Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: Insider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 1:30 PM ET, 02/25/2011

Standardized concussion test recommended by Head, Neck and Spine Committee

By Mike Jones

Continuing their efforts to better detect and monitor concussions, the NFL's Head, Neck and Spine Committee has come up with a standardized concussion assessment system for teams to use this coming season.

Dr. Margot Putukian, chair of the NFL's Subcommittee on Return-to-Play Issues and the team physician for Princeton University, spoke at the NFL Combine on Friday and described how the new assessment system will work.

"The tool is a combination of symptoms as well as cognitive evaluation, looking at immediate memory, delayed memory, concentration as well as balance, focus and a neurological exams," said Putukain, who last season along with her fellow committee members conducted research and surveys to find out how NFL teams were detecting and handling concussions.

Their findings revealed that the methods differed from team to team, and so, building on the Zurich Sideline Concussion Assessment tool that was designed in 2008, Putukain & Co. came up with a checklist of sorts for teams to use.

"They already were looking for loss of consciousness, balance or memory and those players were to be removed from play," Putukain said. "This just augments it, gives the trainers a tool so everyone's doing the same thing."

To evaluate a player's balance, team staff would use an error scoring system that gauges a player's ability to perform three stances. First, an athlete stands with his hands on his hips with his eyes closed with feet together. In the second stance, he stands one with one leg off the ground and on the third, the player stands with one foot in front of the other.

The new assessment method's checklist also includes a series of questions that ask the player to count backwards and give the months of the year backward. Putukain also said players are asked, "Where are we? Who are we playing? What's the score? Who did we play last week?"

Some additional refinement is needed before the system is ready to be used, Putukain said. And they are only guidelines, not mandates. She expects, however, that most if not all teams will put the assessment tool to use.

By Mike Jones  | February 25, 2011; 1:30 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NFL Combine challenge: Evaluating spread quarterbacks
Next: Shanahan: Banks 'doing very well'

Comments

I'm not reading this.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 25, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I still think Braylon Edwards is going to be our best FA option at WR.


I'd pass on Edwards and consider 2 second tier types:

Jacoby Jones

James Jones

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 25, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Of course, now all they need to do is develop a standardized concussion.

I mean, you can't standardize the test until you baseline and standardize the test subject.

And then, we'll get on with the business of standardizing the regimen for treatment.

And to think somebody got paid good money for all of this snake oil too!


Posted by: Vic1 | February 25, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Jacoby Jones

James Jones

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 25, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Yes please.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Of course, now all they need to do is develop a standardized concussion.


Moe: Why are you about to hit me in the head with a hammer?

mrsmoe: I'm developing my own standardized concussion.

I'll get paid once you are totally unaware that you are unaware.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 25, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"I'll get paid once you are totally unaware that you are unaware."

On the other hand, it's gonna bring a whole 'nother crowd to the stadiums to watch one part professional football, one part Punch and Judy show.

Posted by: Vic1 | February 25, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

finally, a wonderlic test that makes sense for players to take ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=6153073&sportCat=nfl

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 2:24 PM | Report abuse

the Sidney Rice situation with Minny --

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/116887628.html

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

And we won't even mention how the league mandate brings a whole new set of opportunities and job prospects for RI "sock puppeteers."

Posted by: Vic1 | February 25, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

And we won't even mention how the league mandate brings a whole new set of opportunities and job prospects for RI "sock puppeteers."

Posted by: Vic1 | February 25, 2011 2:32 PM

Strange timing too since one of mine has gone missing...I can picture him wandering aimlessly around some laudromat on the seedy side of town...wondering why mrsmoe hit him on the head with a hammer.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 25, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Zeke

Revised wonderlic -- hilarious!

Posted by: bones21 | February 25, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Revised wonderlic -- hilarious!


That one Kardashian sister looks like she should be at the NFL Combine.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 25, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

That one Kardashian sister looks like she should be at the NFL Combine.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 25, 2011 2:48 PM |

She looks like she should be fighting Mothra.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Where are we? Who are we playing? What's the score? Who did we play last week?"

Terry Bradshaw used to ask these questions every week during the season. He didn't have a concussion.

Posted by: NYPDee | February 25, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Of course you would. You created the sh1t. To the sh1t, you're God. The sh1t worships you. You control its destiny. It will say whatever it thinks you want to hear to avoid the big flush. Did you create it in your own image?

Posted by: beep-beep | February 25, 2011 12:28 PM

It was not only created in his own image...it looked just like him except, at the last minute, he broke the ears off.

Posted by: MColeman51 | February 25, 2011 1:39 PM

If I put it in a brown paper bag, place it on your porch and light it on fire...Will you both put it out with your boot again?

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Scouting the QBs
A thumbnail scouting report through the eyes of a scout on the other quarterbacks in the draft, not named Blaine Gabbert or Cam Netwon. One thing to note on what this scout – who thinks the Redskins must find a QB -- thinks of the QB class: “It’s a bad year to be desperate for a quarterback.” Here's what the scout thought about the combine and what the Redskins should do.

Jake Locker: “He’s so far away. The guy didn’t complete a pass until the third quarter of his bowl game. … He looks like a baseball player.”

Christian Ponder: “A great second-round pick to develop and be the eventual starter. He’s the one that’s most interesting to me; he seems to be more of a pro-style type. [Questions about him] seem to be more about his being hurt and if he was healthy he’d probably be in the discussion to be way at the top or [at least] a first-round guy. He’s polished and to me if a team is honest they’d say they’d rather take a chance in the second round than in the first because the risk-reward is so great.”

Andy Dalton: “I wasn’t impressed with Dalton. Seems like an average guy, more of a backup. But that’s not based on a full study yet.”

Colin Kaepernick: “He has great physical skills, but he’s faced lower-level competition. He rears the ball back so far and has to shorten that. Some coaches refuse to shorten a guys technique and some tinker too much. But he has to shorten that. I don’t think it would be that dramatic or difficult for him to do. He has a strong enough arm without rearing it back that far. He was a baseball pitcher as well and some of it comes form that. He can be tweaked.”

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sgmd | February 25, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

She looks like she should be fighting Mothra.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 2:53 PM

She looks like she ate Mothra.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 25, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Mike Shanahan Describes An Early Conversation With Albert Haynesworth
by Matt Terl

Shortly after Albert Haynesworth was suspended for conduct detrimental to the club, this is how Mike Shanahan described one of his earliest meetings with the defensive lineman as head coach in Washington: "When he first came in, we talked about a 4-3 defense; he didn't like the 4-3 defense a year ago. Didn't like the base defense, didn't like the nickel defense. Came here, didn't wanna play nose tackle, didn't wanna play defensive end."

You might think that summary really captures the sheer, kafkaesque frustration the coach felt when dealing with Haynesworth, but the detailed version -- as told to Larry Michael in their interview at the Combine yesterday -- really expands on and enhances that feeling.

The subject came up when Michael asked what Haynesworth's current status was, and if there was any chance he would be on the team this season. ("I get this question on Redskins Nation all the time," Michael said, by way of segueing into the topic, "and it's about Albert Haynesworth. And the question has been blunt at times: why is he still on the team?")

Here's the coach's answer:


"Well, let me say it this way," Shanahan began. "When I sat down with Albert, and I talked to him, my first meeting, you know, he sat down with me and he was very blunt with me. He said, 'Hey, Mike.' He said, 'I'm not sure if I wanna play in this 3-4 defense, nose tackle OR defensive end.'

"And I said, 'I understand that, I understand that you like the 4-3 defense.'

"And he said, 'I do.'

"So I looked at about a hundred plays with Albert, and [out of] those hundred plays, there were about fifty of those plays where he was going about half speed. I said, 'Well, you tell me you like the 4-3 defense, yet you're not playing very hard in THIS 4-3 defense.'

"He said, 'Well, it's not the same defense that I had in Tennessee.'

"I said, 'I understand, but you said you wanted to play in a four-man front. This is a four-man front. So sometimes you have to adjust to a scheme. So what you want to do is you want to play in EXACTLY the same front that you did when you were at Tennessee.' I said, 'If you wanna do that,' I said, 'I'm gonna give you the opportunity to go out. I don't want anything in return.

"'But if you take our check for 21 million dollars, I expect you to come back here and not only work, but play at a high level. You don't have to take it, 'cause you've already gotten a lot of money from this organization. But if you do take that check, I'm just not gonna cut you and let you go out and go to another football team and get another payday. If you take that check, you're gonna come back here and play and at least work hard to give yourself an opportunity to make this football team and help us win.'


Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

(conclusion)

"When he did take that check, I expected him to work hard and do the things he was capable of doing to help our football team win. Now, a couple of games he did play at that level. But not as consistently as I would like. So I'm not gonna show my hand right now exactly what we are gonna do, but he IS with the Redskins. We have a responsibility -- or at least we have control of his future. And we've got a pending, obviously, grievance. And after that takes shape, I'll let you know a little bit more."

Michael asked if it was exasperating or frustrating for a coach to have to handle a player like that.

"It's always disappointing," Shanahan said, "when people can't reach their full potential. Y'know, that's my job: to give a guy a chance to reach his full potential. And I think Albert did help himself. He got in much better shape. He had a couple good games. Then, a couple games, y'know, he didn't play as well as we'd like him to play. So we'll let the process take care of itself and ... I can't show my hand right now, but we'll see."

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Newton- He won't speak to the media today..

He's at the freaking combine and he won't speak to the media? UFB

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"Where are we? Who are we playing? What's the score? Who did we play last week?"

Might be a good list of questions for the beerman to ask.

Posted by: wireman65 | February 25, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

FYI...I won't be speaking to the media today either.

Posted by: PlayAction | February 25, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Another note-

Mallett showed up in a tuxedo t-shirt with a finely trimed chinstrap beard and a cigarette behind his ear.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:07 PM

One of the things I hate in negotiations are the guys that continue to negotiate after the deal is already signed sealed and delivered. We've all been there. Since I've done a lot of negotiating, I've probably experienced these sorts of people more than most people up here.

What Shanahan did was attempt to re-opened negotiations on a deal that was closed.

Albert had his contract, the big check was locked in -- there were NO CONDITIONS for Albert to get that check. And no doubt, that check was a huge part of what had been negotiated.

But Shanahan attempted to place a condition on Albert's taking the check. If I was in Albert's position, I'd be ticked off at Shanny's comment.

On balance, there is just no way I can justify what Albert's done or take Albert's side in this fiasco. He's been horrid.

But Shanahan hasn't been perfect in all if this. He makes himself look bad when he tells the story -- and probably doesn't even realize it.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

On balance, there is just no way I can justify what Albert's done or take Albert's side in this fiasco. He's been horrid.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 3:29 PM


Partial co-sign. Haynesworth averaged 25.5 snaps in his eight games this past season and according to the coaching staff's tape review, was second on the team with 2.5 sacks and 20 quarterback hurries.

He managed to remain one of our most effective DLs even while half-assing it.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Second on the team behind Orakpo in Yards for loss on tackles. Kinda of a big stat for front 7 players.

Posted by: Stu27 | February 25, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I disagree about Shanahan opening a deal that was closed. The $21M last spring wasn't guaranteed. Haynesworth could have been cut before that point and not gotten the money.

Posted by: dcsween | February 25, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but the image of Haynesworth pouting on the sideline far away from the rest of the team in the opening game will forever be etched on my brain.

Have a great weekend peeps

Posted by: PlayAction | February 25, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse


He managed to remain one of our most effective DLs even while half-assing it.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 3:48 PM |

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

alan

your comment about AH concretes the fact that the redskins need to draft d-line with the #10 pick

Posted by: hessone | February 25, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

One of the things I hate in negotiations are the guys that continue to negotiate after the deal is already signed sealed and delivered. We've all been there. Since I've done a lot of negotiating, I've probably experienced these sorts of people more than most people up here.

What Shanahan did was attempt to re-opened negotiations on a deal that was closed.
Albert had his contract, the big check was locked in -- there were NO CONDITIONS for Albert to get that check. And no doubt, that check was a huge part of what had been negotiated.

But Shanahan attempted to place a condition on Albert's taking the check. If I was in Albert's position, I'd be ticked off at Shanny's comment.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This goes down as one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on this board.

What negotiations have you been a part of with this attitude? Your kid's bedtime?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I disagree about Shanahan opening a deal that was closed. The $21M last spring wasn't guaranteed. Haynesworth could have been cut before that point and not gotten the money.

Posted by: dcsween | February 25, 2011 3:58 PM

I'm not sure about that. What I recall reading was that Albert he had essentially a total of $41mil guaranteed with the original contract. Pretty sure that the $21mil check was part of that. I doubt he'd have signed if only the first year paycheck was guaranteed.

If you're right, the Skins were absolute idiots for not cutting him -- no way he'd be worth the contract, even if things had gone better.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Shanny on CP...

Michael goes through the guys who have notable questions surrounding them coming out of the season (hence the previous posts on McNabb and Haynesworth), and one of those is running back Clinton Portis, a veteran who's coming off two injured seasons and carrying a big salary number for next year.

And Shanahan's answer certainly seems ... revealing.

"The thing that I like to do with a guy like Clinton is always be really straight with him," Shanahan says. "He's been great for this organization, he's done a number of good things. We know over the last couple of years, he hasn't been able to stay healthy. He's disappointed, we're disappointed.

"He's got a high number next year, one that [means] we gotta make a decision on what direction we're gonna go. I always tell these veteran players that if you've got a high number, we're gonna let you hit free agency. It doesn't mean we don't want you, but we think in fairness to you, we want you to check out the market.

"And with a guy like Clinton, all I can say is that we're gonna be fair to him. And we haven't made a decision yet, but when we do, we'll talk to him and let him know what we're gonna do and kinda go from there."

Shanahan's "we haven't made a decision yet" finish mitigates things a bit, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what this likely means for Clinton Portis. Toward the end of the season, Portis expressed his disinterest in a potential pay cut, but -- unless I've totally misunderstood Shanahan here -- it's sounding more and more like that's his only chance if he plans to stay in D.C.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

One of the things I hate in negotiations are the guys that continue to negotiate after the deal is already signed sealed and delivered. We've all been there. Since I've done a lot of negotiating, I've probably experienced these sorts of people more than most people up here.

What Shanahan did was attempt to re-opened negotiations on a deal that was closed.
Albert had his contract, the big check was locked in -- there were NO CONDITIONS for Albert to get that check. And no doubt, that check was a huge part of what had been negotiated.

But Shanahan attempted to place a condition on Albert's taking the check. If I was in Albert's position, I'd be ticked off at Shanny's comment.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This goes down as one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on this board.

What negotiations have you been a part of with this attitude? Your kid's bedtime?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 4:08 PM

Gosh -- dozens of 'em. Kind of amazed you haven't experienced this thing yet.

My favorite was one that happened at 1am -- I'm in my hotel room in SF talking with a procurement guy in Europe. The deal has been signed and he's wanting to change a bunch of terms. Thing is the terms he wanted changed are the ones he had requested and we'd agreed to!! I'm thinking to myself -- I'm up at 1am for this?

But yeah, been in plenty of biz negotiations -- typically 6 to 8 figures -- almost always on the selling side. Either complex equipment or software.

Most folks realize that once the deal is done, everyone works in good faith to make sure the right things happen. Every once in a while, you get someone who keeps negotiating after the deal is done. They are the ones that get special pet names ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

This goes down as one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on this board.

What negotiations have you been a part of with this attitude? Your kid's bedtime?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

He's right. I brought up the same point a couple weeks ago and got the same numbskull response. The contract was written and signed before Shanahan ever got in town. He can't come back and try to add conditions to the contract. There was no "he has to try really hard to play in the 3-4" clause in the contract when it was written. They should have restructured or cut him.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | February 25, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

...Every once in a while, you get someone who keeps negotiating after the deal is done. They are the ones that get special pet names ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:22 PM |

It doesn't just happen in the biz world. Where I work, we call this "mission creep".

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

UFB..

God forbid Shanahan ask Hayneworth to play hard for his coaches, teammates, fans, and that f'ing contract.

F AH...100% is on him. I look forward to him being bankrupt in 10 YRs.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

...Every once in a while, you get someone who keeps negotiating after the deal is done. They are the ones that get special pet names ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:22 PM |

It doesn't just happen in the biz world. Where I work, we call this "mission creep".

Posted by: Alan4 |

Mission creep is pretty normal -- the issue is whether the folks realize it and recognize they are changing the terms of the agreement. Most of the time, you expect some mission creep and build it into the pricing -- but other times, its just too much and you need to renegotiate. As long as everyone's working in good faith, its not a big deal.

On the flip side, some companies have real ugly reputations in this area ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

time for my weekly portfolio update, so here's the coin toss:

Did I:

A. Make $$

B. Stay the same

C. Lose money

?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

One of the things I hate in negotiations are the guys that continue to negotiate after the deal is already signed sealed and delivered. We've all been there. Since I've done a lot of negotiating, I've probably experienced these sorts of people more than most people up here.

What Shanahan did was attempt to re-opened negotiations on a deal that was closed.

Albert had his contract, the big check was locked in -- there were NO CONDITIONS for Albert to get that check. And no doubt, that check was a huge part of what had been negotiated.

But Shanahan attempted to place a condition on Albert's taking the check. If I was in Albert's position, I'd be ticked off at Shanny's comment.

On balance, there is just no way I can justify what Albert's done or take Albert's side in this fiasco. He's been horrid.

But Shanahan hasn't been perfect in all if this. He makes himself look bad when he tells the story -- and probably doesn't even realize it.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 3:29 PM
------------------------------------------
Zeke, that's pretty lame. A new coach comes in and tells his player he's either going to do things the coach's way or he's going to get cut, and you think the coach is in the wrong? Have you ever played any sport for a coach? Where I come from, if the coach told you to play cornerback or defensive end, it pretty much didn't make any difference what you thought. You did what you had to do for the team. Would you have rather Shanahan gave Haynesworth the money and revised his whole defense to accomodate him? Or given him the money and then cut him? I think Shanahan made the changes a coach has a right to make, and he gave Haynesworth an opportunity to be a part of it, or leave. Haynesworth chose to stay and to not live up to his side of the bargain. You make yourself look bad by trying to cast the blame on Shanahan for any of this.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 25, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

F AH...100% is on him. I look forward to him being bankrupt in 10 YRs.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 4:32 PM

10 years? Wow, you must think very highly of Haynesworth!

Heck Mark Brunnell seems like a decent guy and he's bankrupt already, forced into collecting Mark Sanchez's boogers on his jacket.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse


...Every once in a while, you get someone who keeps negotiating after the deal is done. They are the ones that get special pet names ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:22 PM |

It doesn't just happen in the biz world. Where I work, we call this "mission creep".

Posted by: Alan4 |

Mission creep is pretty normal -- the issue is whether the folks realize it and recognize they are changing the terms of the agreement. Most of the time, you expect some mission creep and build it into the pricing -- but other times, its just too much and you need to renegotiate. As long as everyone's working in good faith, its not a big deal.

On the flip side, some companies have real ugly reputations in this area ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 4:33 PM
-----------------------------------------
You guys just don't get it. The coach has the right to have his players play any position he wants. His mandate is implied in every contract. The player has the right to refuse and violate the terms of his contract. This is his leverage: refusal of services. The contract could be canceled at any time. Washington was not obligated to pay Haynesworth the bonus. Not obligated at all. Haynesworth was told the terms of the new coach, he chose to accept them and take the check. Then he chose to not live up to them. They can't get the money back, but the coach can do those things that are within in his mandate which includes benching Haynesworth.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 25, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

He's right. I brought up the same point a couple weeks ago and got the same numbskull response. The contract was written and signed before Shanahan ever got in town. He can't come back and try to add conditions to the contract. There was no "he has to try really hard to play in the 3-4" clause in the contract when it was written. They should have restructured or cut him.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | February 25, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

If you guys want to feel hurt or upset about what Shanahan tried to do, fine. But don't try to come in here and talk about how the business world works and what's right or wrong. You can't get upset in negotiations. If you do you are not a good negotiator, and moreover you will lose ground 9 times out of 10 to the guy that does not get all high and mighty about right and wrong.

The player said he did not want to play in the scheme.

The coach offered to let him walk.

The player declined and got paid.

End of negotiations. He got his money. Show me where Shanahan or Allen or Snyder tried to stop payment on the $21 million. Show me where they tried to screw the player.

They tried to offer a mutually beneficial solution, not renegotiate anything.

Unbelievable that there are people walking around put there that don't understand this.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

You guys just don't get it. The coach has the right to have his players play any position he wants. His mandate is implied in every contract...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 25, 2011 4:52 PM

Every Skins fan knows this. How many players have Skins coaches played out of position over the years, diminishing their effectiveness?

I'm never going to vouch for Haynesworth's character, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

Haynesworth says he wanted a bigger role; Shanahan says Haynesworth refused to play. I don't assume everything Shanahan says is true, no matter how much of a doosh Haynesworth may be--Shanahan appears very capable of stretching the truth (see his evolving explanations about benching McNabb).

The reality is, Haynesworth made some plays when he was on the field.

If he wasn't on the field because he refused to go, OK, he deserves the smear campaign against him AND is in violation of his contract. If he wasn't on the field because Shanahan simply refused to play him, that makes things a lot less clear cut than you're saying.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

scampbell1975

She looks like she should be fighting Mothra.


Massively funny.

And if you're Kim Kardashian's brother-in-law, do you get to check out her butt and say to the wife, "Her azz is big and you're just a big-azzed chick."

"Are you gonna speak to the media at the combine or what?"

"Why are you're now trying to hit me in the head with that hammer?"

Posted by: gimmesummoe | February 25, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Zeke, that's pretty lame. A new coach comes in and tells his player he's either going to do things the coach's way or he's going to get cut, and you think the coach is in the wrong? Have you ever played any sport for a coach? Where I come from, if the coach told you to play cornerback or defensive end, it pretty much didn't make any difference what you thought. You did what you had to do for the team. Would you have rather Shanahan gave Haynesworth the money and revised his whole defense to accomodate him? Or given him the money and then cut him? I think Shanahan made the changes a coach has a right to make, and he gave Haynesworth an opportunity to be a part of it, or leave. Haynesworth chose to stay and to not live up to his side of the bargain. You make yourself look bad by trying to cast the blame on Shanahan for any of this.

Posted by: RedSkinHead |

Actually, that isn't what Shanny said. He gave Albert a choice to cut himself ... Shanny didn't threaten to cut Albert.

And its not what I said either. This situation is on Albert. But Shanahan was wrong in what he did in that discussion.

As for the defense accommodating Albert ... well, I'd have preferred the 4-3 because it would have been a better use of all of our talent.

But ....

Haynesworth wasn't going to live up to his side of the bargain no matter what the defense was. He didn't live up to it in his first year here, he wasn't going to live up to it under Shanny. I'm not defending Albert here.

I am saying Shanahan was negotiating directly with Albert about Albert's contract. Which isn't something Shanny should be doing. If anything, that is a conversation that Shanny, with his GM hat on, has with Albert's agent (who'd laugh and say you owe the man the money).

The problem -- and we all understand it -- is that a contract with guaranteed money doesn't guarantee anything about what the player will do. There is a good faith assumption made by the team about the player. For the most part, that good faith is merited. With jerks like Albert, it isn't.

Most of us posting on RI at the time the contract got done thought it was a bad decision. I re-posted some of those comments when things were going badly earlier this season -- some of the posts were incredibly prescient.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Come on man...have you not followed Haynesworth's career? The entire league knows he a bad seed.

Hist chickens have come home to roost, and nobody is ever going to give him the benefit of the doubt again- Because even though he's been given several opportunities, he has not earned it in the least.

You have always had a hard on for Shanahan, and I don't know where it comes from, but whatever, that's your right.

But you are really reaching here trying to put this on anyone other than the player and acting like there's some huge burden of proof that the coach must meet here.

Just silly!

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I am saying Shanahan was negotiating directly with Albert about Albert's contract. Which isn't something Shanny should be doing.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

So you're saying that a leader of an organization should never try to propose solutions to problems, but just throw in the towel and live with what is handed to him, never try to make things better, never try to do what he was hired to do.

Got it!

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Come on man...have you not followed Haynesworth's career? The entire league knows he a bad seed...

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:07 PM

This sentence is your argument in a nutshell: he's a bad guy and therefore must be wrong in every situation.

I understand the mob mentaility, I just don't subscribe to it.

If he was that awful and reprehensible, he should have been cut, or a statement should clearly be made he's not coming back... look at what happened to Vince Young.

If he's so dead wrong, why all the special treatment? I don't have the answer. Do you?

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

So you're saying that a leader of an organization should never try to propose solutions to problems, but just throw in the towel and live with what is handed to him, never try to make things better, never try to do what he was hired to do.

Got it!

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:11 PM

This is known as "Zeke's Unique Perspective."

Posted by: beep-beep | February 25, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This sentence is your argument in a nutshell: he's a bad guy and therefore must be wrong in every situation.

I understand the mob mentaility, I just don't subscribe to it.

If he was that awful and reprehensible, he should have been cut, or a statement should clearly be made he's not coming back... look at what happened to Vince Young.

If he's so dead wrong, why all the special treatment? I don't have the answer. Do you?

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It's not my argument in a nutshell, and I in no way am taking part in a mob mentality. You are reading what you want to read and ignoring everything else.

This is a discussion on whether a coach is justified offering a player to become a FA and tear up his contract. Essentially he was asking the player to do the right thing. That's it. And 99 out of 100 people with any sense that are not just arguing for arguments sake will say there is nothing wrong with it.

If I were a player that did not want to be on a particular team, I'd consider it a gift- I'd be happy that the coach offered it.

Have you all forgotten that the player got paid?

Have you ever heard the expression "Never hurts to ask?"

I am about to Go "Scott Van Pelt vs. Maryland student body" here....I can't believe anyone with a pulse is arguing about this being unfair to the player.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 25, 2011

You guys just don't get it. The coach has the right to have his players play any position he wants.

-- Agreed, Shanahan is Albert's boss

His mandate is implied in every contract.

-- Also agreed

The player has the right to refuse and violate the terms of his contract.

-- Partly agreed, there is a huge gap between refusing to do something specific and voiding the contract.

This is his leverage: refusal of services.

-- Not sure why Albert would refuse services to the point of not collecting his check. After all, his services (as bad as they were) came several months after the check cleared.

The contract could be canceled at any time.

-- All parties would have to agree to it ... not many people would walk away from the biggest paycheck in their life. I'd also suggest that it was a discussion that the GM has with an agent, not a discussion between coach and player.

Washington was not obligated to pay Haynesworth the bonus. Not obligated at all.

-- I'm pretty sure the contract said they were obligated.

Haynesworth was told the terms of the new coach, he chose to accept them and take the check.

-- The terms of the new coach were irrelevant to the contract that was already signed. Albert was owed the money.

Then he chose to not live up to them.

-- I'm not sure what gets covered in NFL contracts about players that don't follow their coaches instructions or who don't give 100%. From what I've seen over the years, the players seem pretty well protected. At least in a legal sense.

They can't get the money back, but the coach can do those things that are within in his mandate which includes benching Haynesworth.

-- Absolutely

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I disagree that what Shanahan did was wrong. I'll paraphrase. "Albert, your effort was lame and I'm thinking I'm going to cut you b/c the owner gave me the keys to the car. The owner already spent a lot of money, so I don't take this lightly. You can choose. You can go because I'm dissatisfied enough with your effort that I'm ready to cut you. Or you can stay and take the money that you entitled to, but if you do, you're telling me that you are going to put in the effort. If you don't, then we will have a problem because I let you take the money and you will have broken your end of the bargain."

Did he renegotiate the deal? No. He stuck within the terms of the contract. A circumstance arose (poor performance, lack of good faith by Haynesworth, whatever), but it was a new negotiation over whether Haynesworth was going to be cut. Haynesworth chose no.

Posted by: dcsween | February 25, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:22 PM

I agree with the contents of your post.

But I still have 2 unanswered questions:

1. Who's fault was it he didn't see game time action? (Did he actually refuse to go in, or did Shanahan simply bench him a la McNabb?)

2. If he truly "crossed the line" why isn't he in the same situation as Vince Young? It appears he's welcome to stay.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd also suggest that it was a discussion that the GM has with an agent, not a discussion between coach and player.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

This is rich. Shanahan is Head of Football operations. He's also the head coach.

And you believe he has no right to discuss the player's and the team's options moving forward?

You make this out like it's a minor who has been arrested and is being brow beaten by the detectives in the interview room without being Mirandized.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Albert Haynesworth will outlast Clinton Portis in Washington
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 25, 2011, 5:09 PM EST
Redskins coach Mike Shanahan indicated during his press conference Friday at the NFL Scouting Combine that Clinton Portis’ days as a Washington Redskin are numbered.

Shanahan said Portis’ contract number was too high, and he prefers to let a player like that test the market rather than offer him a pay reduction.

Translation: Portis is a goner. And while Shanahan left the door open for a return, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

Another thing that doesn’t make sense: Albert Haynesworth remains on the roster, and Shanahan said his future with the team was open-ended. We’ll have more on this story shortly.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I am saying Shanahan was negotiating directly with Albert about Albert's contract. Which isn't something Shanny should be doing.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

So you're saying that a leader of an organization should never try to propose solutions to problems, but just throw in the towel and live with what is handed to him, never try to make things better, never try to do what he was hired to do.

Got it!

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:11 PM

Huh? I said that was a contract conversation -- and if you are going to have talk about tearing up a contract, its a conversation happens between GM and agent.

Of course, if you had bothered to read the next sentence, you would have seen that. But, like Albert, you were too lazy to finish.

As for interpreting this as "saying that a leader of an organization should never try to propose solutions to problems" sorry, that is just pure BS.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

1. Who's fault was it he didn't see game time action? (Did he actually refuse to go in, or did Shanahan simply bench him a la McNabb?)

2. If he truly "crossed the line" why isn't he in the same situation as Vince Young? It appears he's welcome to stay.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

My best guesses:

1. He never learned the Defense and/or did not give max effort, the coaches believed he was a liability so he did not play

2. We are obviously trying to get something back out of him. We gain nothing right now by cutting him. Nothing. The team is not being affected, there is no locker room to infect at this point in time. It's a shrewd and complex maneuver to keep him until we get some relief via draft picks, or the highly doubtful scenario that someone talks sense into Big Man and tells him to buy his Free Agency by giving some of the $32 million he has banked back to the team.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Another thing that doesn’t make sense: Albert Haynesworth remains on the roster, and Shanahan said his future with the team was open-ended. We’ll have more on this story shortly.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:34 PM

Nice timing, scamp. This is one of my 2 questions about the Haynesworth fiasco.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

2. If he truly "crossed the line" why isn't he in the same situation as Vince Young? It appears he's welcome to stay.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:32 PM |

It only appears that way because if it looks like he will be shown the door then whatever trade value he may have is then gone.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Another note-

Mallett showed up in a tuxedo t-shirt with a finely trimed chinstrap beard and a cigarette behind his ear.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

By the way Diesel, before I got caught up in the shenanigans on the gall of a coach to talk to a player on his team, I meant to say 2 things about this.

Huge win...and post of the day IMO.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'd also suggest that it was a discussion that the GM has with an agent, not a discussion between coach and player.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

This is rich. Shanahan is Head of Football operations. He's also the head coach.

And you believe he has no right to discuss the player's and the team's options moving forward?

You make this out like it's a minor who has been arrested and is being brow beaten by the detectives in the interview room without being Mirandized.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty

Again, huh? I'm saying contract negotiations -- and any offer that involves stopping a $21million check is a contract negotiation -- happens between GM and agent. Of course, no way Albert isn't going to take that check.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Alan- Haynesworth defined his role on the team. I wish I never would have posted the Terl acticle. ih8albert

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

its a conversation happens between GM and agent.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse

So just to clarify...

You would have had no problem with anything that went down if Allen and Speck had this talk instead of the Head of Football Ops and the player.

OK. That's fine. I don't understand the logic, and Haynesworth could have said "Call my agent" at any point. All he had to do was listen, take the check and torpedo the team.

And that's what he did.

WTF is the problem here?

It seems like you are so wrapped up in semantics you can't see reality.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Another note-

Mallett showed up in a tuxedo t-shirt with a finely trimed chinstrap beard and a cigarette behind his ear.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 3:26 PM |

Are you sure that wasn't Kevin Federline?

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:41 PM

Everyone knows Vince Young is going to be traded. Does that really hurt his trade value?

Seems like all the off-field drama is what's going to hurt Hayneworth's trade value, more than management stating the painfully obvious: Haynesworth's isn't fitting in.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Again, huh? I'm saying contract negotiations -- and any offer that involves stopping a $21million check is a contract negotiation -- happens between GM and agent. Of course, no way Albert isn't going to take that check.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

If the player is stupid enough to not consult his agent upon hearing this offer, then how is it the team's fault?

Do you think the coach was trying to trick the player by doing an end run around the agent?

Come on.

The funniest thing about this is that I'm virtually 100% certain that Speck WAS involved. Why you are so hung up on the semantics of HOW this went down is stunning. Just stunning.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

A4...I see you working, and you are being infinitely more reasonable than zce...

But I'd submit that the VY and AH situations are not exactly apples to apples.

I say this for 2 reasons. One being VY is due a roster bonus at some point after the league year starts. All TEN really said is they are not paying that bonus...we will trade or cut him.

WAS owes AH nothing this off season. In fact, I don't even think his salary in 2011 is even guaranteed due to him missing something mandatory last season.

So, in the absence of a financial obligation, why show your cards like TEN?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dcsween | February 25, 2011 5:31 PM

I disagree that what Shanahan did was wrong. I'll paraphrase. "Albert, your effort was lame and I'm thinking I'm going to cut you b/c the owner gave me the keys to the car.

-- Agreed, but I'm not sure we agree on what the obligations the Skins had to Albert if he did get cut. I'm pretty sure they were on the hook for the $21million, you seem to think otherwise. Maybe there's something definitive on this, I'm going on memory and that it'd be unlikely that in the era of guaranteed $$, that Albert's agent would have only guaranteed 1 year's worth of $$.

The owner already spent a lot of money, so I don't take this lightly. You can choose. You can go because I'm dissatisfied enough with your effort that I'm ready to cut you. Or you can stay and take the money that you entitled to, but if you do, you're telling me that you are going to put in the effort.

-- Yes, but again, what would Albert have gotten if the Skins had cut him? Because if he was owed $21million, he wasn't walking away from that.

If you don't, then we will have a problem because I let you take the money and you will have broken your end of the bargain."

-- as a person, Albert broke the implicit bargain that comes in every sports contract -- we pay you, you play hard. No question Albert broke that. In a legal sense, he probably didn't break the contract. As for Shanahan "letting" him take the $$, not sure that was the case. I think the Skins had that obligation.

Did he renegotiate the deal? No. He stuck within the terms of the contract. A circumstance arose (poor performance, lack of good faith by Haynesworth, whatever), but it was a new negotiation over whether Haynesworth was going to be cut. Haynesworth chose no.

-- Thank you. At least you recognize this was a new negotiation. In that negotiation, Shanahan was asking Albert to formally void his contract.


If the Skins could have cut him with little or no further financial obligation to Albert, they were plain stupid for keeping him. But I don't think that was the case.

My understanding of Albert's contract is that the 1st 3 years were essentially locked in. Albert would get $41million total. About $12million for year 1, then a $21million bonus (guaranteed) the next season (I'm guessing the timing was because Danny hoped it would come in the uncapped year, which it did). His 2nd and 3rd year contracts were about $3.6million and $5.4million (I forget which year was which), but they totaled $9million.

My understanding is that cutting him might have saved only the year 2 and year 3 obligation, or just $9million out of the $41million total. Its also possible the Skins were on the hook for those $$ even they cut him.


Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

So just to clarify...

You would have had no problem with anything that went down if Allen and Speck had this talk instead of the Head of Football Ops and the player.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty

Yup. Or Shanny (with his exec hat on) and Speck. Either party can decide they don't like the contract and attempt to renegotiate. But you negotiate contracts with agents, not with players.

Of course, Speck would have laughed (presuming the $21million was an obligation -- Sween thinks it wasn't and if someone has better info, I'm open to it), but I think he would have had a legal obligation to offer Albert that deal. I'm also not sure how to quantify 'effort' in the deal Shanny offered.

Its worth noting that there is a ton of legal stuff that goes around this sort of thing. People who get axed just prior to getting vested in pensions, get axed just prior to getting a large bonus, etc. Stuff like that isn't at all new.

Which is why most large company CEO's make sure they have golden parachutes wrapped in iron-clad legalese before they take a job.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

(presuming the $21million was an obligation -- Sween thinks it wasn't and if someone has better info, I'm open to it)

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the money was guaranteed. The team owed him no matter what.

And what the team did was offer to let the player find a new home where he'd be happier. But in return the player needed to void the $21 mil obligation.

I still don't understand why you don't believe that Speck was involved. I still don't understand why you believe this was bad form on Shanahan's part. I consider it a stand up move. And you never address the fact that all the player had to do was say "Call my agent".


I asked earlier if you thought the coach was trying to trick the player. Is that it? Or do you know about some secret code that the NFL follows that says you can't have a man to man conversation anymore?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 5:41 PM

Everyone knows Vince Young is going to be traded. Does that really hurt his trade value?

Seems like all the off-field drama is what's going to hurt Hayneworth's trade value, more than management stating the painfully obvious: Haynesworth's isn't fitting in.


Posted by: Alan4 | February 25, 2011 5:50 PM |

I hear ya but now we're just playing guessing games as to what 32 team personnel guys are thinking...my thought is that we ain't givin' nuthin' away...playing it as close to the vest as possible. Every team has their own strategy, I can only guess as to ours at this point.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

KC head coach Todd Haley at the Combine, on the subject of his new QB coach:

"...to be able to get a guy like Jim Zorn, who though we've never worked together, he's a guy who I've always admired from afar. I've always been very, very impressed with Jim and the work he has done with quarterbacks specifically. Along with what I just spoke about the development of our coaches, the other equally most important aspect of these hirings was that we got somebody to specifically coach Matt Cassel and our quarterbacks because their development is also equally critical to our future success. I just thought it was very important to have truly a quarterback coach, who has a unique perspective."

"One of the top quarterback coaches in the league, in my opinion, from the standpoint of getting guys better both mentally and physically, The physical part is a big aspect of this because there are very few quarterback coaches in the league, in my opinion it's like the golf swing, you can see something's wrong at times with different quarterbacks but how you go about correcting, improving and changing is a delicate line with quarterbacks on any level. I'm really excited about Jim Zorn. He's got head coaching experience in the league which was another important aspect of offering him the job."

"But No. 1 is coaching the quarterbacks, he's very good from an offensive standpoint, ideas and game planning. He's been there and done it. Played the position for 11 years in the NFL. Coached in college for another nine or 10 years and I think we came into the league about the same time in 1997 or so as coaches. This is an experienced guy, energetic and excited about the opportunity."

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Not the old "We shouldn't have gone to a 3-4 because we had a top 10 defense" argument again...

With a 4-3 defense...we were 4-12! That defense didn't win any games for us.

C'mon man! (Chris Carter's voice)

Posted by: rickyroge | February 25, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Let's see what Haley says when he sees the Zornado hanging around KC's special teams meetings....

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 25, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Gosh darnit! I'm telling you, that gate thing works every day in practice!"

Posted by: NYPDee | February 25, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Mike Shanahan Sheds Light on Draft at Combine (Transcript)
by Kevin Ewoldt
Shanahan spoke today to the media, and one can find the entire transcript here. I was 2nd to go and asked Shanahan, "When you came on board with the Redskins, you cleaned house with the staff, but basically left the entire scouting department intact. Over the last four drafts, the Redskins only have 3 starters. What do you see in their scouting abilities that kept their jobs safe?"
Shanahan: No. 1, it's a process. You bring in a certain way to scout. A lot of times, Washington in the past has traded away a lot of draft choices and they didn't have many draft choices, but hopefully with the system that we have, hopefully we'll have a lot more draft picks.

My rebuttal: "But can they evaluate talent?"

I like the people we have, I've had the chance to spend a lot of time with them. We talked about the direction that we want to go. I like what we've got.

Where an pass-rusher ranks on the priority list:

I think [outside pass-rusher] ranks right at the top. Obviously when you have any consistent defense, using the 3-4, you've got to have two great outside pass-rushers, a great nose tackle and a great safety.

And here's the rest of the major questions including his thoughts on Jake Locker, Cam Newtown, spread QBs, and the importance of a Nose Tackle...

On trading back:

You can always trade back, that's a possibility. When you do go into free agency, you've got to make sure you've got the right type of guy, especially with the rules and coming in with 500 free agents and being a little different than what we've had in the past. If you take a chance on a guy, he'd better not be making a whole lot of money.

[On Haynesworth]

You never really know. Albert, right now, is appealing a four-game suspension. He's had a couple alleged instances he's got to take care of. Obviously that goes through the commissioner and hopefully that comes out positive. There's a lot of ramifications there,so we've got to take care of that first.

How LT Trent Williams did as a rookie:

Trent's probably the most talented offensive lineman I've ever been around. 325 pounds, he can run a 4.758 40 [yard dash], everything you look for in an offensive lineman, hopefully he just keeps on getting better.

[Nose tackle need]

You're always looking for that great nose tackle. They don't come around every day. We've got a plan in free agency, we've got a plan in thedraft. We're just going to have to let that play out. We do have a couple of guys there, but we don't have a dominant guy there.

I think what helps is workouts, when you get to do the drills for him on your own, and you get to see the footwork.

[evaluating spread QBs]

I think what helps is workouts, when you get to do the drills for him on your own, and you get to see the footwork.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

[On Newton]

I think you deal into everything. You watch the film. I've watched a lot of film on Cam and he's an unbelievable athlete. He can make all the throws and is what you want in a quarterback. I think a lot of people will spend some time and ask what kind of a guy are we dealing with. Is it a one-year guy, or is he going to take you to the next level. Obviously though he has all the skill you'd want in a quarterback.Very talented.

[On Jake Locker]

I would make more similarities to Jake Plummer for me, relative to his ability to run. He's got great speed and an ability to do somethings outside the pocket that most quarterbacks can't do. But I've only watched a couple of games and looking forward to watching some more.

Well, Shanahan benched Locker, sooooo....cross him off the list?

I think it's fair to give Shanahan another year. Both Bruce and Shanny have been more than obvious that they're hoping to get picks for McNabb and Haynesworth - and possibly trade back.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

(presuming the $21million was an obligation -- Sween thinks it wasn't and if someone has better info, I'm open to it)

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the money was guaranteed. The team owed him no matter what.

And what the team did was offer to let the player find a new home where he'd be happier. But in return the player needed to void the $21 mil obligation.

I still don't understand why you don't believe that Speck was involved. I still don't understand why you believe this was bad form on Shanahan's part. I consider it a stand up move. And you never address the fact that all the player had to do was say "Call my agent".


I asked earlier if you thought the coach was trying to trick the player. Is that it? Or do you know about some secret code that the NFL follows that says you can't have a man to man conversation anymore?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty

The article mentions a conversation Shanny has with Albert -- no mention of the agent.

I suspect if you were in a similar situation -- the boss came to you and said "I'm thinking of firing you because I don't like your effort. But if I fire you, you get that $21million. So I want you to promise me that you'll work harder 6 months from now, otherwise, you should leave now and forfeit the $21million."

If that happened to me, I'd be very suspicious of the other guy and yeah, I be talking with a lawyer pretty quickly after that. No way I walk out on the $$. Of course, I'd never behave like Albert, either.

You can also consider the flip side -- a player who feels underpaid going into the coaches office asking for a raise. The coach would tell him to call his agent -- that he doesn't discuss contracts with players.

I'm not trying to make Shanny out as the bad guy in all of this. Albert's the problem, no question. But Shanny made a mistake in handling this part of it.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Sure sounds like Shanny is going to go big time in FA and draft for DL and that he's serious about Atgowe. I agree with Shanny on the NT thing. Its sort of the achilles heel of the 3-4. If you don't get a big time NT (and you really need 2), the defense is pretty vulnerable.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Can't beleive that some are willing to give Shanahan another YEAR!

Another YEAR...that's why we haven't had any success...too much change!

Posted by: rickyroge | February 25, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Waiting, fwiw, you think I'm hung up on who said what to whom. I'll agree with that.

One of the issues with having Shanahan wear so many hats is that it does create unnecessary problems. Recently, Schlereth(?) made comments about Shanahan trying to do too many jobs -- I think his Albert comments fall into that category. Can you imagine Zorn, whose only job was HC, having that conversation with Albert?

There has been lots written about the coach who wants to praise the player to motivate him, but then as a GM, brings up all the negatives in order not to overpay him (especially in arbitration).

It is tough to keep separate the GM role from the coach role. They are very different jobs. I said it before, I'd have liked to see Shanahan hire a HC, and kick himself upstairs.

So yeah, form matters. Shanahan is nearly 60 years old, he should know how to handle stuff like this better than he did.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Can't beleive that some are willing to give Shanahan another YEAR!

Another YEAR...that's why we haven't had any success...too much change!

Posted by: rickyroge | February 25, 2011 7:21 PM

Not my quote. He gets at least 3 from me.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Dies, i'm giving him 5 years to clean up this mess.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | February 25, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Not my quote. He gets at least 3 from me.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 7:54 PM

So, in your mind, what has to happen within those three years for him to get more?

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 8:03 PM | Report abuse

pa17- I'm good with that. It's amazing when you look at the lack of talent on this roster...

Last 4 drafts- 3 starters.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

I say 5 years for consistency and we need a playoff win.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I am all for them being better able to handle concussions. Personally I think the NFL needs to set a high standard when it comes to the issue. If a player is diagnosed with a concussion, you need to keep him out of that game, and the next game. Mandate a 1 week off the field to heal up.

Posted by: alex35332 | February 25, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

So, in your mind, what has to happen within those three years for him to get more?

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 8:03 PM

YR 1 6-10
YR 2 8-8
YR 3 be a playoff contender and not finish last in the divison.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

YR 1 6-10
YR 2 8-8
YR 3 be a playoff contender and not finish last in the divison.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 8:19 PM

co-sign. I think mgmt focus should be about being a serious competitor in 2013. Aim for anything sooner, and I think we'll make the same mistake we've made over and over -- I'm giving Shanny a couple more years to build a foundation. He didn't do nearly enough of that in 2010 -- don't make the same mistake again (make a different one?).

Even if 2011 is a step backwards in the win column, if we are getting younger and several younger players are developing, I'm still on board. I'm not on board if the team is just as old in 2011, and 6-10 again.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

pa17- stock up

John Clay, RB, Wisconsin
John Clay, who was reported to be in the 250s at one point, weighed in at 230 Friday. This is a good sign for Clay, but he's still not a lock to be drafted. He needs to show that he can catch the football on Sunday.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

John Clay, RB, Wisconsin
John Clay, who was reported to be in the 250s at one point, weighed in at 230 Friday. This is a good sign for Clay, but he's still not a lock to be drafted. He needs to show that he can catch the football on Sunday.


Noel Devine, RB, West Virginia
Noel Devine weighed 160 pounds at the Senior Bowl. Citing some sort of injury that made him lose weight, Devine promised to be at 178 pounds at the Combine. He's 179.

Dion Lewis, RB, Pittsburgh
Dion Lewis was listed at 5-8, 195 during the season. I was hoping he'd eclipse the 200-pound barrier at the Combine. Instead, he's 5-7, 193.

Ryan Mallett, QB, Arkansas
Arkansas fans have accused me for hating Ryan Mallett for no explicable reason - see the 2011 NFL Draft Mailbag for more - but here's a Friday tweet from the Houston Chronicle's John McClain:

"A long-time personnel expert I trust told me last night that every time he looks at Arkansas QB Ryan Mallett he sees Ryan Leaf! Ouch!!!"

I personally see JaMarcus Russell. Tomato Tomahto.

Derek Sherrod, OT, Mississippi State
Derek Sherrod managed 23 reps of 225 pounds at the Combine. That's not an awful number considering his arm length, but a lighter Gabe Carimi posted 29 reps despite the fact that his arm length is nearly the same as Sherrod's. I wrote yesterday that I was concerned about Sherrod's sudden weight gain. Let's see how he looks in the drills and 40-yard dash tomorrow.

Torrey Smith, WR, Maryland
Torrey Smith will probably run a great 40 on Sunday, but you can't help but be concerned about his hand size. Eight and 5/8 inches? Microscopic hands like those usually mean a huge drop rate. Look at Brandon LaFell (8 3/4 hands) as a prime example. Smith has been criticized for catching the ball with his body too often, and now we see why he tends to haul in passes that way.

Nate Solder, OT, Colorado
Twenty-one reps of 225? That's it? Nate Solder's arms aren't that long - they were measured at 35 inches at the Senior Bowl and 34.5 inches at the Combine. Tyron Smith, meanwhile, benched 225 pounds a whopping 29 times despite the fact that his arm length is 36 3/8 inches. Smith is also 12 pounds lighter than Solder. It's pretty clear that Smith has overtaken Solder as the No. 1 offensive tackle in the 2011 NFL Draft.

Shane Vereen, RB, California
Shane Vereen said he wants to show everyone he can be an every-down runner. So far, so good. Vereen weighed in at 5-10, 210 at the Combine. He was listed in the 200-205 range this past season.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 25, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach. Only thing that could substantially alter that is the emergence of a QB that he thought could be another Cutler.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach. Only thing that could substantially alter that is the emergence of a QB that he thought could be another Cutler.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM |

That may be but only a doddering fool...eh hemm, Vinny...could think we have a win now team.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Also, when's the last time we saw the Heat with 14 rebounds by the third quarter? I knew they weren't a good board team, but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM |

I agree with this, but I can't think of any coach who ever had a 5-year time frame in his head. They are all win now sort of coaches.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 25, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

_______________________flatlined______________________

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 25, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Sounds just like the test the pigz used to give me when I got stopped!

Posted by: iubiquity | February 25, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

John Clay is this year's Legarett Blount

Posted by: coparker5 | February 25, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

It would appear they are looking for players who are playing while intoxicated (or perhaps concussed). Doesn't look like alot of time was put into this study.

Posted by: msrent | February 25, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Copark

So clay js gonna go undrafted then get picked up by the titans then punch a teammate at practice then get cut then get signed by the bucs??

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | February 26, 2011 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM

But he's also the team's senior exec -- and that requires a longer term perspective

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 26, 2011 1:43 AM | Report abuse

For anyone that had Sidney Rice on their wishlist, it's not looking like that will happen...he was given an unspecified contract offer from the Vikes and both sides are expressing strong interest of continuing to work together.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/116962398.html

Wondering what the Shanaplan is for WR next year.

Posted by: DC2AZ99 | February 26, 2011 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Jason Reid gets promoted from the Redskins beat to write his own column. And what does he write about? The Redskins. The Wiz and the Caps are both playing and are sucking monumentally, but he writes about the Redskins. Spring training has started, but he's writing about the Redskins whose last game was eight weeks ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022506318.html

And the only way he can write about them is to make up stuff (or to copy it from some of the less-grounded posters up here):

"Shanahan would rather pay Haynesworth $5.4 million next season and list him as inactive every game than release him to potentially sign with another team. Shanahan enjoys sending messages about who's in charge."

Then, having portrayed Shanahan as a whacked-out blog poster, Reid can seem deep and profound by stating the obvious:

"Moving McNabb and keeping Haynesworth solves only half the problem. And until Shanahan realizes that, the remaining half is only going to get bigger."

Posted by: beep-beep | February 26, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: beep-beep | February 26, 2011 8:24 AM |

who cares ?

Posted by: hessone | February 26, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM

But he's also the team's senior exec -- and that requires a longer term perspective

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 26, 2011 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Disagree...every interview I've seen, Shanahan has stated that it will take two to three years for us to be contenders.

Posted by: rickyroge | February 26, 2011 8:45 AM | Report abuse

It's very sad to know that my favorite Redskin will no longer be a Redskin.

Godspeed Portis. I've pimped him to the point where I thought he was gonna be a HOFamer. 9000+yds by the age 28? The only other running backs to accomplish that are HOFamers.

periculum-where you at? I wanna eat my crow on Portis not making the HOF. He still didn't and doesn't deserve all the hate he gets tho.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I'm not trying to make Shanny out as the bad guy in all of this. Albert's the problem, no question. But Shanny made a mistake in handling this part of it.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 25, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse


Shanny's bumbling was failing to trade Albert at the deadline when it should have been abundantly clear at that point that AH had little-no intention of playing nice.


The conversation - as portrayed by Shanny - seems to have this jist:

"As the coach here, I'm going to expect you to bust your butt and play hard, and we're going to play a 3-4. If you don't like that and you want out, I'll be happy to move you, but you need to give up this money as consideration for us moving you."

I don't see anything wrong with that.

The new coach is telling the player straight up what he's expecting of him and giving him an option to continue with the program or not.

AH had a right to that money according to the contract. But the contract also binds him to play for the coaches and the team. There wasn't a provision that says he gets to play in a 4-3 in exactly the way that he did in Tennessee.

If he wanted to play the way he did in Tennessee, he should have kept his fat load in Tennessee.

Posted by: p1funk | February 26, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I wanna eat my crow on Portis not making the HOF. He still didn't and doesn't deserve all the hate he gets tho.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

What "hate" do you think he gets?

Posted by: p1funk | February 26, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

beep-beep,

I've recently caught up with some of the happenings here on RI and I must say Bravo. BRAfuccingVO on you schoolings of hesscerrato.

I tried reasoning with him one day, but one day was all I could do. Your hesscerrato posts made so much sense that there was no way he could understand it.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

What "hate" do you think he gets?

Posted by: p1funk | February 26, 2011 9:15 AM

`

I guess what I mean p1funk is that people wanna focus more on him not practicing or when he speaks him mind than what he was giving us on the field on Sundays.

Nowadays it's easy to observe the sins of football players, but we all have our faults and I just appreciate it when others judge Portis for his on the field performance, because that is what he was: a damn good football player.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I guess what I mean p1funk is that people wanna focus more on him not practicing or when he speaks him mind than what he was giving us on the field on Sundays.

Nowadays it's easy to observe the sins of football players, but we all have our faults and I just appreciate it when others judge Portis for his on the field performance, because that is what he was: a @#!*% good football player.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse


I'd say the blog has been pretty even-handed with CP.

There's been plenty of praise for his on-field performances and effort.

The criticism that he's a practice-loafer and a prima-donna is totally grounded in facts/reality.

CP sets himself up for criticism. Now that he can't get it done on the field anymore, what value does he have to the team? He's not proven to be a locker-room/preparation/off-field leader like Philip Daniels.

He wants people to judge him based on what he brings on the field and in the game...well, the past 2 years we've been judging him based on exactly that.

Posted by: p1funk | February 26, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Fellas, I doubt Shanahan has anything like a 5 year time frame in his head. He's a win now sort of coach.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 25, 2011 9:04 PM |

I agree with this, but I can't think of any coach who ever had a 5-year time frame in his head. They are all win now sort of coaches.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 25, 2011 9:11 PM
------------------------------------------
I think the way to categorize Shanahan's approach to rebuilding as "think long term, but act short term". It's like the way he started the season with a more seasoned group and eventually began replacing some of the older guys with the younger guys. He had to see the young guys could get the job done before he burned his bridges with the veterans. I've also heard it said that the first position to start with in any rebuilding project is left tackle and he took care of that right away. He could have tried to squeeze a veteran free agent in there and taken a quarterback last year, but instead took the long view. The main thing I would fault him on is not doing a total system reset on the defense. He tried to work in guys who didn't fit, count on a budget free agent nose tackle who wasn't all the way recovered from injury, and I think ultimately he failed. Guys like Carter, Haynesworth, McIntosh, Golston, etc. were not really 3-4 guys and that should have been addressed right away. Kemoeatu is a nice guy - a team guy - but if what he had last year is all that he has left, then he was a mistake.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 26, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

He wants people to judge him based on what he brings on the field and in the game...well, the past 2 years we've been judging him based on exactly that.

Posted by: p1funk | February 26, 2011 9:28 AM

`

You're right. And it's been painful for me.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

*Sidenote*

This year I thought CP was productive on the field when healthy.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

McNabb’s agents said trade or release coming after the draft
Posted by Mike Florio on February 26, 2011, 8:40 AM EST

On Friday, Redskins coach Mike Shanahan said that a decision as to the future of quarterback Donovan McNabb will be made after the 2011 draft.

According to McNabb’s agent (via Les Bowen of the Philadelphia Daily News), Fletcher Smith, the Redskins will either trade or release McNabb at that time.

We think there’s a chance that McNabb will be traded during the draft, if the labor situation is resolved by then. If it isn’t, and if a lockout has been imposed, no trades of current players will be permitted.

Then again, the Redskins won’t be able to trade or release McNabb after the draft, either, if the league has shut down operations. So if McNabb isn’t cut by March 4, he won’t be traded or released until the labor situation is resolved.

Either way, the Redskins won’t be paying him $12.5 million to sit on the bench in 2011. Eventually, he’ll be gone. The only unknowns at this point are the time and the method.

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 26, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Not much to this, but an interesting comparison nonetheless:

Mike Shanahan compares Jake Locker to Jake Plummer

Posted by Danny O'Neil


INDIANAPOLIS -- Washington coach Mike Shanahan -- whose team holds the No. 10 overall pick in the draft -- was asked about quarterback Jake Locker and comparisons to Jay Cutler.

"I would make more similarities to Jake Plummer," Shanahan said, "because of his ability to run."

Specifically, that ability to make plays on the move, to get outside the pocket, is a strength of Locker's. When people question Locker's accuracy, it is his accuracy from the pocket. He's as accurate as any quarterback in this draft throwing on the move.

Shanahan acquired Plummer from Arizona, and he took the Broncos to the playoffs. In 2006, Plummer was benched for Cutler -- who was then a rookie -- and retired after the season.

Shanahan said at the end he only watched a few games featuring Locker and looked forward to studying him more.


Posted by: brownwood26 | February 26, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

This year I thought CP was productive on the field when healthy.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:34 AM

Agreed. CP gave the Redskins everything he had, on every play. "He left it on field" -- and now he doesn't have it anymore. It's all used up. He really should retire.

Posted by: beep-beep | February 26, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse


*Sidenote*

Vicc, instead of going thru beep to make a point about me, why not man up and make your point with me ? beeps one and only post so far today is to whine about something, then you whine about me.

who cares ?

Posted by: hessone | February 26, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I don't man up with children hess...it's kinda unfair.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse


I don't man up with children hess...it's kinda unfair.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:53 AM |

----------

the above comment is childish at best. have a good one

Posted by: hessone | February 26, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

So of course the main OL guy I want to see today, Tyron Smith, isn't working out. The combine can be interesting in small doses but riveting tv it is not.

Posted by: will_ga | February 26, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

McNabb Story

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 26, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess I was wrong when I predicted #5 would be back!

Shanahan basically echoed the framework of what Fletcher said, so I buy this story.

Later Don...I just hope we get a pick for him. Even if it's in 2012.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 26, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess I was wrong when I predicted #5 would be back!

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 26, 2011 10:13 AM

It was a bold prediction... but Shanahan's actions were much clearer than his words.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 26, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

*Sidenote*

This year I thought CP was productive on the field when healthy.

Posted by: Vicc | February 26, 2011 9:34 AM |

*Sidenote*

Clinton Portis has always been productive when healthy.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | February 26, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Alan4 | February 26, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Do you think we'll get a pick for him?

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | February 26, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"Albert's the problem, no question. But Shanny made a mistake in handling this part of it.Posted by: zcezcest1"

See, I don't think so. There were certainly other ways to have handled the situation. But a new regime having to address an egregious error made by the previous administration -- that's always tricky. Open to relentless second-guessing in public. And the new admin wants to avoid public embarrassment for the owner -- not the easiest goal to accomplish in a situation like this one.

By focusing media and fan attention on himself & Albert rather than Snyder, he earned a solid B in crisis management -- that's about as good a grade as new coaches ever get.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 26, 2011 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The Skins may be able to get a 4th rounder for McNabb. They should have talked to me last year!


From last year's RI: Redskins to introduce McNabb at noon Tuesday

When have you seen the Redskins make a trade for a pro-bowl caliber QB?

Posted by: Chia_Pet | April 5, 2010 12:24 PM

I agree with your comments about the risks in drafting a QB. What I'm referring to is acquiring aging stars on the downside of their careers instead of young talent on the upside.

With every coaching change, some aging star comes in and busts. That's the play I'm tired of seeing, and I have NO REASON to beleive McNabb will be any different.

Why would the Iggles readily give up their 33 year old QB for a second rounder to face them twice a year?

Jason Taylor was an All-legend player before the Skins got him too, but the years were catching up with him.

You've seen this play before too, and you know it.

Posted by: Alan4 | April 5, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Alan4 | February 26, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Mike Shanahan can put a proven plan into action
As we switch our focus from Mike Shanahan’s comments yesterday back to college prospects—former Auburn QB Cam Newton is expected to facilitate that transition by speaking to reporters today—we can’t let them pass without fully considering the magnitude of what Shanahan suggested.

Quarterback Donovan McNabb, defensive lineman Albert Haynesworth and running back Clinton Portis—each a marquee player for the franchise at one point—all could be jettisoned in the coming weeks. Add the possibility that starters Santana Moss, Rocky McIntosh and Carlos Rogers could leave in free agency, and the Redskins could be on the brink of a more dramatic roster overhaul in Shanahan’s second year than the first.

That those players might be elsewhere next season is not a fresh possibility. We’ve known for months this could happen, but Shanahan gave it a sense of immediacy yesterday.

This quote stood out to me most, enough so that I used it at the top of my story in this morning’s paper.

“We’re going to focus on character and guys that want to be a part of this football team long term,” he said. “We want to try to get younger, but we’re not going to do it all overnight.”

By establishing those guidelines, Shanahan addressed the exact reasons why McNabb, Haynesworth and Portis—and perhaps Moss (turns 32 in June) and Rogers (30 in July)—might not be back.

Shanahan has apparently realized, after analyzing his roster following a 6-10 debut, what successful NFL teams and perceptive Redskins followers have known for some time now.

Sure, every team wants young, character guys who buy into the team concept and are committed to working hard. But the Redskins haven’t backed up those common desires with action. They have relied too heavily on adding free agents instead of grooming draft picks and other young players in their program.

You know how many players on the Green Bay Packers’ 53-man roster on Super Bowl Sunday were draft picks, undrafted college free agents or products of their practice squad? 39. The Redskins’ total for their season finale on Jan. 2: 25.

Packers general manager Ted Thompson explained yesterday that he learned his approach from former Packers GM Ron Wolf.

“He was a strong believer that you build the core of your team around the draft,” Thompson said. “Certainly free agency is another avenue, but you do that a little bit more selectively. That’s just the way we were taught.”

Shanahan already erred in trading two draft picks for McNabb, and the consequences of that mistake will plague the team for years in the form of opportunity cost. Maybe it has taught him a lesson, though. (Granted, it’s one he should have known by now.) Shanahan indicated yesterday that he wants to cease the franchise’s practice of trading away picks.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 26, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

“A lot of times, Washington in the past has traded away a lot of draft choices and they didn’t have many draft choices, but hopefully with the system that we have, hopefully we’ll have a lot more draft picks,” he said.

That’s a start, but the organization has to follow through. Building through the draft is ideal, but it takes time.

The questions then become: How patient is the fan base? What about the owner’s patience? Would Shanahan survive one or two more seasons without making the playoffs?

Those are the types of issues every losing franchise faces when deciding on a plan. By getting rid of McNabb, Haynesworth and Portis, Shanahan would take a step toward enacting his. How they replace the departed stars, however, will tell us more about the franchise’s direction.

Posted by: Diesel44 | February 26, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Diesel I give shanny a B at this point.

We won some close ones n lost some close ones

Shanny got us 2 starters by swapping picks.

J brown and a carriker.

He also landed us 2 extra draft picks last yr by trading down n anoyther pic for 2012 for campbell.

I think we also got another pic this yr for Tryon.

Add in a pressumed pic for haynesworthless, mcnabb if they get traded

If that happens id have to think shanny has had more draft pics in 2 yrs that any other coach did.

Hes got my trust for alteast 3 to 4 yrs. If wr havent won 2 playoof games by then id boot him but for now hes got dannys checkbook so I hope for more of the same.

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | February 26, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I give Shanny a B for different reasons.

I don't think Carriker is a starter on many other teams, and Brown was helpful last year, but isn't locked in.

He landed us 2 draft picks last year... and spent them on McNabb.

I'll stick with him for 5 years, let him get through the rebuilding phase - which will take longer for us than most teams because we burned our initial rebuilding phase chasing glory at the end of the JKC era, well before Snyder... then doubled our problems during Synder's first 6-7 seasons, when he presumably learned that he's not a great GM.

Assuming Snyder is as hands-off now as he seems to be, I trust Shanahan and Allen to right the ship.

They're trying to shore up both lines, which is good. Hopefully they don't get silly and waste the #10 pick on a QB during a bad QB year when our team isn't ready for one yet anyway.

Posted by: KellyInBC | February 26, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

beep beep

Jason Reid gets promoted from the Redskins....And what does he write about? The Redskins.


I think the sports people at the WaPo rewarded him the columnist slot thinking his work is what led to the success of this blog.

So far, his columns have read like his threads: all Haynesworth-McNabb-Shanahan all the time.

Posted by: gimmesummoe | February 27, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

We think there’s a chance that McNabb will be traded during the draft, if the labor situation is resolved by then.

If that's the case, it suggests something is afoot as there is no other real reason to keep DM5 around.

Maybe you trade DM5 to move up in round 1 or to acquire middle rounder (a 4/5).

I honestly don't see any value in him if I'm a GM as the thought he'll be released just tells me to wait.

And wait and see is all we can do.

Posted by: gimmesummoe | February 27, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Today's Random Quote:

Nothing matters, except for the stuff that does.

Posted by: gimmesummoe | February 27, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company