****OFFICIAL 2009 Off Season Washington Redskins Thread**** (1 Viewer)

[DCThunder]

Anybody hear any rumors of Cooley being shopped for picks? He's one of the few players on the roster who another team might want and I'm not sure how much Zorn really values him or how well he fits into the scheme. And weren't there some rumors about him being part of a trade for Cutler when that was going down?

 

[dgreen]

Anybody hear any rumors of Cooley being shopped for picks? He's one of the few players on the roster who another team might want and I'm not sure how much Zorn really values him or how well he fits into the scheme. And weren't there some rumors about him being part of a trade for Cutler when that was going down?

Yes, there were rumors about him being included in a Cutler trade. But, I don't think anyone can say that Danny only cares about "selling jerseys" and then also suggest he'd trade Cooley. Cooley is likely the #1 fan favorite.

 

[Bizkiteer]

I for one would not be against drafting "dirty dirty!" Sanchez looks to be a very good prospect and great value if he falls to #13. The BIG problem is that we really don't have the luxary of drafting a position that is not in need. Thus, drafting a QB is not ideal. When a team loads up too much in other areas, then issues like this and no depth arise easily.

I hope that most of you are against Sanchez for the same reason and not because of the actual dislike for him. Too many people are liking him and his potential to be a real NFL QB, so it's not just Danman and the Boy Blunder.

I'm with you on my reasons for not wanting the 'Skins to draft Sanchez. If the need for an infusion of quality youth on the OL wasn't such a gaping hole in the roster, I wouldn't really have a problem with Sanchez at 13.Also, winning in the NFL doesn't require a top tier QB, so you don't need to shoot for one with such a high draft pick. You can win with a "game manager" at QB (and the 'Skins already have that). You can't win with O-linemen that have one foot in the graves of their NFL careers.

Though I agree that the OL needs help with a great youth infusion (liked your choice of words), I think LB is a greater need for us. I would not be mad and clearly understand if one of the top 3 OL (tackles) is there, most likely being Andre Smith that drops. Though Jansen and Heyer are not ideal, I think that could fillin the depth or starter with viable vet. We are so weak at LB that we are talking about moving a DE that has NEVER played LB in his life into a potential spot. We have Fletch, Rocky and Blades...after that NADA! Fletch has age chasing him down, Rocky has good potential, but so far shakey knees. Blades is a good plug in guy, but not a FT starter. Thus, getting a starting LB is vital IMO. To be honest, I love the reports of Orakpo dropping now because he'd be an AWESOME pick if he lasted to the #13 spot. If not, any pick of Rey Rey or Cushy would work.

It's proven though that less misses (busts) happen with taking OL in first round, opposed to QB's. One thing that very few people have brought up is that IF Sanchez is a smoke screen, it might not be for moving down...the 'Skins people are smitten with another USC product. All the Sanchez smoke is to justify their time hanging around USC and such.

The needs at OL and LB come down to simple math. There are 3 LB spots, and 5 OL spots. The OL moreover is the oldest starting unit on the team. Within the next two years, four of those five OL spots will need to be replaced, and if you don't believe that Rinehart or Heyer are part of the answer, they are 0/4 of the way there at the moment. If Dockery starts to decline then they'll need to replace him too. At LB, they need a Sam now and (I guess) a MLB soon, though Fletch shows no signs of slowing down, and maybe Blades is the heir apparent for Fletcher. McIntosh should be fine for the time being.

The point is that they can make do at LB by signing a FA or two, or taking the time to develop a young prospect from the middle rounds of the draft, but they can't wait any longer to restock their OL. There's just too many holes too fast at OL, and I'm not at all sure that the immediate need they have at SLB is any bigger than the immediate need they have at RT.

Though I can't argue the need to OL because that too is a major need, we have nothing at LB. Rocky is a shakey starter in that he hasn't been healthy for a whole season and been a FT starter yet. Let's say Blades starts...what happens if any injury occurs in our LB starters? Who is next...the answer is NOBODY. So, we go into the season with questionable starters and a MLB that is getting long in the tooth.Again, I can't argue the need for OL and in a perfect world we could draft a OL and LB in rounds 1 & 2. Of course, we don't have that ability as Miami is still smiling from taking advantage of the dynamic duo (Danman and the boy blunder). Considering that there are more VET OL on the FA market that could start then LB'ers and that we have the combo of Jansen & Heyer for RT...I place a priority slightly more for a SLB than a RT.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Wilson, Alexander Might Shift

With All-Pro Albert Haynesworth sure to gobble up plenty of playing time at defensive tackle this season, the Redskins will experiment with moving backup tackle Lorenzo Alexander to end and reserve end Chris Wilson to linebacker.

Neither Alexander nor Wilson has previously played his new spot, but each is much younger, healthier and less set in his ways than were offensive tackles Todd Wade and Jon Jansen when they failed in similar attempted moves to guard in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

The big questions are whether the sturdy Alexander, who has also played offensive line for the Redskins, has the quickness to play outside and whether swift former CFL standout Wilson has the ability to cover tight ends and backs and play in space. If either move works out, it would be a big plus for the Redskins, who have four starting tackles in Haynesworth, Cornelius Griffin, Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery but a dearth of starter-worthy ends under 34 (Andre Carter) or strong side linebackers (H.B. Blades and the newly-added Robert Thomas have each started a handful of games at that spot).

I don't expect either of these moves to work out, but if one does it'll likely be Wilson, and there's certainly no harm in trying it during training camp and preseason (if they didn't bomb out at camp).

This is what measures a desperate team makes...you just don't hear the top tier teams doing crap like this. Asking a DL is play LB and he has NEVER played that position before is desperate. We're not talking about a typical tweener that could play DE or OLB here. This is what happens when an organization throws too much money into a few players, jetisons draft picks like the plague and ends up with little to no depth.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Asking a DL is play LB and he has NEVER played that position before is desperate.

FWIW, Wilson has stated that he has played the position before.

But there was one interesting tidbit, one that explained Chris Wilson's comment from yesterday that "I'm pretty excited to see how they're gonna use me this year" -- because Blache mentioned that the team was looking at Wilson to potentially help fill the role of strongside linebacker.

"Yeah," Wilson told me, "I'm pretty excited for that. I've played the position before, and it's all stuff that I can do."

That may have been in the CFL or college. Wilson was also Marcus Washington's backup/replacement when Washington was used as a 3rd down rush DE, so it's possible he learned some SLB duties (read: coverage duties) there, too.I understand the general point, though (that the 'Skins wouldn't have to experiment with position shifts if they already had decent depth), and somewhat agree with it. But we laud guys like Lorenzo Alexander for their versatility, and rightly so. In today's NFL, the roster sizes almost demand that any given player needs to help out in more than one position. I don't think it's a completely bad thing to find out if a guy, already on the roster, has the ability to play 2 positions, especially 2 positions of need.

 

[nittanylion]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=464921

Oh, Jesus. Here we go...

 

[Marvelous]

I for one would not be against drafting "dirty dirty!" Sanchez looks to be a very good prospect and great value if he falls to #13. The BIG problem is that we really don't have the luxary of drafting a position that is not in need. Thus, drafting a QB is not ideal. When a team loads up too much in other areas, then issues like this and no depth arise easily.

I hope that most of you are against Sanchez for the same reason and not because of the actual dislike for him. Too many people are liking him and his potential to be a real NFL QB, so it's not just Danman and the Boy Blunder.

I'm with you on my reasons for not wanting the 'Skins to draft Sanchez. If the need for an infusion of quality youth on the OL wasn't such a gaping hole in the roster, I wouldn't really have a problem with Sanchez at 13.Also, winning in the NFL doesn't require a top tier QB, so you don't need to shoot for one with such a high draft pick. You can win with a "game manager" at QB (and the 'Skins already have that). You can't win with O-linemen that have one foot in the graves of their NFL careers.

Though I agree that the OL needs help with a great youth infusion (liked your choice of words), I think LB is a greater need for us. I would not be mad and clearly understand if one of the top 3 OL (tackles) is there, most likely being Andre Smith that drops. Though Jansen and Heyer are not ideal, I think that could fillin the depth or starter with viable vet. We are so weak at LB that we are talking about moving a DE that has NEVER played LB in his life into a potential spot. We have Fletch, Rocky and Blades...after that NADA! Fletch has age chasing him down, Rocky has good potential, but so far shakey knees. Blades is a good plug in guy, but not a FT starter. Thus, getting a starting LB is vital IMO. To be honest, I love the reports of Orakpo dropping now because he'd be an AWESOME pick if he lasted to the #13 spot. If not, any pick of Rey Rey or Cushy would work.

It's proven though that less misses (busts) happen with taking OL in first round, opposed to QB's. One thing that very few people have brought up is that IF Sanchez is a smoke screen, it might not be for moving down...the 'Skins people are smitten with another USC product. All the Sanchez smoke is to justify their time hanging around USC and such.

The needs at OL and LB come down to simple math. There are 3 LB spots, and 5 OL spots. The OL moreover is the oldest starting unit on the team. Within the next two years, four of those five OL spots will need to be replaced, and if you don't believe that Rinehart or Heyer are part of the answer, they are 0/4 of the way there at the moment. If Dockery starts to decline then they'll need to replace him too. At LB, they need a Sam now and (I guess) a MLB soon, though Fletch shows no signs of slowing down, and maybe Blades is the heir apparent for Fletcher. McIntosh should be fine for the time being.

The point is that they can make do at LB by signing a FA or two, or taking the time to develop a young prospect from the middle rounds of the draft, but they can't wait any longer to restock their OL. There's just too many holes too fast at OL, and I'm not at all sure that the immediate need they have at SLB is any bigger than the immediate need they have at RT.

Though I can't argue the need to OL because that too is a major need, we have nothing at LB. Rocky is a shakey starter in that he hasn't been healthy for a whole season and been a FT starter yet. Let's say Blades starts...what happens if any injury occurs in our LB starters? Who is next...the answer is NOBODY. So, we go into the season with questionable starters and a MLB that is getting long in the tooth.Again, I can't argue the need for OL and in a perfect world we could draft a OL and LB in rounds 1 & 2. Of course, we don't have that ability as Miami is still smiling from taking advantage of the dynamic duo (Danman and the boy blunder). Considering that there are more VET OL on the FA market that could start then LB'ers and that we have the combo of Jansen & Heyer for RT...I place a priority slightly more for a SLB than a RT.

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents. My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

 

[Bizkiteer]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=464921

Oh, Jesus. Here we go...

He has nothing to do with it! I hope the Seahawks do want him because then we can't make a deal with them. Moving to #4 is a STEEP price that should move us out of the picture.

 

[thayman]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

Chris Cooley was a 3rd rounder. Their picks, when they have them, have been pretty decent. The issue is more trading the picks away.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

 

[T Bell]

The needs at OL and LB come down to simple math. There are 3 LB spots, and 5 OL spots. The OL moreover is the oldest starting unit on the team. Within the next two years, four of those five OL spots will need to be replaced, and if you don't believe that Rinehart or Heyer are part of the answer, they are 0/4 of the way there at the moment. If Dockery starts to decline then they'll need to replace him too.

At LB, they need a Sam now and (I guess) a MLB soon, though Fletch shows no signs of slowing down, and maybe Blades is the heir apparent for Fletcher. McIntosh should be fine for the time being.

The point is that they can make do at LB by signing a FA or two, or taking the time to develop a young prospect from the middle rounds of the draft, but they can't wait any longer to restock their OL. There's just too many holes too fast at OL, and I'm not at all sure that the immediate need they have at SLB is any bigger than the immediate need they have at RT.

Though I can't argue the need to OL because that too is a major need, we have nothing at LB. Rocky is a shakey starter in that he hasn't been healthy for a whole season and been a FT starter yet. Let's say Blades starts...what happens if any injury occurs in our LB starters? Who is next...the answer is NOBODY. So, we go into the season with questionable starters and a MLB that is getting long in the tooth.Again, I can't argue the need for OL and in a perfect world we could draft a OL and LB in rounds 1 & 2. Of course, we don't have that ability as Miami is still smiling from taking advantage of the dynamic duo (Danman and the boy blunder). Considering that there are more VET OL on the FA market that could start then LB'ers and that we have the combo of Jansen & Heyer for RT...I place a priority slightly more for a SLB than a RT.

One more word about LB's and then I'll drop it- if you look at the team's LB's from this decade, they've been mostly guys who have been either UDFA's (Pierce, Marshall), or veteran signings (Washington, Trotter, Fletcher, Holdman). Only two players of any sort of note have been drafted (Arrington; McIntosh). While not an all-star crew, rarely has the team's LB corps been criticized as weak in light of this approach, and often it's been strong. Much like with the safety position, unless you're staring the next Ray Lewis (or Sean Taylor) in the eyes, I just don't think you use a premium draft pick on these positions, especially in the 4-3 scheme.

 

[buster c]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.

Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.

this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL.

as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

 

[T Bell]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL. as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

So "neglecting the lines" includes signing or trading for players, except when the Eagles do it at their OT positions?

 

[dgreen]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

I'll also add that recently I've been thinking about the common "The Redskins don't value draft picks" comments we always hear. I'm not sure that's true. I think way too many teams overvalue draft picks. The problem with this team isn't bad cap management or undervaluing draft picks, it's who they give the money to and who they trade the picks for. In other words, they simply aren't great at identifying talent and/or fit.

 

[nittanylion]

At this point, if the Redskins gutted the Team via trade and release, and rebuilt from the inside-out with a clear plan of action, I'd gladly settle for more than a couple of Seasons south of 7 W's to get back to the land north of 10.

7-9, 8-8, 9-7...man, it just gets old...

...and being a fan under this regime is becoming absolutely exhausting.

 

[buster c]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL. as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

So "neglecting the lines" includes signing or trading for players, except when the Eagles do it at their OT positions?

aren't you the guy who is begging for them to address the OL?

 

[T Bell]

At this point, if the Redskins gutted the Team via trade and release, and rebuilt from the inside-out with a clear plan of action, I'd gladly settle for more than a couple of Seasons south of 7 W's to get back to the land north of 10.7-9, 8-8, 9-7...man, it just gets old......and being a fan under this regime is becoming absolutely exhausting.

Agreed.

 

[Sebowski]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL. as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

Peters is extremely overrated. I am glad the Eagles got him and paid as much as they did (now they are probably out of the Boldin hunt). I know a lot of Bills fans and they are not upset about him being gone at all. Peters is a lockerroom headache who never shows up in the offseason. Stacey Andrews is coming off a real bad injury. He was great before. Lets see if he still is. I have a feeling that if the Skins made these moves you would be bashing them.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

Chris Cooley was a 3rd rounder. Their picks, when they have them, have been pretty decent. The issue is more trading the picks away.

Every squirrel has to find a nut sometime. Overall, we rarely find gems that turn into starters unless it's the first round.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

Uhhh, considering that every year we have to re-work about 3-5 contracts to get any salary cap room is evidence enough. In the end we end up like many more for a certain year, but the problem is we keep throwing bonus $$$ now that makes releasing/cutting a player more difficult. Thus, we have a ton of money tied up in older players that when they get injured leave us out to hang & dry. Not their fault, but the dynamic duo's.

 

[Sebowski]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

Uhhh, considering that every year we have to re-work about 3-5 contracts to get any salary cap room is evidence enough. In the end we end up like many more for a certain year, but the problem is we keep throwing bonus $$$ now that makes releasing/cutting a player more difficult. Thus, we have a ton of money tied up in older players that when they get injured leave us out to hang & dry. Not their fault, but the dynamic duo's.

Until we hit the uncapped year where there will be no cap penalties and we can cut anyone we want.

 

[Bizkiteer]

The needs at OL and LB come down to simple math. There are 3 LB spots, and 5 OL spots. The OL moreover is the oldest starting unit on the team. Within the next two years, four of those five OL spots will need to be replaced, and if you don't believe that Rinehart or Heyer are part of the answer, they are 0/4 of the way there at the moment. If Dockery starts to decline then they'll need to replace him too.

At LB, they need a Sam now and (I guess) a MLB soon, though Fletch shows no signs of slowing down, and maybe Blades is the heir apparent for Fletcher. McIntosh should be fine for the time being.

The point is that they can make do at LB by signing a FA or two, or taking the time to develop a young prospect from the middle rounds of the draft, but they can't wait any longer to restock their OL. There's just too many holes too fast at OL, and I'm not at all sure that the immediate need they have at SLB is any bigger than the immediate need they have at RT.

Though I can't argue the need to OL because that too is a major need, we have nothing at LB. Rocky is a shakey starter in that he hasn't been healthy for a whole season and been a FT starter yet. Let's say Blades starts...what happens if any injury occurs in our LB starters? Who is next...the answer is NOBODY. So, we go into the season with questionable starters and a MLB that is getting long in the tooth.Again, I can't argue the need for OL and in a perfect world we could draft a OL and LB in rounds 1 & 2. Of course, we don't have that ability as Miami is still smiling from taking advantage of the dynamic duo (Danman and the boy blunder). Considering that there are more VET OL on the FA market that could start then LB'ers and that we have the combo of Jansen & Heyer for RT...I place a priority slightly more for a SLB than a RT.

One more word about LB's and then I'll drop it- if you look at the team's LB's from this decade, they've been mostly guys who have been either UDFA's (Pierce, Marshall), or veteran signings (Washington, Trotter, Fletcher, Holdman). Only two players of any sort of note have been drafted (Arrington; McIntosh). While not an all-star crew, rarely has the team's LB corps been criticized as weak in light of this approach, and often it's been strong. Much like with the safety position, unless you're staring the next Ray Lewis (or Sean Taylor) in the eyes, I just don't think you use a premium draft pick on these positions, especially in the 4-3 scheme.

I agree that talent can be found as it has been done in the past. I'd point out that the SLB is lining up behind a weaker LDE spot though and might not be as easily covered up. I've stated that I think LB is a slight notch over LB because I do not have faith in the projected starting crew as of today and the lack of depth after. Again, if one of the top3, maybe 4 OT's is there...I would not scream or disagree either. I do think that finding a starting LB'er is easier than a OT in round 3 though. Just don't want them to reach if the top OT's are off the board.

 

[Bizkiteer]

At this point, if the Redskins gutted the Team via trade and release, and rebuilt from the inside-out with a clear plan of action, I'd gladly settle for more than a couple of Seasons south of 7 W's to get back to the land north of 10.7-9, 8-8, 9-7...man, it just gets old......and being a fan under this regime is becoming absolutely exhausting.

Not a bad idea, but it sure doesn't always work that way. There are plenty of franchises out there that are consitantly re-building, but never seem to get to the point of having everything in place.As exciting as it can be to be always in the news with having our hands in everything, I agree it can be just as exhausting. Honestly, it depends on the day because it's classic look at the glass as half full or half empty...just depends on the mood of the day.

 

[T Bell]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

Chris Cooley was a 3rd rounder. Their picks, when they have them, have been pretty decent. The issue is more trading the picks away.

Every squirrel has to find a nut sometime. Overall, we rarely find gems that turn into starters unless it's the first round.

In addition to Cooley, Dockery was a 3rd rounder. Montgomery and Golston were 5th and 7th rounders. Horton was a 7th rounder. Smoot's a 2nd rounder. The truth is - as thayman said - our biggest problem is trading away our picks, not using them poorly to draft talent. Our hit rate on the picks we actually use in the draft is at least average, if not better, and we've done an even better job with UDFA's.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

Uhhh, considering that every year we have to re-work about 3-5 contracts to get any salary cap room is evidence enough. In the end we end up like many more for a certain year, but the problem is we keep throwing bonus $$$ now that makes releasing/cutting a player more difficult. Thus, we have a ton of money tied up in older players that when they get injured leave us out to hang & dry. Not their fault, but the dynamic duo's.

Until we hit the uncapped year where there will be no cap penalties and we can cut anyone we want.

Until it happens, it's just talk IMO. I hope that it is the case and we can get some relief. Though I'm sure we'd eventually end up right back where we were again because our FO surely believes this systems works.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

Chris Cooley was a 3rd rounder. Their picks, when they have them, have been pretty decent. The issue is more trading the picks away.

Every squirrel has to find a nut sometime. Overall, we rarely find gems that turn into starters unless it's the first round.

In addition to Cooley, Dockery was a 3rd rounder. Montgomery and Golston were 5th and 7th rounders. Horton was a 7th rounder. Smoot's a 2nd rounder. The truth is - as thayman said - our biggest problem is trading away our picks, not using them poorly to draft talent. Our hit rate on the picks we actually use in the draft is at least average, if not better, and we've done an even better job with UDFA's.

Agreed trading picks is our worst problem. Smoot only dropped to 2nd cuz of smokin' and other off field ?'s. Monty and Golston are nice guys to have for depth, but neither is a real starting quality DT for all 16 games. Matter of fact, if either of those players played on another NFL team...you and I would not know who they are at all, unless you played in a IDP league.

 

[fatness]

Regarding the Peters trade, and the "value" of Peters, I found this on another board):

Sacks Given up by LT last season

1. Ryan Clady, Denver, 0.5 sack

2. Michael Roos, Tennessee, 1 sack PRO BOWLER

3-T. Tony Ugoh, Indianapolis, 2 sacks (Started 11 games)

3-T. Tra Thomas, Philadelphia, 2 sacks

3-T. Jared Gaither, Baltimore, 2 sacks* (Missed first quarter of Philadelphia game)

7. Jake Long, Miami, 2.5 sacks

8-T. Marcus McNeill, San Diego, 3 sacks* (13 games)

8-T. Chris Samuels, Washington, 3 sacks* (12 games)

8-T. Jordan Gross, Carolina, 3 sacks* (15 games) PRO BOWLER

8-T. Jammal Brown, New Orleans, 3 sacks* (Missed 1 game)

8-T. Todd Weiner, Atlanta, 3 sacks* (Started 10 games and appeared in 15)

13-T. Joe Thomas, Cleveland, 3.5 sacks PRO BOWLER

13-T. Walter Jones, Seattle, 3.5 sacks* (12 games) PRO BOWLER

15-T. D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NY Jets, 4 sacks

15-T. Bryant McKinnie, Minnesota, 4 sacks* (11 games)

15-T. Max Starks, Pittsburgh, 4 sacks* (10 starts)

18. Brandon Albert, Kansas City, 4.5 sacks* (Missed 1 game)

19. Levi Jones, Cincinnati, 5.5 sacks* (10 games)

20. Mike Gandy, Arizona, 6.25 sacks

21-T. Chad Clifton, Green Bay, 6.5 sacks* (missed 1 game)

21-T. David Diehl, NY Giants, 6.5 sacks

23. Flozell Adams, Dallas, 7.25 PRO BOWLER

24-T. Khalif Barnes, Jacksonville, 7.5 sacks

24-T. Matt Light, New England, 7.5 sacks

24-T. Kwame Harris, 7.5 sacks* (Started 11, appeared in 13)

27. Donald Penn, Tampa Bay, 8 sacks

28. Joe Staley, San Francisco, 8.5 sacks

29. Jeff Backus, Detroit, 9.25 sacks

30. John St. Clair, Chicago, 9.75 sacks

T-31. Duane Brown, Houston, 11.5 sacks

T-31. Jason Peters, Buffalo, 11.5 sacks (13 games) PRO BOWLER

edit: added Link

 

[thayman]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL. as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

Let them be as giddy as school girls. A 1st and a 4th is way too much for a team that needs young cheap talent.Also I think you really need to give Hall a pass with his team cancer rep. One team was Petrino led Falcons that team was a disaster. The other was the Raiders, by all reports he has been nothing but a model citizen in DC.

 

[Sebowski]

Regarding the Peters trade, and the "value" of Peters, I found this on another board (I don't know the source of it):

Sacks Given up by LT last season

1. Ryan Clady, Denver, 0.5 sack

2. Michael Roos, Tennessee, 1 sack PRO BOWLER

3-T. Tony Ugoh, Indianapolis, 2 sacks (Started 11 games)

3-T. Tra Thomas, Philadelphia, 2 sacks

3-T. Jared Gaither, Baltimore, 2 sacks* (Missed first quarter of Philadelphia game)

7. Jake Long, Miami, 2.5 sacks

8-T. Marcus McNeill, San Diego, 3 sacks* (13 games)

8-T. Chris Samuels, Washington, 3 sacks* (12 games)

8-T. Jordan Gross, Carolina, 3 sacks* (15 games) PRO BOWLER

8-T. Jammal Brown, New Orleans, 3 sacks* (Missed 1 game)

8-T. Todd Weiner, Atlanta, 3 sacks* (Started 10 games and appeared in 15)

13-T. Joe Thomas, Cleveland, 3.5 sacks PRO BOWLER

13-T. Walter Jones, Seattle, 3.5 sacks* (12 games) PRO BOWLER

15-T. D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NY Jets, 4 sacks

15-T. Bryant McKinnie, Minnesota, 4 sacks* (11 games)

15-T. Max Starks, Pittsburgh, 4 sacks* (10 starts)

18. Brandon Albert, Kansas City, 4.5 sacks* (Missed 1 game)

19. Levi Jones, Cincinnati, 5.5 sacks* (10 games)

20. Mike Gandy, Arizona, 6.25 sacks

21-T. Chad Clifton, Green Bay, 6.5 sacks* (missed 1 game)

21-T. David Diehl, NY Giants, 6.5 sacks

23. Flozell Adams, Dallas, 7.25 PRO BOWLER

24-T. Khalif Barnes, Jacksonville, 7.5 sacks

24-T. Matt Light, New England, 7.5 sacks

24-T. Kwame Harris, 7.5 sacks* (Started 11, appeared in 13)

27. Donald Penn, Tampa Bay, 8 sacks

28. Joe Staley, San Francisco, 8.5 sacks

29. Jeff Backus, Detroit, 9.25 sacks

30. John St. Clair, Chicago, 9.75 sacks

T-31. Duane Brown, Houston, 11.5 sacks

T-31. Jason Peters, Buffalo, 11.5 sacks (13 games) PRO BOWLER

 

[Marvelous]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

The problem with the two measures you listed is that they are easily manipulated.1. 13 players taking up more than $3 M in cap space: The Redskins are forever restructuring contracts to reduce the current year cap hits at the expense of the out years.

2. Average salary: the Redskins are big on giving out bonues and structuring with bonunes rather than give out salary.

I think a good measure on how well they manage their players and cap is how much dead money they have against the cap every year. I am sure the Redskins are close to the league leaders every year, espcailly with Archuleta and Lloyd in recent years.

 

[Marvelous]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

What's the evidence that the 'Skins spend more at the top of their roster than anyone else in the NFL? I'm not convinced the way the 'Skins handle paying players is the reason for the lack of depth A quick look through USA Today's NFL salary database would suggest the 'Skins aren't out of line with what's going on in the rest of the NFL (at least within the last few years).

Last year the 2 Super Bowl teams each had 13 players whose cap values were $3 million or more, which was the same as the 'Skins. The median salary for the 'Skins roster was in the bottom half of the league. The Redskin with the highest cap value this year (Haynesworth) will cost the 'Skins $7 million (last year it was Jason Taylor @ $7.5 million). Roughly half the league in '08 had one or more players costing them $10+ million.

And I don't think there is a great disparity in what they pay offense v. defense. The top 3 offensive players in cap value this year (Samuels, Moss, Portis) cost more than the top 3 defensive players (Haynesworth, Landry, Hall).

Redskins '09 cap info

Uhhh, considering that every year we have to re-work about 3-5 contracts to get any salary cap room is evidence enough. In the end we end up like many more for a certain year, but the problem is we keep throwing bonus $$$ now that makes releasing/cutting a player more difficult. Thus, we have a ton of money tied up in older players that when they get injured leave us out to hang & dry. Not their fault, but the dynamic duo's.

Until we hit the uncapped year where there will be no cap penalties and we can cut anyone we want.

Like I said before, I think the Redskins are banking on an uncapped year.Also, I would not be surprised if they trade some/many of next years draft picks for picks this year. They never hesitate to borrow from the future. In an uncapped year, they should have no problems getting good depth at many positions. Unless they can't identify good depth players. Is it time to get on my Leigh Torrence soap box again?

 

[Marvelous]

Obviously you are not on board with the Redskin program. Who cares about depth. The Redskins throw money around to big name players. But there is a salary cap, so the money or more specifically, the cap space) needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is in the team depth. And is is also badly creeping into the starting positions. They would love to sign a SLB and a RT, but can only offering veteran minimum salaries to free agents.

My opinion once againL with expensive defensive players in Haynesworth, Griffin, Carter, Fletcher, Hall, and Smoot, and 1st/high 2nd round picks for Rogers, Landry, and McIntosh, they should be able to get by with average players at RDE, SLB, and SS. You can't have expensive free agents and 1st round draft picks at every starting position.

Good point with the investing mucho muhla on the D side. Now our luck, the top 4 OL (tackles) will be gone by #13. If the dynamic duo could draft well outside of the top 6 picks, then our faith would allow us to think that a decent player that could start could be picked in the 3rd round. Instead, Boy Blunder will pick a LS or waterboy in the 3rd round.

Chris Cooley was a 3rd rounder. Their picks, when they have them, have been pretty decent. The issue is more trading the picks away.

Every squirrel has to find a nut sometime. Overall, we rarely find gems that turn into starters unless it's the first round.

In addition to Cooley, Dockery was a 3rd rounder. Montgomery and Golston were 5th and 7th rounders. Horton was a 7th rounder. Smoot's a 2nd rounder. The truth is - as thayman said - our biggest problem is trading away our picks, not using them poorly to draft talent. Our hit rate on the picks we actually use in the draft is at least average, if not better, and we've done an even better job with UDFA's.

My complaint is on how few draft picks they have every year. They also rarely get supplemental picks because they sign players with such backloaded contracts that they rarely play out. And of course, they are usually buyers in free agency.

 

[Sebowski]

I keep have a feeling that this is going to happen:

Seahawks draft Sanchez

Orakpo falls to 13

Skins trade 13, a first next year, and a 3rd next year for Sanchez

Seattle drafts Orakpo

 

[fatness]

Weiner

 

[Sidewinder16]

The problem with the two measures you listed is that they are easily manipulated.1. 13 players taking up more than $3 M in cap space: The Redskins are forever restructuring contracts to reduce the current year cap hits at the expense of the out years.2. Average salary: the Redskins are big on giving out bonues and structuring with bonunes rather than give out salary.

This only becomes a bad thing when the talent evaluation is off, like dgreen mentioned (and that is generally* the crux of the problem, IMO, not the way money is structured). But when done with the right players, it's pretty brilliant. The players stay happy because they get a load of cash upfront, agents are happy because contracts can be backloaded to look much bigger than they are in reality, and it's great bait so that FAs keep the 'Skins near the top of their short lists. All that and the yearly cap hits (i.e. the end result) look like the rest of the league's.*For the most part, I believe the FO has showed dramatic improvement the past 2 offseasons in who they spend it on.

I think a good measure on how well they manage their players and cap is how much dead money they have against the cap every year. I am sure the Redskins are close to the league leaders every year, espcailly with Archuleta and Lloyd in recent years.

That would be interesting to compare. I'm not sure if that info is readily available for every team, though. I seem to recall that dead money was compared by someone (ESPN?) sometime in the past few years, but I forget exactly where the 'Skins sat at the time. At the moment, the 'Skins have ~$11.5 million in dead money (~9% of total cap). Brandon Lloyd accounts for almost half of that. Archuleta is no longer on the books. 'Skins dead money (all figures in 000s):

WR Brandon Lloyd	 $5,333	  CB Shawn Springs 	$2,483 	LB Marcus Washington $2,020 	OL Todd Wade 		$1,167 	DE Phillip Daniels	 $314 	S Vernon Fox 		  $100 	P Durant Brooks 		$87 	TE Tyler Ecker 		 $29 	Total			$   11,534

 

[fatness]

We've spent the past few days discussing the Skins' strong interest in Texas DE Brian Orakpo, and following that I received a few emails about Tennessee DE Robert Ayers, a similar player also projected to go in the first round. While some have reported the Skins are big Ayers's fans, I have heard the opposite and people close to Ayers would be stunned if the Skins used the 13th pick on him.

The Redskins have not expressed much interest in him. They usually bring in prospective first-round picks for a visit but they have not done so with Ayers, according to league sources. They did meet with him briefly at the Senior Bowl and the combine, but have not done anything beyond that, while spending significant time investigating and meeting with Orakpo.

The Skins are generally a very direct team, wanting to have lots of communication with a player and his agent before picking him, especially this high. They haven't sniffed around on Ayers much at all, according to sources. Similarly, the Skins have spent very little time on Florida State DE Everette Brown. Penn State's Aaron Maybin has been seen as rising, according to several league sources, and could go as high as fifth overall to Cleveland, while Green Bay and Denver are also looking at him.

Orakpo finished his visit to Redskins Park this week, and I continue to think that, should Washington not land Sanchez and should Orakpo slip to 13, he's the pick.

JLC

 

[fatness]

Clinton Portis and the Special Olympics kids

I think you will like this.

 

[pablito]

There is one problem with the idea that the Skins could look to next year's potential for an uncapped season as a way to load up on talent (for depth or otherwise). Once the uncapped year rules kick in (rules that were a part of the last labor agreement that would still be in effect) each team will have more tags to use on retaining their own players. Additionally, the number of years before a player reaches his first FA period is increased. By Pat Kirwan's calculations (on radio, sorry no link) that would translate into about 85 fewer players hitting the FA market than this year. While the Skins' FO might be willing to pay, there may not be much available to buy.

 

[Sebowski]

There is one problem with the idea that the Skins could look to next year's potential for an uncapped season as a way to load up on talent (for depth or otherwise). Once the uncapped year rules kick in (rules that were a part of the last labor agreement that would still be in effect) each team will have more tags to use on retaining their own players. Additionally, the number of years before a player reaches his first FA period is increased. By Pat Kirwan's calculations (on radio, sorry no link) that would translate into about 85 fewer players hitting the FA market than this year. While the Skins' FO might be willing to pay, there may not be much available to buy.

That is the most important thing about the uncapped year for the Skins is that there are no cap hits.

 

[Sebowski]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/1...-strong-option/

Thomas could be a strong option

By David Elfin (Contact) | Saturday, April 18, 2009

No other position is more in flux for the Washington Redskins than strongside linebacker.

The Redskins released five-year starter Marcus Washington on Feb. 20 because of his high salary and a series of injuries, leaving the club searching for a replacement.

They could draft Texas' Brian Orakpo or Southern Cal's Rey Maualuga or Brian Cushing later this month.

The club also has options on the roster. The Redskins could decide that H.B. Blades, who started five games last season in Washington's place, is ready for full-time duty. Or they could push reserve Chris Wilson to make the switch from pass-rushing end to starting linebacker, a position he's never played.

Or the Redskins could do as the St. Louis Rams, Green Bay Packers and Oakland Raiders did before them: Start Robert Thomas.

The 28-year-old, cut by the Raiders off injured reserve in December, signed with the Redskins as a free agent April 8.

"I started 10 games the year before, but I had some bumps and bruises that set me back last year," said Thomas, who didn't play in the first six weeks because of a dislocated kneecap, re-signed with the team in October and suffered a season-ending hamstring pull in his second game back. "That's why I'm in the position I'm now. This year is an important year for me to get back on track, get my name back on the radar."

Thomas planned visits with the Indianapolis Colts and Houston Texans after his first free agent visit with Washington, but he scrubbed those trips and signed with the Redskins.

"I knew the opportunity I had here surrounded by a great group of athletes," Thomas said. "You're as good as your surroundings."

Hall, who disliked the surroundings in Oakland during his half-season with the Raiders last year, helped persuade Thomas to sign with the Redskins.

Hall told him "it was nothing like Oakland and that I would be happy here," Thomas said.

"Robert's not just a run-and-hit guy," Hall said. "He's a very smart player. And he's a great guy and a great teammate. He can definitely be a starter."

Trouble is that while Thomas made some of his 50 NFL starts on the strong side and in the middle, his best position is the weak side. The Redskins are set there with fourth-year man Rocky McIntosh and in the middle with Fletcher.

"I can play all three positions, but I feel the most comfortable at the weak side," Thomas said. "It allows me to run around and do what I can do best. I have a knack for the ball. I can cover out of the backfield."

But the Redskins are Thomas' fourth team in five years - a disappointment for a player who was drafted in the first round, was named an All-American in his senior year at UCLA and was the consensus top high school linebacker in the nation in 1997.

"It hasn't gone as well as I thought it would, but I'm still here," said Thomas, whose brother Stan lasted just five years after the Chicago Bears drafted him as an offensive tackle in the first round in 1991. "I know I have a lot of football left. Being [out most of last] year it allowed me to realize how special football and how once-in-a-lifetime this opportunity is. I'm thankful for the opportunity to compete for a starting job."

Thomas said changing teams is like being the new kid in school, but he doesn't expect to struggle to learn the scheme of Redskins defensive coordinator Greg Blache.

"I'm a student of the game," Thomas said. "I want to coach when I'm done playing. I study and I study and I study. I learned offensive concepts from watching my brother watch film. That has helped me as a defensive player. I love understanding a defense - not just what I'm doing, but everybody around me."

Love that part about Hall. Too many times in previous offseason I hear about Bailey and Pierce telling people to stay away from Washington. Hall is looking like a great team guy and ambassador.That last paragraph is cool too. Good to know this guy knows his football. The Raiders thread here said he was a solid player and a good pickup.

 

[Marvelous]

There is one problem with the idea that the Skins could look to next year's potential for an uncapped season as a way to load up on talent (for depth or otherwise). Once the uncapped year rules kick in (rules that were a part of the last labor agreement that would still be in effect) each team will have more tags to use on retaining their own players. Additionally, the number of years before a player reaches his first FA period is increased. By Pat Kirwan's calculations (on radio, sorry no link) that would translate into about 85 fewer players hitting the FA market than this year. While the Skins' FO might be willing to pay, there may not be much available to buy.

That is the most important thing about the uncapped year for the Skins is that there are no cap hits.

I agree that the pool of decent players will be smaller with 6 years required before becoming a free agent.But the fact that cap hits go away is huge for the Redskins. Jon Jansen is pretty much uncuttable at this point because of the big cap it. So an uncapped year allows the Redskins to shed players with large cap hits with no ramifications.

 

[Marvelous]

The problem with the two measures you listed is that they are easily manipulated.1. 13 players taking up more than $3 M in cap space: The Redskins are forever restructuring contracts to reduce the current year cap hits at the expense of the out years.2. Average salary: the Redskins are big on giving out bonues and structuring with bonunes rather than give out salary.

This only becomes a bad thing when the talent evaluation is off, like dgreen mentioned (and that is generally* the crux of the problem, IMO, not the way money is structured). But when done with the right players, it's pretty brilliant. The players stay happy because they get a load of cash upfront, agents are happy because contracts can be backloaded to look much bigger than they are in reality, and it's great bait so that FAs keep the 'Skins near the top of their short lists. All that and the yearly cap hits (i.e. the end result) look like the rest of the league's.*For the most part, I believe the FO has showed dramatic improvement the past 2 offseasons in who they spend it on.

I think a good measure on how well they manage their players and cap is how much dead money they have against the cap every year. I am sure the Redskins are close to the league leaders every year, espcailly with Archuleta and Lloyd in recent years.

That would be interesting to compare. I'm not sure if that info is readily available for every team, though. I seem to recall that dead money was compared by someone (ESPN?) sometime in the past few years, but I forget exactly where the 'Skins sat at the time. At the moment, the 'Skins have ~$11.5 million in dead money (~9% of total cap). Brandon Lloyd accounts for almost half of that. Archuleta is no longer on the books. 'Skins dead money (all figures in 000s):

WR Brandon Lloyd	 $5,333	  CB Shawn Springs 	$2,483 	LB Marcus Washington $2,020 	OL Todd Wade 		$1,167 	DE Phillip Daniels	 $314 	S Vernon Fox 		  $100 	P Durant Brooks 		$87 	TE Tyler Ecker 		 $29 	Total			$   11,534

Actually, for the most part, since Gibbs re-arrived, the Redskins have in general been very good at acquiring veterans through free agency and trades. The one really bad year was when they got Archleta and Lloyd, although I also think they way overpaid for Randle El. And of course, the Jason Taylor trade was pretty ill-fated, but really did not hurt in terms of the cap. One issue I have is that the Redskins are always restructuring contracts. Converts salary to bonus money to prorate isn't that bad. But they frequently add years and money to the contracts, which gives players large cap hits when they don't work out.

 

[buster c]

Regarding the Peters trade, and the "value" of Peters, I found this on another board):

Sacks Given up by LT last season

T-31. Jason Peters, Buffalo, 11.5 sacks (13 games) PRO BOWLER

edit: added Link

buster:

:whoosh:

suckered in by the "Pro Bowl" label

 

[buster c]

Clinton Portis and the Special Olympics kids

I think you will like this.

awesome story.

I think it may have motivated Elijah Dukes to step up his game in the charity works arena

 

[buster c]

I just got back from the Jason Peters thread. Seems the bEagles have acquired and extended an all-pro OT. Actually, they've acquired book-ends during the off-season, with Stacey Andrews on board, too.Check out the thread. Those bird-brained fans are downright GIDDY.this is what successful teams do. they invest in quality line play - quality & quantity. same thing with the vaGiants - they've added quality depth to their DL. as we've thrown away 20m+ guaranteed to a CB and proven team cancer, we neglected the lines (excepting for one overpaid DT) and have no depth. injuries would kill us in 2009.

Let them be as giddy as school girls. A 1st and a 4th is way too much for a team that needs young cheap talent.Also I think you really need to give Hall a pass with his team cancer rep. One team was Petrino led Falcons that team was a disaster. The other was the Raiders, by all reports he has been nothing but a model citizen in DC.

I would love to see D.Hall become the best CB in the game. He'll need to in order to justify that big contract. We'll see.Andy Reid says Peters is the best LT in the game. We'll see.(just saw you and sebow tweaking the bird-brains in the bEagle thread. well done)

 

[dgreen]

I would love to see D.Hall become the best CB in the game. He'll need to in order to justify that big contract.

Does his contract reflect that he's supposed to be the best CB in the NFL?

 

[Sidewinder16]

In his Monday Morning QB, Peter King writes this, regarding the possibility of a 'Skins trade up during the draft:

I spoke to someone close to Snyder over the weekend, and this person said Snyder is not going to allow next year's first-rounder to be put in a trade. Maybe. Maybe not. This person also said he thought it was highly unlikely the Redskins could muster up the ammo to go get Sanchez. If Snyder wants to get up to No. 3 to assure himself the shot at Sanchez, he's going to have to bend and give up the to pick in 2010.

So King's source tells him next year's #1 is out of play and that it's "highly unlikely" the 'Skins have enough to move up to get Sanchez, but King (and the rest of the media, seemingly) is still going through the "what if" scenarios.Is King telling us he thinks his source is full of crap?

 

[Sebowski]

In his Monday Morning QB, Peter King writes this, regarding the possibility of a 'Skins trade up during the draft:

I spoke to someone close to Snyder over the weekend, and this person said Snyder is not going to allow next year's first-rounder to be put in a trade. Maybe. Maybe not. This person also said he thought it was highly unlikely the Redskins could muster up the ammo to go get Sanchez. If Snyder wants to get up to No. 3 to assure himself the shot at Sanchez, he's going to have to bend and give up the to pick in 2010.

So King's source tells him next year's #1 is out of play and that it's "highly unlikely" the 'Skins have enough to move up to get Sanchez, but King (and the rest of the media, seemingly) is still going through the "what if" scenarios.Is King telling us he thinks his source is full of crap?

He also says that teams shouldn't demand next year's first to trade down. The money is so high at #3 or 4 that the value chart has to be thrown out and teams hould accept what they can to get out of paying that money if they don't see the value in there, and the Chiefs don't. He suggests a second next year along with a thrid this year should do. I agree with him (but not that we should trade up at all. Worst move ever if we do), but I don't expect Vinny and Dan to call anyone's bluff. Quite the opposite in fact. I see Pioli calling the Skins bluff and getting whatever he wants for the pick

 

[Marvelous]

In his Monday Morning QB, Peter King writes this, regarding the possibility of a 'Skins trade up during the draft:

I spoke to someone close to Snyder over the weekend, and this person said Snyder is not going to allow next year's first-rounder to be put in a trade. Maybe. Maybe not. This person also said he thought it was highly unlikely the Redskins could muster up the ammo to go get Sanchez. If Snyder wants to get up to No. 3 to assure himself the shot at Sanchez, he's going to have to bend and give up the to pick in 2010.

So King's source tells him next year's #1 is out of play and that it's "highly unlikely" the 'Skins have enough to move up to get Sanchez, but King (and the rest of the media, seemingly) is still going through the "what if" scenarios.Is King telling us he thinks his source is full of crap?

He also says that teams shouldn't demand next year's first to trade down. The money is so high at #3 or 4 that the value chart has to be thrown out and teams hould accept what they can to get out of paying that money if they don't see the value in there, and the Chiefs don't. He suggests a second next year along with a thrid this year should do. I agree with him (but not that we should trade up at all. Worst move ever if we do), but I don't expect Vinny and Dan to call anyone's bluff. Quite the opposite in fact. I see Pioli calling the Skins bluff and getting whatever he wants for the pick

I just get the feeling that a lot of next years draft picks will be gone by the end of the draft. Maybe some 2011 picks too.