington (only if cut by Fins), or Feely to compete with a tendered JC.

3. Strongside Linebacker: The Redskins need to find a capable strongside linebacker so they can move Brian Orakpo to DE/Rush OLB in 3-4. Free agent Scott Fujita might be a solid short-term solution unless they pony up for my choice in Dansby.

4. Running Back: Portis averaged 3.9 YPC or less in all but two games last year. He has No burst, very questionable work ethic, locker room cancer, & his contract & character need to be purged from this roster before a potential 2011 cap. I say grab Chester Taylor as a UFA or Ryan Matthews or possibly Gerhart in the 4th.

5. Right Tackle: Right tackle is also a big need. One can be found in the middle rounds of the 2010 NFL Draft. Capers, Fox, Calloway, Wang in the 4th if they address RB in FA.

6. Center: Casey Rabach is a free agent, but he isn't very good anyway. Count the center position as the third slot that needs to be upgraded up front. A center can be drafted in the middle rounds come April. Estes, Hall, Olson in the 5th.

7. Right Guard: Yet another offensive line position that must be upgraded. Hopefully a UFA such as Chester Pitts, Stephen Neal, or Rex Hadnot.

8. Free Safety: LaRon Landry is an in the box SS especially in Blache’s scheme. Under Haslet, he would be better but his natural position is SS. UFA targets Jermaine Phillips, Will Allen or Sean Jones as a FS starter.

9. Return Specialist: Rock Cartwright isn't going take on to the house, and Antwaan Randle El should be cut on March 5th. 7th RD/FA guys like Trindon Holiday or Brandon James would handle both duties.

10. Defensive Tackle: Need a 3-4 NT. Haynie could do it but you don’t pay a guy that much to eat space. He will play DE in a 3-4. Monty could add depth but ultimately can’t be counted on to start. UFA guys like Wilfork or Casey Hampton or Aubrayo Franklin would pay big dividends in a switch to a 3-4.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 4thFloor | February 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"he's a another Joe Flacco"

in other words an average qb that will succeed with great line play, running game, and defense.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 11:39 AM
----------------------------------------
Hey, it's an upgrade.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

1- Move personnel on high priced contracts.

2- Trade down in the draft for more picks.

3- Rebuild all positions on the o-line except LG.

4- Choose wisely in post-draft FA.

LET's GO REDSKINS. HAIL. Yee-Haw good buddy.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 15, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 12:16 PM

I like our ideas. Estes really showed well in the all-star practices, and seems to be the Shanny type. Aubrayo Franklin would be a good get IMO.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Re: QBs & Draft Busts

"What's going to happen tomorrow?"

When you can answer that question, then you can project something confidently about QB draft prospects in the NFL.

The beauty of taking an left-tackle prospect at the top of the draft is that you hedge your bet if things don't work out.

Can't play left tackle? Move him to the right.

Can't play right tackle? See if he can play guard.


What do you do with a QB prospect that can't play QB?

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Diesel, your 12:16 post and my 2:38am (its not that late on the west coast) are pretty similar -- we largely agree on the issues. Can't say I know much about the solutions, especially the draft candidates, 'cept I'd prioritize the OL.

I forgot to mention SSLB -- you're probably right thinking Orakpo goes to DE full time, If we go 3-4 -- and we'll need more LBs then anyway.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

What do you do with a QB prospect that can't play QB?

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 12:40 PM
------------------------------------------
Well, they're projecting Tebow at tight end.... Just kidding. I can't believe that talk about moving Tebow. You make a good point. I say go left tackle first in the draft.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for not putting "cornerback" on the list!

It's a good rundown, except I would cross off "free safety" from the list and I would move "strong side linebacker" down to #9 or #10.

I think we can find a free safety on our roster - Kareem Moore, Lendy Holmes, complete the conversion of Smoot to that position. The idea to move Landry there was just dumb. I think the Skins were trying to create Sean Taylor 2.0...but there is no such thing as finding another Sean Taylor.

Between Orkapo and Wilson, I think we are fine at strong side LB. One guy I'd like to keep an eye on is Curtis Gatewood, who we signed off of Pittsburgh's practice squad in the middle of last season. He's got the specs to be a 3-4 OLB, and if Pittsburgh saw something in him then that's a good sign, plus he knows Spanos (the linebackers coach that we signed from Pittsburgh).

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

anyone have a link to saturday nights coaches corner on nbc?

Posted by: jm22d56 | February 15, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 12:48 PM

CB was #11.

Problem with Orakpo and Wilson on the outside is that Whitten, Celek, & Boss will be game planed to exploit their biggest weakness and that is their inability to cover their own shadows.

The solution would be to get Dansby in FA and he could play ILB or SSLB in a 3-4. He is also equally effective playing against the pass, rush, or getting after the QB.

Moore or Holmes could be the solution @ FS. It’s just too bad that in a 4-12 season our outgoing coaching staff didn’t give some of the younger guys a longer look.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

How much do the people of the Redskins Insider get paid to NOT work?!

Posted by: filmchis | February 15, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

CB was #11.

Problem with Orakpo and Wilson on the outside is that Whitten, Celek, & Boss will be game planed to exploit their biggest weakness and that is their inability to cover their own shadows.

The solution would be to get Dansby in FA and he could play ILB or SSLB in a 3-4. He is also equally effective playing against the pass, rush, or getting after the QB.

Moore or Holmes could be the solution @ FS. It’s just too bad that in a 4-12 season our outgoing coaching staff didn’t give some of the younger guys a longer look.


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse


Ha ha.

The thing about covering TEs on the edge is that it is a double-edged sword. It's true that Orakpo and Wilson need to work on pass coverage; but on a passing down, the offense is going to have to account for Orakpo in pass-rushing - which means they might have to keep that TE in to block.

I know Dansby apparently put the Skins on his short-list, but I don't think we offer him as good a playing opportunity as the other teams.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I know Dansby apparently put the Skins on his short-list, but I don't think we offer him as good a playing opportunity as the other teams.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I think the Redskins will be on the short-list of a lot of these guys because of their history of over-paying big name FAs

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

to all of you guys who disagree with me, thanks for the comments.. but i stand my ground

the Redskins were, hands down, the most poorly coached team in the NFL last year..NO OTHER team would have run that swinging gate play after a time out..Blache's schemes on defense were a total misfit for the personnel he had. added up, the coaches cost the team several losses last year. we wont have that problem with Shanahan. add in any kind of decent
offseason and this team should easily be middle of the pack. remember, the Saints went from 3-13 to deep into the playoffs in ONE off season by adding Payton and Brees. they also totally re did their offensive line in one off season replacing 4 out of 5 guys WITHOUT using more than 1 high pick on a lineman. it can be done

the single most important player on the field is the starting QB.. everything runs through him. get the selection right, and he is the extension of the coach on the field.
get it wrong and you have head scratching and chaos. starters are where you find them, but the odds of finding a starter in the second round are pretty poor. there are NO guarantees that you dont end up picking a Heath Shuler, or Jay Cutler for that matter when you chose a QB in the first round.. but the odds are that you are only going to get Quincy Carters and Tarvairis Jacksons in the second round.

I totally agree that the Skins have to hit a home run with the #4 pick. The only question is whether Shanahan and company feel that Bradford or Clausen is the real deal.. if they feel it is so, you pick him.
despite the projections that Okung is a high level player, there are questions about him as well.. no one can convince me he is head and shoulders above other guys like Davis, Campbell, Black, Ducasse, Fox, Brown-- some of whom will be there at the start of the second round

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Shanahan is an arrogant, risk-taking S.O.B. He seems to prefer QB's who miror his demeanor. Campbell isn't a good fit - he's too timid (in disposition and playing style) to run Shanahan's offense. Of the 3 current QB's, Colt Brennan would probably be the best fit with Shanahan.

If the skins are serious about switching to a 3-4 defense, why not draft LB McLain
at #4? Our defense is seriously deficient in playmakers.

Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I know Dansby apparently put the Skins on his short-list, but I don't think we offer him as good a playing opportunity as the other teams.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 1:14 PM

I'd be ecstatic if we inked Dansby. I would be shocked though if he doesn’t end up with the Giants. Every FA puts us on their list for the payday but if the offers are similar, then he will pick the Giants.

I think with Shanny/Allen in house the days of vastly overpaid FA acquisitions is a thing of the past much like Vinny. This will make it harder to win the annual offseason super bowl but will make for a much better 53 man roster.

My last words on Hall.

He’s had two huge paydays in a year (Raiders 08/Skins 09) and has every skill that you would want in a CB. Speed, HANDS, always around the ball, confidence, & and fluid hips. He was cut by Oak because he struggled in their scheme of man coverage. We picked him up and then overpaid and outbid ourselves for him without any competition from any other teams. In 09 he had 4 picks in 13 games and struggled with tackling and had a very average season in Blache’s zone based scheme.

I still think he has upside but with all his obvious talent, what is holding him back? Could it be the Raiders as an organization and Blache/Gray, or @ 26 years old has he reached his plateau and what you’ve seen the last 2 years is what you’re going to get.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

another point is the issue of timing.. if you take a guy like Bradford and let him sit for a year in 2010 while you also repair the Offensive line, then he should be ready to go fully in 2011

if you wait until 2011 to draft a QB for the future, he is still going to be at least a year away, so you are pointing for 2012.
the key is to try and get the team to come of age at the same time.

all that said, FIX the OFFENSIVE line this off season..once more, FIX THE OFFENSIVE LINE THIS OFFSEASON. but i maintain it can be done without spending the top pick on a Tackle. but dont pass on some one who COULD be the next Philip Rivers (that is who Bradford reminds me of) to take a Tackle that has questions about him

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

what if he gets Plummer to unretire? that could work

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

we dont need McLain.. we could easily sign Kirk Morrison who will give us the same without using the top pick on a LB.. or sign Dansby..

we need a QB or O linemen at the top of the draft

Campbell is a hugely poor fit for Shanahan, despite the nice things that are being said about him. He is slow to read, slow to move, slow to deliver the ball and is the worst QB in the NFL among starters in terms of comeback efficiency. The only 2 positive things he could contribute at this point are:
1. be converted into draft picks in trade
2. take another year of punishment until Bradford is ready to take over.

sorry, if that seems cold, but it is my read on the situation. all Shanahan needs to look at is Campbell's last pass of 2009-- a Hail Mary pass thrown 20 yards out of bounds-- to see that is most certainly NOT the long term answer for the Redskins at QB..

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Plummer would be fine for 1 year.. i dont think we would owe Miami anything for his rights..Pennington would be fine. Kitna. Batch.Sage. also fine for a year.

there will be options, but it still doesnt mean the Redskins dont take Bradford at #4 and let him develop

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

all Shanahan needs to look at is Campbell's last pass of 2009

shally, agreed, a coach shouldn't take ANY factors into consideration from the 2009 season other than this 1 pass....BRILLIANT plan.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Shally-

Morrison is a RFA with only 5 years of service. Insert the name Larry Foote instead.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/02/13/free-agency-primer-offensive-linemen/

Who would you give up a second rounder for on this list?

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

all Shanahan needs to look at is Campbell's last pass of 2009

shally, agreed, a coach shouldn't take ANY factors into consideration from the 2009 season other than this 1 pass....BRILLIANT plan.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

most important throw of his career.

could have made skins 5-11 instead they were 4-12.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse


I think Dansby ends up with Gmen too. They cut Pierce, and they are going to hand him the starting MLB position from Day 1. We can't match that opportunity.


My take on Hall begins with this question:

Who on the Redskins has really developed and excelled beyond their natural talent over the past several years?

You could make the case that Cooley has taken strides forward as a ProBowl TE; but that's it. Virtually no one has developed or excelled.

I don't think the Skins are as dysfunctional an environment as a team like the Raiders, but we've not been too far off.

What does this mean for D.Hall? He came into the league when he was like 19-20 years old - basically a glorified teenager - and exploded on the scene in Atlanta early as a result of his mega-talent. Once the league got used to him and saw what he could do, and couldn't do, his performance leveled off. This is where a "pro" responds by devoting himself to perfecting his craft and getting better at his job.

Instead D.Hall hit free agency and went to the Raiders where he floundered in the most dysfunctional environment you could scrape up in the NFL. He admitted that he chased the $$ to Oakland and he learned the hard way about becoming a professional.

He got a new lease on life/career with the Skins and played some inspired football and flashed that mega-talent for half a season - got a couple nice picks, solid coverage, and became our # 1 CB. So we paid him.

Last year, I think he played well as a cover corner and I think you can find some numbers to back that up. But the environment was still seriously dysfunctional. I don't think you can develop as a player outside of the context of the team.

With bums like Carlos Rogers and Laron Landry regressing around you, it's gonna affect things. When your secondary coach is stabbing the HC in the back and telling lies to the media and the defensive coordinator is nowhere to be found and everyone knows about it - it affects the environment.

So, to end off my dissertation, I think it comes down to this:

D.Hall needed some time understand what it takes to be a real pro - not just a great talent.

The Redskins needed to rediscover what it means to be a truly professional organization to develop talent and success - not the Animal House that we've witnessed for a decade.

I think those 2 realities are now coming together and we will see D.Hall excel as a pro in a real professional environment.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Shanahan is an arrogant, risk-taking S.O.B.

Posted by: coparker5

I was going to say Shanahan has a unique thinking process. I think he's arrogant, brilliant and an SOB. Risk taking, I'm not sure about.

I wonder how he genuinely feels about Jay Cutler. If you could know that answer, I think you'd learn a lot about Shanahan.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the plan all along was to acquire Cutler last year and bring in Shanny this year. I think the guy is a risk taker - he drafted Maurice Clarette, signed Dale Carter and Daryl Gardner as free agents, and chose Jake the Snake to QB his team.
I like risk takers. Football is a game. Take some chances. I loved Bellichik's 4th down call against Indy.

Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I loved Bellichik's 4th down call against Indy.

They failed to convert and gave the Colts a 34 yard field to drive for the winning score?? Whats not to love.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Tony Pike from WalterFootball

Summary: Pike projects strictly as a career backup in the NFL. He simply doesn't possess even an average arm to be a starter. Pike can be somewhat reliable since he makes great decisions and is highly intelligent, but he lacks a lot of talent, and you can't coach talent. I project Pike to come off the board between the third and fifth rounds.

Player Comparison: Todd Collins. Collins has a weak arm, but is an extremely smart quarterback and a reliable backup.

I would add that he is a stick figure at 6'6 and ONLY 212 lbs. He was a starter for two years and each year missed significant playing time due to injuries (3 games in 08 & 4 in 09) . He was also completely exposed in the sugar bowl against the Gators. He only threw for 170 yds and his 3 TDs came when Cats were trailing 37-3 and those meaningless TDs were for a combined total of 11 yds.

I like Lefevor, Snead, or Skeleton as a later round developmental QB, if Shanny goes that route.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Is there realy nothing else to report since Friday at 5;15? How about the status of the guys that were injured last year? What are they doing to rehab and how far along are they? How about some insight from WaPo, (if any exists) into what the team is doing to field a better product next year? Shanahan will be given time ubnlike Zorn to fix the O-line and then be judged. What is the best guess from WaPo about which direction they go in free agency and the draft? We've read each other's opinions ad nauseum, and they wonder why the newspaper industry is dying.....

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 15, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I like risk takers. Football is a game. Take some chances. I loved Bellichik's 4th down call against Indy.

Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 2:17 PM

Except you don't take a chance with the 4th pick in the draft. You try to minimize the risk of setting your organization back 2-3 years by missing on a top 5 pick, 4-5 if you miss on a QB.

Bradford = extreme risk
Okung = minimal risk
Trade back = optimal move if possible

Bellicheats move was idiotic, terrible analogy.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 2:17 PM

I like calculated risks myself. Some of those moves by Shanny were gambles, and his teams paid the price. Sorta like Vinny, gambling on the health of Samuel, and Thomas.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

i was being a wize-ass in posting about Campbell's last pass.. but, the other comments concerning his deficiencies are real.

he wont be shanahan's long term starter.. you can make book on that one

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

shally,
I think your logic is flawed. You seem to think that if the Redskins don't take a quarterback high this year their chances to get a franchise QB will vanish next year because the win-loss record will put the Redskins at the end of the draft. So? They can trade up if they really want a QB at the top of the 2011 draft.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 15, 2010 8:11 AM |

You also have to factor in that the bottom dwellers may be QB'ed up for the most part when 2011 rolls around. TB has Free, KC Cass, Oak Russ, Det Staff, etc. and Cleve and StL will prob gobble up Claus and Brad. So when draft time comes in 2011 the Skins don't necessarily have to be in the top five to draft an elite QB. They do have to worry about Petey and Cattle trying to grab Bark though.

Posted by: TubularBells | February 15, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

and they wonder why the newspaper industry is dying.....

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 15, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it's because their free online content isn't updated enough.

Why waste all your stories in Feb. when you have months and months to fill before the start of next season.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Except you don't take a chance with the 4th pick in the draft. You try to minimize the risk of setting your organization back 2-3 years by missing on a top 5 pick, 4-5 if you miss on a QB.

Bradford = extreme risk
Okung = minimal risk
Trade back = optimal move if possible

Bellicheats move was idiotic, terrible analogy.


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse


Belicheat also habitually trades back in the draft.

You need to be more than simply willing to take a risk, you need to have the sense of WHEN to take the risk.

For whatever reason, Belicheat had his head up his arse against the Colts and so he was treated to the flavor of his own dung.

Hopefully, that won't be the case for Shallen come draft day and we'll take the OT or trade back.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

You are right Str8.
Their free online info is, well, free. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for.

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 15, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I like calculated risks myself. Some of those moves by Shanny were gambles, and his teams paid the price. Sorta like Vinny, gambling on the health of Samuel, and Thomas.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse


Yes but some of them paid off for Shanny as well.

He traded Portis and lost little in his running game, while also getting back one of the best CBs of our generation and a draft pick.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TubularBells

Barkley won't be eligible for the draft until 2012. He was a true freshman last year and players need 3 years since HS grad to be eligible.

The most coveted guys in 2011 will be Locker, Mallett, & Luck. If Locker and Mallet would have declared this year then I would be all for drafting a QB this year, we will have a shot at one of them next year.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is a hugely poor fit for Shanahan, despite the nice things that are being said about him. He is slow to read, slow to move, slow to deliver the ball and is the worst QB in the NFL among starters in terms of comeback efficiency


What the hell is comeback efficiency?

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | February 15, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What the hell is comeback efficiency?

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer

A measure of how well she performed, er, eh.... You know what I mean?

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | February 15, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Who on the Redskins has really developed and excelled beyond their natural talent over the past several years?

Posted by: p1funk

You have really hit on the #1 issue with Zorn. For all his issues, this stands out.

Though I can think of a few guys that have developed and a few more that may be on track, I agree that its a small list -- and the number that regressed or are nowhere near their potential -- is much too big.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree - calculated risks are the best. Just, sometimes, why not go balls-to-wall? Kick an onside kick in the superbowl, take a chance that you'll make 1 yard on 4th down. I'll give Zorn his credit - he went for several 4th down conversions. I like it when coaches don't do everything by the book.

That being said, skins should draft Bryan Bulaga at #4. He'd be the safest, sure-thing pick to fit Shanny's zone blocking scheme.


Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

shal, how about if we shore up the OL, then see what JC can do....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Bradford = extreme risk
Okung = minimal risk
Trade back = optimal move if possible

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 2:36 PM |

With the memory of Drew Brees and the Saints winning the SB over the vaunted Colts and super-elite QB Manning still fresh in our minds, we look at your post and instead of

"Bradford = extreme risk"

we see

"Brees = extreme risk"

and we howl like a pack of hyenas.

Posted by: TubularBells | February 15, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

shal, how about if we shore up the OL, then see what JC can do....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 2:53 PM |

"see what JC can do ...". Heh, heh. Well, there is five years of tape on what the dud can do and at some point Shanahan will have "seen it" and prob will pass on keeping him.

Posted by: TubularBells | February 15, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes but some of them paid off for Shanny as well.

He traded Portis and lost little in his running game, while also getting back one of the best CBs of our generation and a draft pick.

Posted by: p1funk | February 15, 2010 2:46 PM

Was that so much of a gamble. CP didn't become a locker cancer in DC, know what I mean? Brian Mitchell this past Friday on WPL said he spoke to Rod Smith for an hour or so. Smith had nothing positive to say regarding Portis. It would seem to me that Shanny, who has his hands into everything, would know this about CP and made plans to rectify the situation. He was trying to do the same thing with Brandon Marshall before he was axed.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

like in 2008 when the line was holding up, and the team was 6-2, tubular....is that when you're talking about?

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

there was a devastating article published on line within the past month or so that contained stats based upon the percentage a QB had of bringing a team back from behind inthe second half..

it has been widely talked about at several Redskin sites.. surprised it has not been discussed here.. what it came to was that Campbell had something like a 16 % chance of leading his team back from being behind..among the worst in the NFL

obviously the issue of being sabotaged by a bad o line, dropped passes and so forth is difficult to factor.. but the bottom line is if you are waiting for Campbell to bring you back in the second half, you can forget about it..

i will see if i can get you a link to the article

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Who on the Redskins has really developed and excelled beyond their natural talent over the past several years?

Posted by: p1funk

You have really hit on the #1 issue with Zorn. For all his issues, this stands out.

Though I can think of a few guys that have developed and a few more that may be on track, I agree that its a small list -- and the number that regressed or are nowhere near their potential -- is much too big.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

It hasn't just been under Zorn, its been the Redskins as a whole since Marty was fired. IMO the reason is simple. We have ever replaced older talent with young in house talent because we have either A) traded away draft picks or B) signed slightly less older players to replace our oldest players. Under Spurrier he brought in anybody who considered going to Florida. Joe brought in every old player he could find. And Zorn had the same thing done to him by Cerrato. Then he stubbornly stuck with playing those guys (CP, Randel El, Thomas, Rabach) instead of either finding viable replacements last offseason or developing the young talent. Even with Fred Davis who had a great year, he never would have sniffed the field if Cooley hadn't gotten hurt. Its a combo of terrible management and coaching. But when you have no draft picks, and behind your old vets is a bunch of off the street FAs what do you expect?

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

how about if we BOTH fix the O line AND get a QB for the future ?? they are not mutually exclusive options..

bring Campbell back for a year behind a revamped O line and see if that 6-2 record was a mirage..Bradford wont be ready for a while anyway

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Amano gets a new contract
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 15, 2010 2:58 PM ET
The Titans have locked up one of their offensive lineman before he got close to free agency.

Jim Wyatt of the Nashville Tennessean reports that the team has agreed to terms with guard Eugene Amano on a five-year contract through 2014.

The Titans said that maintaining offensive line continuity was important, and clearly Amano was a priority over center Kevin Mawae, who hasn't heard from the team yet. Amano could potentially move to center if Mawae leaves.

Tennessee got fantastic value by signing tackles Michael Roos and David Stewart to long-term deals in 2008. We suspect this contract will also be team-friendly; Amano could made plenty on the open market.

There may not be a more punishing offensive line in the league than Tennessee's group. Keeping Amano will help them stay that way.

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

like in 2008 when the line was holding up, and the team was 6-2, tubular....is that when you're talking about?

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I watched those games, I remember Portis playing his tail off and our defense being stout. I remember Campbell doing nothing, not throwing any picks but not throwing any TDs either.

week 1 = 133 1 TD #5 defense
week 2 = 327 1 TD #23 defense
week 3 = 193 2 TD #19 defense
week 4 = 231 2 TD #8 defense
week 5 = 178 0 TD #3 defense
week 6 = 208 0 TD #28 defense
week 7 = 164 0 TD #26 defense
week 8 = 328 1 TD #32 defense

so with an intact line, the best rusher in the NFL, and the #4 defense in the league playing 5 of 8 against teams in the bottom half of the league in defense he averaged 220 yards a game and .875 TDs a game. That's pretty impressive alright.

The best that can be said about Campbell is he doesn't throw a lot of picks and therefore doesn't lose games for you. He also doesn't win games for you and we can get 220/game and 1 TD from a rookie.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Will there be a NFL draft in 2011 if the players are locked out?

If there is no season next year, all those non-drafted players roll into the 2012 draft right?

Posted by: coparker5 | February 15, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

how about if we BOTH fix the O line AND get a QB for the future ?? they are not mutually exclusive options..

bring Campbell back for a year behind a revamped O line and see if that 6-2 record was a mirage..Bradford wont be ready for a while anyway

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Drafting Bradford isn't the only way you end up with a QB for the future either.

I'd rather have the skins use their 1st rounder on o-line.

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

what if he gets Plummer to unretire? that could work

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 1:44 PM

Except that Plummer hates Shanahan and Shanahan reportedly wasn't too crazy about Plummer - couldn't use his whole playbook with him

Posted by: skinswest | February 15, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

we can get 220/game and 1 TD from a rookie.

Posted by: zjfr2 | February 15, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

yea. Just ask JaMarcus Russell and Mark Sanchez.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I think Shanahan is the ultimate in taking calculated risks. Example, after the horrid non fumble call vs SD in 2008 opener (Cutler lost the ball without being hit, ref called it incomplete -- rule changed because of it), Shanahan went for 2 points and the win instead of 1 and the tie ... and got it.

Clarett was another calculated risk that didn't work. Take a 3rd round pick who has 1st round talent and if he turns around, great. Its not like a 3rd round pick is a lock to help a team.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 15, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Ha-HA... Bama of the week award goes to BeantownGreg1 for his use of the word: "Tubular".

Ol' Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure/Bogus Journey watchin ol' bean baked bama!!!

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hold up, just seen that it's a dude up here called 'Tubular Bells'... wtf is this '91?

Tubular Bells an ol' "I love being a turtle ol' bama dude".

Doesn't change that BeantownGreg1 is still bama of the week tho...

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

red, I'm literally laughing out loud at my desk...you're a funny cat.

I believe I was responding to 'tubular bells'......but because you made me laugh, we're putting that down as semantics...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

awww, dude. Tubular.

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Here’s two teams to emulate with regards to the draft. Both teams have at least 5 picks in the top 120 picks in the draft (Pats 5, Eagles 6) while we have 5 in the entire draft. Sadly for Eagles fans they have ZERO Lombardi trophies.

Pats
1st : #22
2nd: #44 from Jax for NE’s 2009 3rd rd (Jax drafted CB Derek Cox)
2nd: #47 from Tenn for NE’s 2009 3rd pick (Tenn drafted TE Jared Cook)
2nd: #53
3rd : #85 traded to Oak for Derrick Burgess
4th: #116
5th: #149 traded to TB for TE Alex Smith
6th: #180
7th: #213, #215

Eagles
1st: #24
2nd: #55
3rd: #60 from Seattle who drafted CB Deon Butler in 2009 3rd.
3rd: #77
4th: #108
4th: #114 from Jets
5th: #117 traded to Rams for DT Thomas Morstead via N.O.
6th: #182 traded to Bills part of Peters deal
6th: 190 from Colts who drafted P Pat McAffe in 2009
7th: #215 traded to N.E.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, compadre... Gnarley!!!

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

look at bama red trying to cover his tracks.....if that ain't bama...nuthin is....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | February 15, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TWISI | February 15, 2010 3:15 PM

That's unfortunate that Tenn locked up Amano, not surprised though. I think he would have gotten more on the open market but he must like playing for Fisher and the Tenn organization.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 15, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh wow man, that was the most fantabulous, most spectacular, most all out nifty thing I ever just seen man....

Now give me surf board.

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Red quoting "Surf Ninjas"

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Yo, it's has to me the most deadest time on RI.... NFL network is unwatchable... couldn't get into the NBA all-star game/weekend (MLB has the best all-star game)... Daytona sucked (I only watch the last 10 laps of NSCAR races, so don't revoke my "bortha" card) and I DON'T ever do the winter Olympics.

And I'm sick of hearing ice slide off my roof...

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

beep beep

Breaking News - Darrell Green is still real fast.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 15, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Whose the master Splinter of the board?

Shout outs to Bebop and Rocksteady, the Foot clan, Casey Jones, and the Shredder.

Posted by: RedDMV | February 15, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

lots of folks here referencing the Tandler article on where you DO find franchise QB's.. it aint in the second round and beyond of the draft.. at least not often enough to plan on it happening.

if you want a franchise QB you need to take one when you get the shot early in the draft.. or be prepared to send a large portion of your draft to another team to move up in the hopes of getting one

look where the QB's of teams in the playoffs come from.. other than HOF-ready geezers like Favre and Warner, you need to spend a high pick on one of them. they simply arent falling into the second round and beyond..

you can say that having a franchise level QB is not a necessity, and that is a whole different argument.. but if you want one, you have to roll the dice on a high pick

if Bradford or Clausen is the guy you think is the one, you arent getting him on the cheap

Posted by: shally | February 15, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

There is too little great talent for a 32 team NFL. I say lets have a 4 team contraction. there would be more talent to go around, have bigger rosters (like 60) and play 18 games and 2 pre-season. Now there's a debate to throw around

Posted by: boysheadcoach | February 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Lets lose Jacksonville, Detriot, Carolina, & Tampa Bay

Posted by: boysheadcoach | February 15, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company