Network News

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

Hall faces another part of his past on Sunday

On Nov. 8, Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall played in Atlanta for the first time since he was traded from the Falcons to Oakland before the 2008 season. The result: A sideline skirmish between Hall and several Falcons players and staff members - including Atlanta Coach Mike Smith - that resulted in fines for a few participants, but not Hall.

Next up for the Redskins: Oakland, the team with which Hall spent eight games to start last season before he was unceremoniously cut in a move that caused "definite shock" with the Raiders and around the NFL, according to current Oakland cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha.

"I mean, there was shock around the league when that first happened," Asomugha said Wednesday in a conference call with Washington-based reporters. "It wasn't just me. My teammates, everybody was like, 'That was a big buzz.' You go from being one of the biggest signings of the offseason to being cut after Week 8, that's going to be a big deal regardless of who you are and regardless of what team you're on. But it looks like it worked out for the best for him."

Hall signed with the Redskins for the second half of 2008, and in the offseason signed a six-year, $55-million deal to remain with Washington. He may not play against the Raiders this weekend, however, because of a lingering knee problem, and he also said he developed back spasms Sunday while roaming the sidelines of the Redskins-Saints game, which he also missed.

Hall was asked to compare Oakland and Washington. He again brought up Atlanta.

"Night and day," he said. "Apples and oranges. To each person, whatever they prefer. I really hadn't experienced anything like what probably transpired in Atlanta more so than here. Here, as you know, it's been a little bit of controversy, but not much. It just comes with not winning football games.

"In Atlanta, you got scandals, all this other stuff. Feds out there, PETA out there [in the wake of the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal]. In Oakland, you never know what's going to happen. Al Davis come down there holding a press conference. Everybody's ready to go to work, and we see 30 news cameras out there. It's a little bit different as far as those two situations go as opposed to here. Here it's just a product of not winning football games."

Asomugha and Hall were supposed to be the Raiders' cornerbacks for years to come, and Hall said he enjoyed playing with another solid defensive back.

"It got me a chance to get balls, sometimes more than I wanted," Hall said. "Definitely got me a chance to get more balls. Nnamdi's a great guy, great student of the game. I love him to death."

Asomugha praised Hall as a teammate but said the change to what the Raiders wanted - a press-coverage system in which the corners frequently find themselves in one-on-one matchups - was difficult for Hall to adjust to.

"DeAngelo's a play-maker," Asomugha said. "And he's a guy that plays with his eyes, and I think he'll be the first to tell you that he wants to be out there. He wants to be free to go out and make plays and do what he does best. When you come here, and you're asked to play football and to play the cornerback position, you have to understand that you're going to be in press coverage. You have to understand you're going to be in man-to-man plus-90 percent of the game.

"And so maybe it was something - it was definitely something that he wasn't used to. I think he was used to a lot more coverages and a lot more of the ability to do a lot more within the defense. It took some adjusting for him. He never really got that full chance to adjust to that change. It was an eight-game swing, and it's a tough thing to do."

Hall was asked if he was worried about keeping up with the Raiders' speedy receivers, particularly if he's playing hurt.

"I'm faster than all of them," he said. "Even an 80-percent me can keep up with some of those guys."

Reid chats

Join Jason Reid for a Redskins chat at noon EST today.

Redskins through the 2000s

The season is about to end and, with it, the decade. Where do the Redskins' moves and events rank on the local scene? Vote now on the top stories, the biggest stars, the worst busts.

Discuss Campbell's future

The topic of the day in the Redskins Tailgate Zone is: Should Jason Campbell return next season?

By Barry Svrluga  |  December 10, 2009; 6:43 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Zorn: Suisham's 'situation had been building'
Next: Fletcher earns another accolade

Comments

Hall? Is he from that Mexican family, the Halls of Montezuma?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Its more like "Deck the Halls" ...what an ass...we never should have given that much money to a guy who struggles in man to man coverage...Shut Down Corner Money....is typically reserved for Shut Down Corners who play MAN to MAN

Posted by: scottmando | December 10, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice to beat Dallas, but not at the expense of improve draft rank given many personnel needs.

Posted by: TheAnimalFarm | December 8, 2009 9:41 AM

Go blog with your fellow Dallas pukes, you sorry-azz quitter.

Posted by: League-Source | December 8, 2009 9:47 AM

So here is a poster who would prefer beating Dallas once to getting a better draft postion to snag the likes of Okung or Suh so the Skinz will be able to beat Dallas many times hence. Good job buddy!

Posted by: TheAnimalFarm | December 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Your theory is that the way to win next year is by losing this year, right buddy? If you’re right, why stop at the next four games, chum? Why don’t we just lose every game for the next three years and then we’ll really be stocked up with talent, pal?

This week we’re playing a team that tries that strategy, Oakland. In the last three years they picked #7, #4, #1. Is that what you want to be, the Oakland Raiders? I’d rather be like the New England Patriots. In the last three years, they picked #34 (traded out of the first round), #62 (forfeited the first round pick), #21.

Beating Dallas, and winning in the NFL, is not about getting high draft picks. They’re risky and they cost big bucks. It’s about player selection and coaching.

The way to beat Dallas is to beat Dallas. You don’t lose one so you can hope to win two by drafting at #5 instead of #9. That’s for losers.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Hall isn't good enough to warrant this whole "playing his former team" crap, do we discuss it every time Philip Daniels plays the Seahawks or the Bears?

Make more positive plays than negative ones and we'll gladly indulge in your personal agendas. Until then, just worry about getting that knee ready and not letting Louis Murphy make a fool of you.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

"I'm faster than all of them," he said. "Even an 80-percent me can keep up with some of those guys."

LMAO Louis Murphy is roasting DB's out there, dont give him any fodder, return with some class atleast

Posted by: Istudydrugs | December 10, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

League-Source,
Well said. From where I am sitting, any fan who suggests the Redskins give a game away to the Cowboys - of all teams - is just not a fan.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Week 14 scouting report: What we know about the Raiders
By: John Keim
Examiner Staff Writer
December 10, 2009

1. Gradkowski is better than Russell » JaMarcus Russell, the top overall pick in 2007, is a bust, thanks to shoddy training and studying habits. Bruce Gradkowski is a journeyman quarterback who has led comeback wins over Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. He's more accurate than Russell, provides more leadership and does a better job of eluding the rush. He's not perfect -- he should have been picked off three times on the game-winning drive vs. Pittsburgh last week -- but the players respond to him.

2. They love press man coverage » Oakland has not yet caught up with the rest of the NFL when it comes to varying defenses, thanks to Al Davis' love for press coverage. But the Raiders do have arguably the game's top cornerback in Nnamdi Asomugha, who excels in this area. They will blitz -- and they'll use end Trevor Scott as a stand-up rusher on occasion -- but they like to pressure with their front four and have the corners in the receiver's face. Sounds manly, right? Too bad the Raiders are 31st in the NFL having allowed 14 pass plays of 40 yards or more. Their safeties are better suited to stop the run.

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

3. They lack big-play receivers » Louis Murphy is the only receiver among the Raiders' top five in receptions. Considering their top three receivers all run the 40-yard dash in 4.48 seconds or better, it shows you speed isn't everything. Murphy (4.32 seconds) is a big-play guy, averaging 17.9 yards on his 23 receptions. He's coming off a four-catch, 128-yard, two-touchdown game at Pittsburgh. Darrius Heyward-Bey is fast, but has done nothing with just nine catches and one touchdown. He's another unproductive high pick, joining Russell and running back Darren McFadden.

4. Zach Miller is tough » The Raiders' third-year tight end leads the team with 43 receptions and averages 14.2 yards per catch, a hefty sum for that position. At 6-foot-5, he presents matchup problems for most defenders. Miller is not the fastest, but he is the go-to guy. In wins over Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, he caught a combined 15 passes for 247 yards and two touchdowns.

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Hall isn't good enough to warrant this whole "playing his former team" crap, do we discuss it every time Philip Daniels plays the Seahawks or the Bears?

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:08 AM

Hey, keep that Hall-hate going so that we'll know you haven't gone soft on us, brownwood.

Did Philip Daniels get cut by the Bears or the Seahawks last year?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

twis, thanks for posting that, maybe this is the weekend that they get moss/dt some long passes....I wish I had confidence in the Redskins coaching staff to take advantage of the press coverage......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Is that what you want to be, the Oakland Raiders?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 7:56 AM


That ship has already sailed, dude. And we're on it.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:19 AM | Report abuse

How many times do you think Hall will be blown out of plays this weekend ?

Simply because his thug mentality will lend itself to being all about him and not the Redskins.

The Skins would be better off, just fielding 10 on defense this week.

Posted by: dashriprock | December 10, 2009 8:21 AM | Report abuse

How many times do you think Hall will be blown out of plays this weekend ?

Simply because his thug mentality will lend itself to being all about him and not the Redskins.

The Skins would be better off, just fielding 10 on defense this week.

Posted by: dashriprock | December 10, 2009 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Does Nnamdi Asomugha cover Moss or DT? I'm thinking Moss' quickness might be a good match up against Nnamdi.

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Did Philip Daniels get cut by the Bears or the Seahawks last year?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 8:13 AM


No, but we've already been thru this with Hall this year with the return to Atlanta. And at least he had a relevant history there...in Oakland he wasn't even there long enough for the ink on his contract to dry. That would be the same as making a big deal about Adam Archuleta's return to Washington as a backup in Chicago...I seem to remember that as only a minor footnote at the time.

All I'm saying is that Hall's return to Oakland should be a minor footnote as well.

But that wouldn't be juicy enough to count as "lies and animosity" for some misplaced argument of yours, so I'll wait for whatever new brand of lunacy you're cooking up...

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Ryan O'Halloran is reporting that, if Campbell is a RFA, the Skins have to give up "at least a first round pick" to tender him. If this is true, it seems like Campbell's definitely done as a Redskin, because I don't see Danny signing him to any kind of respectable contract, and, given the lack of available QBs in FA and the draft, Campbell is in prime position to get an outsized FA contract somewhere else.

I had been under the impression that the Redskins could just tender him for one year as a RFA, but there's no way they give up a pick to do that...

Can we get a post that just lists the bullets of what the possibilities and consequences are in a CBA vs non CBA year (meaning Campbell would be a FA or a RFA)? It seems like the best possible chance that Campbell stays is in an uncapped year where he's slapped with the franchise tag, but I don't really see Snyder paying Campbell at the rate of the top salaries in his position.

Posted by: crashinghero | December 10, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

A word on Zorn:

In the discussion of whether or not the Redskins should keep Zorn next year, it is pretty common to see Zorn's play-calling as a primary reason to send him down the dusty trail. I agree that his play calling has been horrible, but I think it has been proven that having a different play caller makes a big difference. If this were Zorn's only deficiency, I might be compelled to look past it and say it would be okay to see Zorn back next year.

Wrong. There's more wrong here than the play calling. Remember training camp and the pre-season? The players' lapses in focus and the breakdowns in disicipline started in training camp. Players were allowed to sit with the least little nick. Veterans were given preferential treatment. The whole process was run as test case for "playing to not get hurt". This is no way to run a training camp. When the regular season began you saw a whole lot of oxygen sucking on the sideline. Portis was clearly out of shape. Haynesworth was definitely feeling the burn. Landry was out of sync. Horton looked far less than he did the year prior. This is the stinky fish of a season that Zorn began.

There has been much talk about how the players have rallied around their coach over the last few weeks, how they haven't given up. There's something to be said for that, but I can't help but wonder if this is a result of Zorn's leadership, or the result of his martyrdom. I can't see this coach standing in a locker room rallying his troops with phrases like "stay medium". I just can't - which makes me think the players are playing to keep Zorn's job because he is a nice guy, not because he is a great leader who is urging them on to excellence.

At the end of the day, Zorn has lost more than he has won, and that is reason enough to let him go. You may say he was dealt a bad hand with the players he has, but good coaches find a way. It is about being adaptable and getting the most out of your players. Zorn just hasn't gotten it done. Nice guy, bad coach, hope things work out better for you in your next job, see ya...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Ryan O'Halloran is reporting that, if Campbell is a RFA, the Skins have to give up "at least a first round pick" to tender him.

Posted by: crashinghero | December 10, 2009 8:29 AM


If he's reporting that, he should be fired immediately...a restricted FA would GET the Skins a 1st rounder if he's signed by another team (provided the Skins allotted him the proper tender offer). So there's no way JC would COST the team a draft pick, he just has the potential to reel them in another one if someone else is interested.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

"Ryan O'Halloran is reporting that, if Campbell is a RFA, the Skins have to give up "at least a first round pick" to tender him"

No he's not. Go back and re-read it...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

should be a minor footnote
Yes, but they have to write something, and all the "playoff scenario" articles are unavailable.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

crashinghero,
I think you have that wrong about Campbell's tender. If they tender him the $3.0m plus, then another team can big higher, but will have to give up a first round pick. AND Washington, if they tender him, will have first refusal rights if any higher offer is made. If Washington really wants to keep him, I think all they have to do is give him the minimum tender offer. No other team will give up $3.0m and a first round pick for Campbell.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Got it, thanks - misread the quote (and it seemed bizarre).

He said: "tender him at one of four levels (which means a team would sacrifice at least a first-round pick to sign him)"

I read: "tender him at one of four levels (which means THE team would sacrifice at least a first-round pick to sign him)"

Posted by: crashinghero | December 10, 2009 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Good call, RedSkinHead.

Zorn is Norv Turner without the brilliant offensive mind. Which is to say, he's pretty worthless as a HC. I'd buy him as an offensive coordinator if he could get his play calling out of the toilet, but he's just not a quality leader at the NFL level.

The reason this team hasn't given up and is playing better is because there's still quite a bit of character in the locker room. This is still mostly the team that Gibbs helped put together and character is always the first thing Gibbs looks for in his players. So as much as Snyder has tried to undo that with guys like Haynesworth and Hall, there's still London Fletcher and Rock Cartwright and other guys with heart in the locker room.

THAT'S why they're playing up right now, not because of anything Zorn is or isn't doing.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:43 AM | Report abuse

How can you not keep him for 3 million? I mean seriously. An unproven first round pick is going to cost you twice that amount. 3 million for a QB is a freaking joke. We're close to the cap anyway so resign him and use the rest of the money on a position of greater need.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | December 10, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"So as much as Snyder has tried to undo that with guys like Haynesworth and Hall"

brown, how are these guys character problems for the redskins?? What have they done since coming on board that led you to this?? Where are you getting this from??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

If the team tenders JC with a 1st round offer of ~$3M, they get control over his rights. So expect to see -- if some team like Carolina wants him -- a negotiation that ends up in a trade, with Carolina's #1 pick being the most you could get, but more likely something like a #2, or #2++ something to sweeten the pot.

Or, how about Campbell for Peppers straight up! Man, I love the possibilities that the crazy duo in Ashburn let you suggest!

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

brown, how are these guys character problems for the redskins?? What have they done since coming on board that led you to this?? Where are you getting this from??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:50 AM


Nothing in particular, I'm just referencing the fact that they had some issues in other cities and those signings don't go down if Gibbs is still here.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

As much as I dislike Campbell as our QB...and I do think he leaves some wins on the field with his decision making and leadership...I also think that the Skins should offer him the 3 mil and go into next year with him. We simply have too many other areas that we need help to waste a pick on a QB when we already have an average not bad one...A great QB would do wonders for this team, the problem is where are you gonna get a guaranteed great QB and how do you add some talent to the OL at the same time? and a starting LB so Orakpo can play where he should, and so on...I don't like Campbell but what is the alternative? He can play well at times and 3 mil ain't much for a starting QB

Posted by: scottmando | December 10, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

If you get a chance this weekend, take a look at the Jets - Tampa Bay game. Kellen Clemens will be starting at QB for NY in place of Sanchez. This guy is a free agent next year and a virtual unknown commodity outside of Jets-land. He is one of those fringe players the Redskins could make a play for if they decide to go a different way from Campbell, but not blow the first round pick on a QB. He would command a smaller contract than Campbell's tender. He was a former 2nd round pick.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

We also need a new back-up QB no matter what we do with JC. How many years can we go with Collins as the back-up? He's already old.

Posted by: scottmando | December 10, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"Nothing in particular, I'm just referencing the fact that they had some issues in other cities and those signings don't go down if Gibbs is still here"

oh, so you were talking out of an orifice...and that this has no actual substance..gotcha...thanks.


Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

RedSkinHead, I hope you're kidding about Clemens. He's got about a 50 career QB rating. I'd rather roll with Colt Brennan throwing left-handed than Clemens.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

should be a minor footnote

Yes, but they have to write something, and all the "playoff scenario" articles are unavailable.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 8:35 AM

That's not good enough. He should be writing about the pressing issue of the day, next year's draft. Draw lines to connect the following two lists:

OT
FS
RB
OG
C
CB
LB

Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 6

Then, the next post should be about who we should cut, who we should trade, and what we should get for them.

Two more posts: Whether Vinnie should be fired or maimed; who should be the next head coach and how much we would have to pay to get him or her.

Now that's what I want to read. That, or a good, hard-hitting poll: Will next year's QB play better or worse than Jason Campbell?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Nothing in particular, I'm just referencing the fact that they had some issues in other cities and those signings don't go down if Gibbs is still here.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:53 AM |

I will call bullsh_t on that Gibbs is about winning, he traded for Portis who had character issues.

He had Dexter Manley in Gibbs I, I bet he wasn't going to ownership saying we should get rid of him because he does crack.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

"Nothing in particular, I'm just referencing the fact that they had some issues in other cities and those signings don't go down if Gibbs is still here"

oh, so you were talking out of an orifice...and that this has no actual substance..gotcha...thanks.

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 8:59 AM


Here we go...put aside the juvenile name calling for a minute and tell me what part of that you disagree with.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

RedSkinHead, I hope you're kidding about Clemens. He's got about a 50 career QB rating. I'd rather roll with Colt Brennan throwing left-handed than Clemens.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:00 AM

I was thinking the same thing. Clemens isn't that good.

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

brown, what name did I call you?? All I said was that your claim that AH/Hall wouldn't be here if gibbs were here was here was a bunch of bull....Riggins urinated on himself while in a drunken stupor during a meeting, and Gibbs literally looked the other way...so your claim about Gibbs being all about character rings a little hollow...Didn't Gibbs draft ST?? Did he have any 'character' issues??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Brown,

Thats a bad argument Gibbs had lots of bad character guys in I and II.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Nothing in particular, I'm just referencing the fact that they had some issues in other cities and those signings don't go down if Gibbs is still here.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 8:53 AM

If Gibbs is still here we don't have any draft picks because we traded them away for Brunell, Brandon Lloyd, Duckett, Campbell.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I will call bullsh_t on that Gibbs is about winning, he traded for Portis who had character issues.

He had Dexter Manley in Gibbs I, I bet he wasn't going to ownership saying we should get rid of him because he does crack.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:02 AM


What character issues did Portis have? He complained about new contract and he came to the NFL's ATM. I don't get what's bad character about that.

And if I recall correctly, Manley developed those substance abuse issues WHILE he was a Redskin. Gibbs wouldn't drop a guy who has a REAL problem that effects him on and off the field.

Haynesworth has a reputation for not being the hardest worker out there and he stomped on a guy's helmet-less head. Hall has been literally chased out of two cities (although I don't fault him for the Oakland stint). Like I said: Gibbs doesn't sign them if he's here.

I think we need to define what "character" means in the football sense. When Gibbs or any other coach wants a guy of "character", it doesn't mean a man of the cloth or a goody-two-shoes. It means a guy who is gonna fight to the triple zeros even if the team is down 40 points. It means a guy who is gonna give it 150% even if he's hurt or tired. It means working hard and working smart, even though the D.C. night life is way more interesting than watching film of an opponent on a Friday night.

Haynesworth and Hall don't strike me as those guys. From what I've seen, Manley and Portis are.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I was starting to turn around on Zorn. He handled the pressure well and has the team putting forth a good effort in the last four games. So let someone else call plays but keep him as HC. But then he scapegoats the kicker. I can't agree with cutting a kicker who makes 87.5% of his kicks. A guy who has shown improvement from year to year. Scapegoating the kicker is something we hated Norv for doing. Fire Zorn.

Posted by: skinfanman | December 10, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

brown, Gibbs traded for Lloyd, Brandon...this conversation is now over...every point you were trying to make, is TRUMPED by this trade....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The way to beat Dallas is to beat Dallas. You don’t lose one so you can hope to win two by drafting at #5 instead of #9. That’s for losers.


Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 7:56 AM | Report abuse


I've been on the 3-13 bandwagon for a while now.

The reason for this is not so we can draft higher; it's in the hopes that a rock-bottom-type season will expidite the changes that need to be made within the organization, i.e. bringing in a GM who's head is on his shoulders instead of up his corn hole and who cares more about building a winning franchise than hosting a radio show.

Will these changes happen? I don't know. But they are more likely after going 3-13 than 7-9.

I don't cheer against them during the games, but losses don't bother me as much as they have in the past.

Posted by: Original_etrod | December 10, 2009 9:18 AM | Report abuse

@ League-Source's first comment:

..No, but he plays for the Hall of Montezuma's REVENGE!

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 10, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

brown, Gibbs traded for Lloyd, Brandon...this conversation is now over...every point you were trying to make, is TRUMPED by this trade....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:16 AM


So you define Gibbs 2.0 by that one blunder? Even if you work in the Archuleta debacle, he brought in Griffin, Springs, Washington, and Fletcher. If your good moves outnumber your bad ones 2 to 1, you're not doing too bad.

By your logic, the Pats FO sucks at the draft because they took Chad Jackson in the 2nd round a few year back. I guess NOBODY has a good FO!

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Brown,

I get you so because Manley and Riggins were already on the team, they could have all the character problems they wanted and they stayed. It wouldn't have to do with the fact that they were great players would it.

Gibbs was about winning first and he did that with some very flawed players.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:22 AM | Report abuse

RedSkinHead, I hope you're kidding about Clemens. He's got about a 50 career QB rating. I'd rather roll with Colt Brennan throwing left-handed than Clemens.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:00 AM

I was thinking the same thing. Clemens isn't that good.

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 9:03 AM
------------------------------------------
He has a 50 QB rating with the Jets - repeat, the Jets. When he started 8 games in a season, his rating was 60.9. Sanchez, with arguably a better supporting cast, isn't much better with a 63.7. He's a guy with potential that hasn't been given a decent shot. He's had starting experience. If the Redskins are going to mine the free agency circuit for QB talent, they are going to have to reach for some guys. This would be one my picks.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Gibbs traded for Lloyd, Brandon...this conversation is now over...every point you were trying to make, is TRUMPED by this trade....

greg, go back and read Jasno's "Lost Season" series from that season (2006? sheesh!) The scouting staff 'forgot' to talk much about BLloyd's cancerousnessification, and all Al Saunders wanted for Xmas was someone with elite fingertips.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Hall signed with the Redskins for the second half of 2008, and in the offseason signed a six-year, $55-million deal to remain with Washington."

$55 million....?

Has Hall's play justified the payday?

If Carlos is he the skins 'lock down' corner?

Should bringing in a FA corner to augment the secondary be a priority?

Are Smoot and Rogers done this year as redskins?

Last spring, folks said the skins' secondary was the strength of the defense.

I think next year Kevin Barnes and a FA pick up make that strenght stronger.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Dexter Manely was not a bad character guy. He had an undiagnosed learning disablity and an addictive personality. He was also very impressionable and unfortunately he fell in with the wrong players on the team. Joe Gibbs did a lot to try to reach out to help him.

That said, Gibbs 1 did overlook a overlook character issues when the production was there. For an example, look no further than John Riggins.

Posted by: Original_etrod | December 10, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The reason for this is not so we can draft higher; it's in the hopes that a rock-bottom-type season will expidite the changes that need to be made within the organization, i.e. bringing in a GM who's head is on his shoulders instead of up his corn hole and who cares more about building a winning franchise than hosting a radio show.

Posted by: Original_etrod | December 10, 2009 9:18 AM

Sorry, etrod, but I don't buy it. Vinnie's future will be determined less by the final record than by the personnel he's brought in. Thomas, Davis, Kelly, Orakpo, Jarmon (plus vet. free agents) will have more to do with whether Vinnie stays on. And I, personally, am glad to see that they're contributing when given a chance.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

brown, I'm moving on, kind of pointless at this juncture...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I would think the largest shadow over Gibbs 2.0 would have been the one cast by keeping Brunell starting.

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 10, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

kind of pointless at this juncture...
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I would think the largest shadow over Gibbs 2.0 would have been the one cast by keeping Brunell starting.
Can you imagine what JC would have looked like before he caught up to NFL game speed?
Better to start Brunell and be thought a fool than to start Campbell and remove all doubt.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I get you so because Manley and Riggins were already on the team, they could have all the character problems they wanted and they stayed. It wouldn't have to do with the fact that they were great players would it.

Gibbs was about winning first and he did that with some very flawed players.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:22 AM


I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is that Gibbs didn't seek out guys like that to add to his team. He picked up a few guys that may have gotten out of line after the fact, but he never sought out guys with known issues.

ANY coach, Gibbs or anyone will live with certain things if the guy is producing. T.O. continues to land gigs despite his cancerous personality. All I said was that if Gibbs were here, Haynesworth and Hall wouldn't be. I have yet to hear an actual case against that.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

ls, as much as it makes me wretch to think that he'll be retained, you make a valid point as to why this might become reality...those guys you mention...ugh...kind of makes you puke in your mouth a little bit...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I would think the largest shadow over Gibbs 2.0 would have been the one cast by keeping Brunell starting.

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 10, 2009 9:31 AM

Over career back-up Patrick Ramsey? Over rookie Jason Campbell? I don't agree. Not even close to the other personnel blunders.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"....Riggins urinated on himself while in a drunken stupor during a meeting, and Gibbs literally looked the other way..."


...and I bet Dexter Manley got a pass, too.

But that Tiger Woods guy: he definately is someone St Joe wouldn't let stay on the team because of character issues.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Bean, Sox traded Lowell to the Rangers for another M. Ramirez: except his name is Max...

Thoughts?

Posted by: mattylight | December 10, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

moe, yeah no kidding...

Sox traded Lowell to the Rangers...Yanks reupped Pettite for a year...

I'm hoping that the next baseball update has the words, "sox signed Lackey, traded for Adrian Gonzales" in it....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

RSH Clemens is very inconsistent. Last year he threw twice as many picks as TDs and completed about 50% of his passes. Not good. If he's signed for a minimum contract just for a look-see then fine, but if they sign him to a contract similar to a starter then that wouldn't be a good decision

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

scottmando

"As much as I dislike Campbell as our QB...and I do think he leaves some wins on the field..."

This is a very strong point about Campbell.

I wonder if he ever ignores doing what he's been told to do and calls his own number.

There are a lot of NFL quarterbacks who would've called a different play than the worthless stretch plays that resulted in Swizzham's missed field goal.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

ml, not sure at this point, if that trade is part of a larger down the road type of thing, then I'm glad they did it...they need to move Youk to third, and trade for Gonzo, and bring back Bay...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

From the print article this morning: “The Washington Redskins began installing their game plan for the Oakland Raiders on Wednesday……”

Anyone else beside me see a problem with this?. What are they doing on Mondays and Tuesdays? I am happy that the offense has improved lately, but maybe if they started looking at their next opponents on Monday and Tuesday, they might be better prepared to finish off some of these 4th qtrs where they seem to keep collapsing lately. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll bet Joe Gibbs, Bill Bellicheat, Parcells, Gruden, etc had Sundays game film reviewed/broken down by Monday at 8am, had quick meetings with players about what went right/wrong, and started in on the next opponent. I’ll bet that the better teams in the kleague are not waiting until Wednesday to install their gameplans. You have a “week” to get ready for eeach opponent, and assuming that Saturdays are a “light walkthrough” the Skins are only using 3 to 3.5 days to get ready. Come on, man…..

As far as Vinny and Dan going to scout collge qb’s……the only problem I have with this is that Dan is going. Snyder has no football acumen and doesn’t know what he’s looking at. Vinny at least has some football knowledge and a scouting backround. The scouting dept SHOULD be looking at these guys. The only problem with bringing Snyder along is that he will fall in love with one of these guys and railroad them into drafting him no matter what Vinny and the rest of the scouts say they should do. Since Vinny isn’t going anywhere, Danny just needs to let him do his job and keep his nose out of the operation. THAT, is why they continuously fail.

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Bean,

Yeah, though Sox generally have been good at knowing when a player is past their prime and getting rid of them -- seems like Lowell is heading down that road, so we'll see...

Posted by: mattylight | December 10, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Zorn gave them Monday off, which is the typical reward when you beat the #1 team in the conference.
[There's a joke there somewhere, people laugh when I say that, but I'm not sure why.]
Tuesday is typically a day off.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

bean

"I'm hoping that the next baseball update has the words, "sox signed Lackey, traded for Adrian Gonzales" in it...."


Lackey is a must signing.

Remember:

Beckett
Lackey
Lester
Dice K
Wakefield

That's a killa rotation.

Move Pedrioa to short stop and find a second baseman.

I got one for you: Robinson Cano.

But that's a trade that will never happen.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

If you look at what Vinny has done in the past two years, and thats the only time we know that he has been in charge. I think with the exception of O-Line he has braught in some very good players.

I still think he should go, but Danny might let him stay, because he see development in the guys his braught in.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

RSH Clemens is very inconsistent. Last year he threw twice as many picks as TDs and completed about 50% of his passes. Not good. If he's signed for a minimum contract just for a look-see then fine, but if they sign him to a contract similar to a starter then that wouldn't be a good decision

Posted by: TWISI | December 10, 2009 9:43 AM
-----------------------------------------
The point I was trying to make is he is cheaper than Campbell. If you use the "fix the offensive line first" philosophy, next year's QB is going to be a caretaker of the QB spot until they can draft a good one in the following year. In circumstances like that, I think you mine the fringe players hoping to find someone who has more going for them than what anyone thought.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Jason Reid is completely right about the effects of a cross country trip for an athletic competition, whether it is football, basketball, or anything else. We fans really don't realize the effects of the trip, and that's why, I'm sure, many were baffled at the Eagles' terrible performance against the Raiders.

When I was in college, we left for the national championship out in Cali. We left early (first East Coast team to arrive actually) in order to get adjusted to the time, surroundings, etc. Despite this, the physical toll of the trip was evident in our practices and in our performance during competition as we were clearly below our standards (and we were one of the better teams out there!). I myself felt burdened the entire time despite adequate rest and meals.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'Skins didn't play up to the level of the past three weeks. Sure, they're professionals traveling like this all the time, but some are going to get to you.

Posted by: MyPostIDisAfake | December 10, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

brown, I'm moving on, kind of pointless at this juncture...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 9:30 AM


As are most of your arguments.

I make a comment about Zorn and you take the one sentence in the paragraph you don't like and try to make that into a subject all its own and then walk away when you run out of one-liners to dismiss my opinion.

But hey, have it your way dude. Agree to disagree.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice to beat Dallas, but not at the expense of improve draft rank given many personnel needs.

Posted by: TheAnimalFarm | December 8, 2009 9:41 AM

This is such a profoundly stupid statement...it boggles the mind. How can anyone think this way? I want the Skins to be the team that sticks a fork in the Bovine Cartel Dec 27. Seeing Romo do his late-season, pouty, "I don't know what happened but I sure want to be a champion" schtick in FedEx would go a long way towards making up for some of the disappointment this toothache of a season has been. We aren't where we are because we haven't had high picks, we're here because the organization is out of the winning habit. Sunday was Exhibit A. You get back there by winning actual football games...not off-season machinations. Our FO may be obsessed with the off-season, but can't we as fans be part of the solution by staying focused on what this is all about? Draft position be damned...I want to watch the Skins beat Ginas and the Cowpies.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 10, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

“The Washington Redskins began installing their game plan for the Oakland Raiders on Wednesday……”


It's my understanding that NFL teams actually prepare for teams during the OTAs.

That way, the in-season game planning is specific to trends, injuries, and whatever capacities the team has lost or gained.

It cuts down on the amount of thinking a guy has to do if he already has prepared for a team.

I say the plan is to run Ganther at the raiders, then go play action.

The raiders now must decide if their stud corner is on Moss or Thomas or just plays a side.

I put him on Thomas.

Ganther has four games to earn a spot on next season's roster.

That's a plan I want to see in action.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone see Corks post yesterday that Rock has been screwed over by management, that made me laugh.

He never explained how of course, if anything Rock was let stay on kick returns longer then he should of.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

brown, you're making a claim about something that did not, nor will it ever happen...you claim Gibbs would have never brought in AH/DH....I told you Gibbs brought in BL, and you dismiss it, so go ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTLEY nuts..you won this one, you're THE MAN....

Why don't we talk about the team using more unicorns, or trading for the loch-ness monster, more stuff that wont ever happen??

If they had a unicorn at FB, first play, the unicorn impales a player on his horn, I'm telling you NO ONE would want to take on that block.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'm all in favor of sending Vinny to scout Unicorn U.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"PFT is reporting that despite having used 3-second round pick on pass catchers in the 2008 draft, the Washington Redskins in an unprecedented move, are attempting to sign King Kong to play WR. Kong, being represented by Drew Rosenhaus, is expected to be asking for a contract in the neighborhood of 100 trillion dollars, or a really tall building to climb. Stay tuned"

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

" I want the Skins to be the team that sticks a fork in the Bovine Cartel Dec 27."

hear, hear!

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | December 10, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

flound, is it me, or does Rock whine just a little too much...I mean, when given the chance 31, out of 31 teams chose to pass when they had the chance to sign this guy...so how is he getting screwed again??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone see Corks post yesterday that Rock has been screwed over by management, that made me laugh.

He never explained how of course, if anything Rock was let stay on kick returns longer then he should of.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 10, 2009 10:03 AM |

If anything, it's the other way around -- Rock screwed the team. Yesterday Rock got pissy and spilled the beans to the press that he wasn't going to be starting. That caught Zorn by surprise because I think he didn't want to tip off the Raiders. Not sure this gives the Raiders any real advantage, bu NFL coaches want every little surprise they can get. Thanks, Rock.

What Cork was probably referring to was Rock's last contract where he asked for a signing bonus and the 'Skins were, well, skinflints. So Rock tried free agency and none of the other 31 teams in the league made him an offer and he came whimpering back and accepted what the 'Skins were offering. That, to Cork, constitutes screwing Rock over. I guess.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 10, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Russell Okung is extremely talented. He may be the best tackle in the draft and will go in the top 5. That being said, I'll take Brian Bulaga and knocking the girls out of the payoffs 10 times out of 10.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

flounder21

"Did anyone see Cork's post yesterday that Rock has been screwed over by management, that made me laugh. He never explained how of course, if anything Rock was let stay on kick returns longer then he should of."

That's because no one has posted anything for him to take an idea from.

I've noticed he tends to hate on other folk's posts, then regurgitate their ideas as his own.

So look and see if another person posted something about Rock getting stiffed.

Blame that guy, not Cork.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

How about we all just move on? We'll never know if Gibbs would have brought in Hall or Haynesworth, cause he WAS NOT HERE when they came in. Both arguments have validity. Gibbs does value character, and has also made exceptions to that rule with guys like Dexter Manley and Brandon Lloyd, etc. It's an argument that no one can win....there's my two cents.

Posted by: mattylight | December 10, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'm all in favor of sending Vinny to scout Unicorn U.

Posted by: daggar | December 10, 2009 10:07 AM

And Snyder to scout a black hole.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I heard on the radio this morning that congress is voting on a bill today which could essentially “outlaw” the NCAA declaring a national champion without having gone through a playoff system. GOOOOOOO CONGRESS!!!!!!!

Also, did you guys see this from USA today fantasy report (Cardinals):

“Cardinals replacement LT Jeremy Bridges held Vikings RE Jared Allen without a single tackle in Week 13.

Bridges, who filled in for Mike Gandy (pelvis) did get constant help from his left guard and tight ends, but Allen had little impact on the game. The Cards severely out-game planned the Vikings on both sides of the football”

Hmmm….Jeremy Bridges…that name sounds familiar…..

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

dl, wasn't he on the show, "Facts of Life"....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Blame that guy, not Cork.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM

That would have been me (raising hand). I said "Rock is a whiner." Cork hated on me, and beantowngreg copied me. Cork called me a whiner. Beantown called Rock a whiner.

Cork coming after beantown next. Good. "I may not be able to outrun the bear, but I can outrun you."

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Watchou talkin bout beantown?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

dl, wasn't he on the show, "Facts of Life"....
Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:18 AM

Just thought of another one:

Yeah, he played Jo…..ba dum bum!

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I heard on the radio this morning that congress is voting on a bill today which could essentially “outlaw” the NCAA declaring a national champion without having gone through a playoff system. GOOOOOOO CONGRESS!!!!!!!

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 10:16 AM

BS. NCAA already has a playoff system, although only two teams playoff. I'd like a different system, but don't believe that Congress knows the right way to declare a champion in college football and should dictate to the NCAA.

How about this? NCAA declares a national champion the way it wants, and Congress separately votes on a national champion.

Anyway, bill won't become law.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Why don't we talk about the team using more unicorns, or trading for the loch-ness monster, more stuff that wont ever happen??

If they had a unicorn at FB, first play, the unicorn impales a player on his horn, I'm telling you NO ONE would want to take on that block.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 10:05 AM
-----------------------------------------
Personally, I think the abominable snowman would be one heck of a defensive tackle.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Good thing about Congress voting on NCAA playoffs is that it keeps them distracted from the important issues of the day: health reform, climate change, war in Afghanistan. If they spent time on that stuff, they could really make a mess.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

BS. NCAA already has a playoff system, although only two teams playoff. I'd like a different system, but don't believe that Congress knows the right way to declare a champion in college football and should dictate to the NCAA.
How about this? NCAA declares a national champion the way it wants, and Congress separately votes on a national champion.
Anyway, bill won't become law.
Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:31 AM

Congress isn’t creating the playoff system, only telling the NCAA/BCS that they have to. Looks like they are going about it analogous to the way they put Capone behind bars….they are using the monetary distribution as means to say that they are violating anti-trust laws. The bill is going through House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection…….here’s a good article:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-12-09-bcs-payouts_N.htm

Your’re proabaly right though, they are too busy with other stuff to focus on this, even though the Pres has said he supports a playoff system.

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Brown, Bean, Flounder, etc. The Gibbs I vs Gibbs II personnel argument is flawed simply because Beathard was making the personnel decisions back then. The two disagreed frequently and eventually Beathard gave way to Casserly, but I don't remember hearing anything about Gibbs taking issue with Beathard's penchant for choosing poor/eccentric character guys.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

taking stock in the skins. new blog. http://skinsstock.blogspot.com/

Posted by: wisetooth | December 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the abominable snowman would be one heck of a defensive tackle.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 10:36 AM

Sasquatch would eat his beef jerky.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The McCoy and Clausen "Scouting" trip report completely bogus!!!!

Snyder and Cerrato attended a Texas game on Saturday November 21st. They were in town for the Cowboys game and went to see Texas play Kansas. It was just two friends seeing a college game. While i'm sure there was probably conversation like, "oh, this guys good" or "check out that guy," they were not attending the game in a professional capacity, nor were they doing any scouting.

This was just another case of the Post knowing the facts and leaving out the context to "spin" a story to suit their anti-Snyder agenda.

Posted by: bighairedaristocrat | December 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"Good thing about Congress voting on NCAA playoffs is that it keeps them distracted from the important issues of the day: health reform, climate change, war in Afghanistan. If they spent time on that stuff, they could really make a mess."


That's because a government that does nothing is the best kind.

That is, until the attack comes, the hurricane hits, the bankers steal, the hospitals shut down, the price of gas and crack goes up, the school crank out dummies, and Tiger Woods gets caught with his golf club in the wrong hole.

Then, we want them to respond.

Posted by: MistaMoe | December 10, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Brown, Bean, Flounder, etc. The Gibbs I vs Gibbs II personnel argument is flawed simply because Beathard was making the personnel decisions back then. The two disagreed frequently and eventually Beathard gave way to Casserly, but I don't remember hearing anything about Gibbs taking issue with Beathard's penchant for choosing poor/eccentric character guys.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 10:43 AM


Good thing I wasn't making that argument, then. I made a one-sentence allusion to MY OPINION that Gibbs wouldn't have signed Haynesworth or Hall, and Greg jumped all over it and turned into a big character debate.

So all discussion should be completely fact-based to keep Greg happy.

I'll start: Art Monk was drafted in the first round of the 1981 draft. Discuss.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Art Monk was drafted in the first round of the 1981 draft. Discuss.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 10:57 AM


What's the basis for this? Were you there when they submitted the card with Art Monk's name on it? Let me guess....you got this from Florio at PFT, can't trust ANYTHING that guy says. Keep believing Florio, that's it...that's the ticket.

--BeantownGreg1

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the abominable snowman would be one heck of a defensive tackle.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 10:36 AM

Sasquatch would eat his beef jerky.

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 10:45 AM
-------------------------------------------
But you have to be able to play in the elements in those December NFC East games... That's where AS has the advantage.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'll start: Art Monk was drafted in the first round of the 1981 draft. Discuss.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 10:57 AM

How about:

Do you still "smell Stubblefield 2.0" in regards to Big Al Haynesworth?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I see, then my last post was directed more to Bean and Flound then. Sooooo...

Art Monk went on to surpass Largent in reception totals to take the all-time lead.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

dl, classic...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Russell Okung is extremely talented. He may be the best tackle in the draft and will go in the top 5. That being said, I'll take Brian Bulaga and knocking the girls out of the payoffs 10 times out of 10.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM

How's he compare with guys drafted in the top 10 last year or previous years (i.e., Jake Long, Jason Smith, Andre Smith, etc.)? Does he project as a true LT in the NFL?

Posted by: skinswest | December 10, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Why don't we talk about the team using more unicorns, or trading for the loch-ness monster, more stuff that wont ever happen??

If they had a unicorn at FB, first play, the unicorn impales a player on his horn, I'm telling you NO ONE would want to take on that block.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

I was always partial to the Jersey Devil myself.

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Do you still "smell Stubblefield 2.0" in regards to Big Al Haynesworth?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:04 AM

Talk to me in 2011.

And I couldn't possibly talk about that, I mean, that would be total fraud since it's based on an opinion and not cold, hard fact...

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Do you still "smell Stubblefield 2.0" in regards to Big Al Haynesworth?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:04 AM

Ask me in 2011.

And I couldn't possibly talk about that, I mean, that would be total fraud since it's based on an opinion and not cold, hard fact...

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Art Monk was drafted in the first round of the 1981 draft. Discuss.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 10:57 AM


What's the basis for this? Were you there when they submitted the card with Art Monk's name on it? Let me guess....you got this from Florio at PFT, can't trust ANYTHING that guy says. Keep believing Florio, that's it...that's the ticket.

--BeantownGreg1

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:03 AM
-----------------------------------------
Wasn't Monk drafted in 1980?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

skins 930 regarding Vinny's accountability and Danny's orders

doh! awwwww s hit, you're right. vinny will be held accountable never.

Posted by: pabrian2003 | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Why don't we talk about the team using more unicorns, or trading for the loch-ness monster, more stuff that wont ever happen??

If they had a unicorn at FB, first play, the unicorn impales a player on his horn, I'm telling you NO ONE would want to take on that block.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

Unicorn vs Narwhal...two may enter, none may leave.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Art Monk went on to surpass Largent in reception totals to take the all-time lead.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 11:07 AM


Well done. Total fact, no opinion, no room whatsoever for further discussion. Just the way it should be in a comments section for a sports team.

The Boston Braves moved to Washington and became the Redskins. Discuss.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't Monk drafted in 1980?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 11:11 AM

Depends what you mean by "drafted." I'm talking about fantasy football. Besides, I was just being sarcastic. Get off my errors when I make a "mistake." I never make mistakes except to be funny. I'm one of the most humorous guys up here.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:03 AM

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Do you still "smell Stubblefield 2.0" in regards to Big Al Haynesworth?
Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:04 AM
Ask me in 2011.
And I couldn't possibly talk about that, I mean, that would be total fraud since it's based on an opinion and not cold, hard fact...
Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:11 AM

Did you wait three years before calling Stubby a bust? C’mon, answer the question. Do you think Big Al is a bust like Stubby was? I know you will never admit that you could have been wrong, and that the skins only have three wins, so he could be viewed as a bust to support your argument, and Greg’s a big meanie and blah blah blah, but you said that you smelled Stubblefield all over again, so c’mon….how do you feel now?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't Monk drafted in 1980?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | December 10, 2009 11:11 AM


He actually was. Freudian slip with the jersey number, methinks.

Kinda ruins the gag, no?

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

did Hall really say, 'even at 80% ME can keep up with those guys'

if so, me thinks that is funny as sh..

Posted by: pabrian2003 | December 10, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

doh! awwwww s hit, you're right. vinny will be held accountable never.

Posted by: pabrian2003 | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Sure, go ahead, ruin my Thursday. So what did he say to make you think that? Not that I'm surprised.

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

brownwood, your comment on AH/DH was made as a statement of fact not opinion.

If Blache wanted AH or DH, Gibbs would have signed them for him IN MY OPINION.

See how it works?

Posted by: Skins930 | December 10, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Did you wait three years before calling Stubby a bust? C’mon, answer the question. Do you think Big Al is a bust like Stubby was? I know you will never admit that you could have been wrong, and that the skins only have three wins, so he could be viewed as a bust to support your argument, and Greg’s a big meanie and blah blah blah, but you said that you smelled Stubblefield all over again, so c’mon….how do you feel now?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:17 AM


All I'm saying is that his first season here isn't even over yet and you want an on-the-record answer from me. That's not fair to him and not fair to me since you'll no doubt throw this in my face later. But then again that makes too much sense, I'm sure...

Stubby had 1.5 sacks in 7 games his first year here. So far Haynie has 3 sacks in 10 games. From what I've seen, he's been helped off the field more times than he's sacked a QB and hasn't played anywhere near the level he did with money on the line in Tennessee. So he may not be a colossal flop yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Skins are getting their money's worth.

So again: I hope I'm wrong. But we won't know until 2011 when there's a 3 year run with AH to put up against Stubby's 3 year run.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Some of you are stubborn as mules...

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:28 AM

YOU? Didn't you mean "US"?

Posted by: League-Source | December 10, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Would be nice if Hall sits this one out and that Barnes is given extended play so that we can start to see what we have in him.

The remainder of the games should be used to determine what our young guys are capable of so that there is a clear picture on what this team should spend the offseason procuring.

Posted by: Skins930 | December 10, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

If Blache wanted AH or DH, Gibbs would have signed them for him IN MY OPINION.

See how it works?

Posted by: Skins930 | December 10, 2009 11:26 AM

Didn't realize I had to clarify the difference between fact and opinion to grown, literate adults. I mean, I was taught that you can express an opinion without actually saying the words "in my opinion". From now on, I'll apply my same low standard of expectation in the Redskins to that of the fans of the team that post here. Fair enough?

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

No, Leagues. I can admit when I'm wrong.

I just come off as an ass to most, not stubborn, at least not on this blog.

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Brown, Bean, Flounder, etc...

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Well, I know what I'm having for lunch now. Thanks Romo!

Posted by: Original_etrod | December 10, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Didn't realize I had to clarify the difference between fact and opinion to grown, literate adults. I mean, I was taught that you can express an opinion without actually saying the words "in my opinion". From now on, I'll apply my same low standard of expectation in the Redskins to that of the fans of the team that post here. Fair enough?

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:38 AM

Works both ways. I've read you jumping on people when they post something that as you say is only their opinion because that is all that we have on here.

When the tone of your comment carries the tone that you are right, then you continue to argue your point as if you are right, then it is not an opinion. How do you know for certain what Gibbs would do?

But that is just my opinion. Plus I was just trying to get into the argument/discussion.

Posted by: Skins930 | December 10, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"to grown, literate adults.
brownwood26"

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

You can't mean us right? right?

Posted by: Curzon417 | December 10, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

True dat shyt^^^

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Some of you are stubborn as mules...

Posted by: RedDMV

Kevin Bacon was NOT in Footloose. Nope, sorry. Nope, No NO NO NOOO NOOO HEEE-HAWWWWW HEEE-HAWWWWW!!!!!

Posted by: Rypien11 | December 10, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

All I'm saying is that his first season here isn't even over yet and you want an on-the-record answer from me. That's not fair to him and not fair to me since you'll no doubt throw this in my face later. But then again that makes too much sense, I'm sure...
Stubby had 1.5 sacks in 7 games his first year here. So far Haynie has 3 sacks in 10 games. From what I've seen, he's been helped off the field more times than he's sacked a QB and hasn't played anywhere near the level he did with money on the line in Tennessee. So he may not be a colossal flop yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Skins are getting their money's worth.
So again: I hope I'm wrong. But we won't know until 2011 when there's a 3 year run with AH to put up against Stubby's 3 year run.
Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 11:29 AM

In other words….”I will never admit that I am wrong, and because it looks to 99% of the folks up here that AH is not Stubblefield 2.0, I will have to say that not enough time has passed for my opinion to change’……classic

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

IF Hall has speed, likes to hawk the ball and can tackle, maybe he should be playing Free Safety and then LL can be moved up to Strong Safety. Thoughts?

Posted by: Keyskonnection | December 10, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Thoughts?

Posted by: Keyskonnection | December 10, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

He's not a fan of contact. I like the idea of Smoot at FS. he's small but not afraid to hit.

Posted by: Original_etrod | December 10, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Family Guy.

The best show on TV, and I don't care what any of you say, that fact isn't debatable at all!!!

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

It is anchorMAN, not anchorLADY, and that is scientific fact!

Posted by: RomoShortball | December 10, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Works both ways. I've read you jumping on people when they post something that as you say is only their opinion because that is all that we have on here.

When the tone of your comment carries the tone that you are right, then you continue to argue your point as if you are right, then it is not an opinion. How do you know for certain what Gibbs would do?

But that is just my opinion. Plus I was just trying to get into the argument/discussion.

Posted by: Skins930 | December 10, 2009 11:44 AM


That's the jist of my point here...we're all here to express opinions on Redskins football. So when there's persistent "give me fact" crap, then all we'd be doing is throwing stats at each other that we already know. A lot of us here (myself included) don't live in the DC area anymore and need this blog to 1) keep up with the team and 2) interact with other fans. Blowing me up because an opinion on a given topic isn't rainbows and lollipops is somewhat closed-minded.

And I think a big thing here is that a lot of the stuff we'd say to each other in person at the bar doesn't translate well in print. If I say, "what are you, an idiot for thinking Campbell is the problem?" in person, you know it's friendly if I'm laughing and pouring you another brew. If I type that and submit it here, it reads as a personal attack.

I try to take that into account when dealing with other posters. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. There's definitely a few here who don't bother to try.

So when you say "the tone of my comments", there really is no tone in print. That's left up to the interpretation of the reader. I'm just here arguing a particular point and trying to have a good natured debate. It's when certain people try to make everything into a fight that I get a bit abrasive.

Not sure how much that clarifies.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

same with your bama-status, again, not debatable...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 10, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

dlhaze1,

For what it's worth, several "media experts" have said that for the money we're paying Phat Albert, he hasn't been worth it. (Not that many put a ton of stock into what those guys say...) I'm somewhere in the middle. When he's in the game, our defensive line is a lot better, as evidenced by Orakpo and Andre Carter's production. However, it's entirely possible that their big years isn't all due to AH. Carter had a big season sacks wise a few years ago without Haynesworth around, and Orakpo was a stud at Texas. Those guys can play, period.

Also, the 99% of people think otherwise isn't the strongest argument to use to prove one's point. Just as an example, a majority of Americans might think marijuana should be legal, or this health care bill is awesome, etc. Doesn't mean anyone has to go along with them just b/c they're in the minority...

Posted by: mattylight | December 10, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"IF Hall has speed, likes to hawk the ball and can tackle, maybe he should be playing Free Safety and then LL can be moved up to Strong Safety. Thoughts?"

I think if you have a strong front 7, Hall is fine right where he is.

Personally speaking I would put Carlos back at FS. The guy can hit/tackle and he can cover, he just has bricks for hands.

As far as Landry, I'm sorry I think he sucks. I'll take Horton, Moore, or Doughty any day of the week over him. He can't tackle and always gets burned. The position is called "safety" for a reason.

I can't believe Ceratto and Snyder are actually considering taking a QB with that first pick. It's not going to matter when the guy getsa put on IR because he's been scaked so much.

Idiots.

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | December 10, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

In other words….”I will never admit that I am wrong, and because it looks to 99% of the folks up here that AH is not Stubblefield 2.0, I will have to say that not enough time has passed for my opinion to change’……classic


Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 11:53 AM


OR: I'll admit I'm wrong when it's actually been established that I'm wrong. That's like me admitting I was wrong about the Skins losing to the Saints when they were up 30-23 in the 4th quarter. Obviously, a lot of stuff happened after that, right?

I mean, if you want we can start debating whether or not Sam Bradford is gonna start Week 1 next year...

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

shut up bamatowngreg!

why don't you get familiar and get on the new thread?

beeps.

Posted by: RedDMV | December 10, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

If only we could resign the 41 year old gun slinger Jeff George.

With 6 former teams, JR would have the opportunity to write stuff like this all the time.

Last week, you could have clicked on this website and thought maybe you were mistakenly sent to a N.O.'s website. This week nothing about the Raiders and tons of discussion about a kicker.

This is the week to actually compare the opponents FO to ours and actually feel a little better about the direction and guidance of our team and that's no easy task. C’mon JR this week practically writes itself, here’s an idea… Al Davis vs. Danny.

Posted by: Diesel44 | December 10, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Also, the 99% of people think otherwise isn't the strongest argument to use to prove one's point. Just as an example, a majority of Americans might think marijuana should be legal, or this health care bill is awesome, etc. Doesn't mean anyone has to go along with them just b/c they're in the minority...

Posted by: mattylight | December 10, 2009 12:05 PM


DL isn't interested in logic, he just wants to win. We'll let him think what he likes and the rest of us will hang out in reality.

Posted by: brownwood26 | December 10, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Matty, anything is possible…..just think that he has definitely improved the Dline play and that he is definitely not a bust like Stubby was. Really just pointing out how some folks will never, EVER, admit that they might be wrong about something.

And pot should DEFINITELY be legalized.

Posted by: dlhaze1 | December 10, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I saw Monk play a scrimmage vs. the b'more Colts as a rookie. My Dad told me to keep an eye on #81, but at 7 years old I was watching the ball. The QB dropped back and heaved it. So, I look downfield and sure enough #81 by himself with noone within 10 yards TD.

Monk did that twice that day, it was magical. I've never seen anyone be that open, except brandon marshall against us this year.

art Monk is the best ever

Posted by: pabrian2003 | December 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Reid is mourning the loss of the true insider shauny suisham

reid sucks at his job, period

Posted by: pabrian2003 | December 10, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company