| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: |
I think there's pretty solid evidence that Gibbs and Williams have been running the show for during Gibbs' era. Since Gibbs retired and Vinny was promoted, I believe its clear 2008 was really Vinny's first opportunity to be the guy. I actually think he did fairly well with the draft and they stayed quite in free agency the past two years. Therefore, I think they're already in somewhat of a rebuilding process and a philosophy change, evidenced by ten rookies making the opening day 53-man roster and staying quite in free agency. Hopefully they’ll stay the course, and I agree this is a big test for the FO. |
I agree that Vinny shouldn't be judged completely based on the Gibbs era. he was a smaller part of the decision making process then and should only be partly to blame. Last year was a very nice off-season and I continue to credit Vinny with a job well done. EXCEPT, that really bad decision to trade for jason taylor. Go back and look at my numerous posts right when that happened and all the fans were talking about how good JT was going to be and how we "finally had our pass rusher". i repeatedly said, JT,a 240# 3-4 hybrid does not fit our scheme unless we change to a hybrid defense where you move JT around like an OLB. Line him up as 4-3 DE on one play, move him to the opposite side OLB on the next play etc. We didn't do that all year. Now is that Vinny's fault for getting him? Well, maybe for the 2nd round price we paid. But you gotta wonder how the conversation went between Snyder, Zorn, Vinny and Blache. Why would Blache think that JT could be effective if he was just going to be a super lightweight LE?
Anyway, i hope we can keep it quiet again this off-season and find some key role players and maybe trade a couple of the older, overpayed players away for middle round draft picks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DarthMonk wrote: | | I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year. |
If I misunderstood your sentence I quoted, my bad. I agree with keeping your draft picks, but again, I don't think we've ever been a position of not being able to sign them due to cap restraints. I also agree with releasing past their prime vets that are taking up large amounts of cap space due to their back-end loaded contracts. But freeing up the money to be used, not to be stuffed in a pocket and forgotten about. I understand that wasn't your idea, but it seems that way for many other fans here.
| Quote: | | And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under. |
What are the rewards of being that far under the cap? To sign more free agents?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarthMonk wrote: | | SkinsFreak wrote: | | DarthMonk wrote: | | I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see. |
Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.
|
I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year. The vast majority of what you said makes sense but again - I'm talking about making the franchise healthy in a few years and improving long term viability. I simply would rather be in the position I am quoted as supporting than the position we are in now and have been in for years.
And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under. Again, Marty took payroll from 100 mil (that high due to Deion-like cuts) down to 53 mil. That's what we had heading into the next season. We clearly misused the excellent position Marty left us in.
DarthMonk |
You know, DarthMonk, we could do this, and end up like the 49ers. Lots of cap room, sign a big name free agent every year (Nate Clements, Justin Smith), and draft a lot of picks.
And be even worse than the Redskins.
Just sayin'. It isn't as if this approach hasn't been tried before  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Skinsfan55
+++++++++
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 5261
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We just need a really smart approach to this offseason, we need a plan and we need to follow through with it...
I'm scared that if we have a 9-7 season then Zorn wil be fired in favor of Shanahan, Cowher, Edwards, Gruden, etc. etc.
We need a good season but a lot of things need to fall into place... we need a good draft (only 4 picks!), we need some free agent depth, we need strong QB play etc. etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Skinsfan55 wrote: | We just need a really smart approach to this offseason, we need a plan and we need to follow through with it...
We need a good season but a lot of things need to fall into place... we need a good draft (only 4 picks!), we need some free agent depth, we need strong QB play etc. etc. |
You lost me at "a really smart approach ...... "
Where have you been?  You obviously haven't been paying attention - we are NOT that team |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
  |
RayNAustin
Hog
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 2312
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: |
But here we are, now two years removed from when Gibbs was in complete control. Griffin is DONE. Springs is DONE. Taylor, unfortunately, did not work out, and I don't think he will. Moss is not likely to regain much form. Marcus Washington is likely done. Jansen is DONE. One of our two guards is likely done. If Fletcher plays another year at a high level we will be very lucky. We will not ride Clinton Portis to the Superbowl the way the Cardinals rode Fitzgerald; he will be a role player, not a superstar.
Most of these guys I just listed were good enough 2-3 years ago to be a part of a Superbowl team. All of them have lost their edge, and in this league—a game of inches, after all—that's all it takes to go from playoff contender, to 8-8 mediocrity, to a 4-12 we-need-help-badly kind of team. |
Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end).
To illustrate the point, of the final 10 games last year we scored 14 or fewer points in 7 of them. So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team?
Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title.
Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RayNAustin wrote: | | Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end). |
I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone. Also take note that I specifically mentioned 3/5ths of our offensive line, and frankly I should have put Rabach on there, too.
(1) What more do you want me to say about the offense, and (2) are you suggesting that the defensive players I mentioned aren't done?
| Quote: | | So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team? |
No. I am, I think, a little more patient with JC's progress than other THN members, but I am ready to call for his removal if he has another season without showing much progress.
| Quote: | | Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title. |
I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't be able to say that as confidently as you. For example, I am in agreement with SkinsCanes that our lack of QB pressure was a HUGE problem this year and could be worse next year, unless we do something about it.
| Quote: | | Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer. |
Whose answer is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
DarthMonk
DarthMonk
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3205
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: | | What are the rewards of being that far under the cap? To sign more free agents? |
Flexibility - but yes. It would be so nice to actually be young and close and have the ability to go after a game changer without all this "restructure" crap we go through every year.
Oh, and when you did have to let someone go, the big cap hit wouldn't be crippling.
DarthMonk |
|
| Back to top |
|
DarthMonk
DarthMonk
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3205
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PulpExposure wrote: |
You know, DarthMonk, we could do this, and end up like the 49ers. Lots of cap room, sign a big name free agent every year (Nate Clements, Justin Smith), and draft a lot of picks.
And be even worse than the Redskins.
Just sayin'. It isn't as if this approach hasn't been tried before |
You are right - we could. In fact, with current ownership we most likely would - but of course, with current ownership we are not likely to try anyway.
Or we could just be like we have been for 10 more years.
Or we could end up like the Steelers - or somewhere in between. You know, the 49ers could be the one that comes out of nowhere next year - or we could.
As for this approach being tried before - Marty tried with us and got fired. All he did was go 8-8 without a QB (Banks) with 22 hold overs and 31 new guys including 13 rookies. San Diego gave him an extra year but 14-2 with a loss to the Pats after a corner fumbled when trying to run after a game icing pick wasn't good enough. Danny and Vinnie loved the 40 mill under the cap Marty left them - of course, they wasted it. The Steelers have used this approach for forever (this approach being release FAs who want "too much", stockpile draft picks, pick linemen and linebackers, develop people, and sign the occasional "need').
Anyway, all a pipe dream, I'm afraid. I will stay tuned and hope for the best.
It's been a great discussion.
DarthMonk |
|
| Back to top |
|
El Mexican
Hog
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 809
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, we were on the right track there for a while with Marty, specially the last fives games the team won with IDENTITY.
Since then, except for occasional spurts, I havent seen something similar with the team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RayNAustin wrote: | | Irn-Bru wrote: |
But here we are, now two years removed from when Gibbs was in complete control. Griffin is DONE. Springs is DONE. Taylor, unfortunately, did not work out, and I don't think he will. Moss is not likely to regain much form. Marcus Washington is likely done. Jansen is DONE. One of our two guards is likely done. If Fletcher plays another year at a high level we will be very lucky. We will not ride Clinton Portis to the Superbowl the way the Cardinals rode Fitzgerald; he will be a role player, not a superstar.
Most of these guys I just listed were good enough 2-3 years ago to be a part of a Superbowl team. All of them have lost their edge, and in this league—a game of inches, after all—that's all it takes to go from playoff contender, to 8-8 mediocrity, to a 4-12 we-need-help-badly kind of team. |
Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end).
To illustrate the point, of the final 10 games last year we scored 14 or fewer points in 7 of them. So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team?
Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title.
Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer. |
Good point. Yes the "D" is getting older and we need to add some youthful depth at almost every defensive position, but all the off-season work needs to be concentrated on the offense. OL first, WR second, QB competition third. |
|
| Back to top |
|
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone. |
ARE will be back.
| Quote: | Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).
Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
VetSkinsFan
One Step Away
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 7779
Location: NoVA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PulpExposure wrote: | | Irn-Bru wrote: | | I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone. |
ARE will be back.
| Quote: | Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).
Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.
|
|
Carter's production is going to be directly affected by what we do with our D line. We don't address it, then he'll suffer. He's not a premiere D-lineman, but if you forget about him, he can make you pay.
I like ARE in slot/4th WR, just not a starter. As long as he doesn't do PR duties and start, I'm content with him on the team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VetSkinsFan wrote: | | PulpExposure wrote: | | Irn-Bru wrote: | | I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone. |
ARE will be back.
| Quote: | Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).
Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.
|
|
Carter's production is going to be directly affected by what we do with our D line. We don't address it, then he'll suffer. He's not a premiere D-lineman, but if you forget about him, he can make you pay.
I like ARE in slot/4th WR, just not a starter. As long as he doesn't do PR duties and start, I'm content with him on the team. |
I like Carter a lot, actually. I like him resigning.
I'm not sure it's smart to resign ARE and pay him...to be a slot/4th receiver. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
He's a $4 million dollar slot/4th receiver in 2009, if that's what we re-signed him to be.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 5 of 7 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
