This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Woo-Hoo!!!!!! I'm there for that one.
3 wins at best. The 49ers, Cards, and Bills are the only winable games on the schedule.
0-16
I'll take the under.
My answer to all you questions is, "I honestly have no idea how the WR situation is going to shake out."
While I like Hankerson better, I think Paul was a steal in the 5th round. Had he played on a good passing team in college, he would of been a day 2 pick, imo.His DUI is nothing to worry about. He has a great work ethic and is a good kid from what I've heard.
what a bunch of morons.
They are in a multi year rebuild. I'm hoping the majority of the picks this year can start to create a decent foundation. Next year they are quite probably looking at a top 3 pick.
A few thoughts:1. Championships are won with teams comprised of both solid players and superstars. They don't have superstars at each and every position. So, in that sense, Kerrigan could in fact be one piece of a championship team. Look at the Redskins problems over the past decade -- they have failed trying to "hit the home run" with free agents such as Haynesworth and McNabb, instead of using draft picks to select a series of solid players, some of which may turn out to be just solid and others which may turn out to be superstars. The jury is still out on Kerrigan. If the odds are that he will be solid multi-year starter at worst, that is not bad necessarily.2. That said, when you look at the Redskins in a multi-year rebuilding mode where they need upgrades all over the field, "playing the percentages" is just as smart as "swinging for the fences." Let's say Gabbert has a 10% chance of being a stud (not crazy when you look at the hit/miss rate of hyped QBs coming into league...think Matt Leinert, for example.) Then, let's say Kerrigan has a 75% chance of being a solid end. Is it really worse to go for the 75% solid guy than than the 10% stud guy, particularly in a league where QB is so important? Next year, if they stink, they can shoot for Andrew Luck or even another QB in a stronger class than this year, who has a greater than 10% chance to hit.I think picking Kerrigan may actually be refreshing in this context. But, we will see.
Right...he's an Outside Linebacker in this defense, right? That said, do you think it was a good pick at 10 or do you think the Skins should have made the play for Gabbert?
Yes, he's an OLB. And like Orakpo, he'll probably play end in 4-man fronts, but I doubt he'll see anymore time at 3-4 end than Orakpo does.I love the pick. From the player to the fact that they traded down, picked up extra picks and still was able to grab an immediate difference maker. I think it's a greater leap to assume Gabbert will save the team and win a championship as a franchise QB than it is to assume that Kerrigan will be a solid anchor (along with Orakpo on the opposite side) in the team's front 7 for years to come. This team needs youth and talent along the lines more than anything else (and has for some years now). The selections of Orakpo, Williams and now Kerrigan as the last 3 1st rounders are (part of) what fans have been begging for.
I guess the team is so good that they can afford 2 dead roster spots. It worked well last year.Has anyone ever seen such bungling of personnel matters? Seriously? When a team doesn't want a player the standard practice, followed by even sub-genius front offices, is to try to create a market for that player and get what they can get for him. The Redskins have actively worked to destroy the trade value of Haynesworth and McNabb, and still want to trade them.
Gabbert is far from a sure thing. Jimmy Clausen was a "potential franchise QB" too, and after one year his team thought so highly of him that they drafted another "potential franchise QB". Kerrigan is not a defensive end BTW.
It says they'll wait to see if his value increases and then "ultimately release him." It doesn't say they're going to hang on to him.
Obviously other things matter besides having a full roster, putting the best team on the field, and trying to win football games (as opposed to ego games).I wouldn't cut Fat Albert or McNabb either. I agree with what the front office is doing. There, i said it.
Yes, it does. But awhile ago the story was that they were just going to release him. Hanging on to him for awhile is the first step in deciding to keep him.
All I know is that you don't just publicly lower the value of players you are trying to get rid of.
And you don't let them act like spoiled children and then give them exact what they want. Its called discipline, and I'm betting Joe Gibbs would have done the same thing.
The proper way to handle it would have been to NOT air the entire episode in a very public fashion and try to portray the players you want to trade in a negative light. The only reasing The Redskins can't/won't get fair value for McNabb or Haynesworth is because how they have handled them.I'd also like to hear about how McNabb is acting like a spoiled child.
I was referring to Fat Albert in regards to the spoiled child comment. Although Chunky Soup not wearing his wristbands as instructed by his coaches is mighty weak sauce on his part. But he did a great job aerating the field at FedEx so I can't be too critical.
Joe Gibbs would never, ever, deliberately lower the value of players he wanted to trade. You've actually highlighted the difference between Shanahan and coaches/front office people who know what they're doing in that regard, like Gibbs. Bruce Allen is quite frustrated with Shanahan doing it, in case you missed that in a previous link. You have yet to explain the value of a team lowering trade value of its own players, and yet to explain why it's better for a crappy team to keep 2 players on the roster it has no intention of playing.
I would say Fat Albert's drop in value has to do with his play, you know, laying down and quitting in front of an entire stadium. I don't think you can really put that on Shanny can you? And I don't believe either player will be sitting on our roster at the end of the season. I think both will be traded eventually. And i think we will end up getting more for both players than what's floating around right now (nothing or a 6th-7th round pick)
So your point is that they should have been able to get a pick that was around what they would have had last year before they deliberiatly lowered the value of Haynesworth? Ummm.....ok.
I can't recall a time when a player has wanted to go and the team refused to let him go, that it has worked out for the franchise. The Lions didn't benefit by not working something out with Sanders. The impression I have is the teams that have removed problem players regardless of what they get back have been better off. Like the teams that got rid of Plaxico and TO.
Last year he probably could have brought a second rounder.....before Shannahan very publicly aired all their issues. The reason they could only get a 4th is beause the REDSKINS lowered his value.
another link
According to the article I just posted, the Jenkins brothers are top targets, but Franklin isn't.
No wonder they want to sign Yanda. Hicks failed at guard last year, and now they're "hoping" he'll be their starter? Same with Brown failing at tackle. Jeez........
Glad I am not alone in my inability to read the tea leaves.
