HR Blog: Smokescreens

[akhhorus]

Link (http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/smokescreens.html)

Guff away

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Link (http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/smokescreens.html)

Guff away
Too much common sense in there. Stop that.

[fent]

Too much common sense in there. Stop that.

it'll be ignored ;)

[smoak]

I think it is also a situation where you talk to every team and explore every opportunity. You never know what deals are there if you don't have open dialog.

[akhhorus]

I think it is also a situation where you talk to every team and explore every opportunity. You never know what deals are there if you don't have open dialog.

This is true, but i think there's too much public theater recently for this to be be that and to be anything but throwing chum into the water just to watch the seas roil.

[Redskin4Life]

Too much common sense in there. Stop that.
I like the 6 for 31 and Briggs, then to turn around and trade Briggs for the 2nd, then trade Johnson to the Chargers for the #16 (Turner to the Pack) and #30. Awesome draft...

[redskin_rich]

Well, the Redskins have put up such a thick smokescreen, I hope they can see through it and actually have a real plan.

[shally]

Link (http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/smokescreens.html)

Guff away

interesting take on the whole thing

we will see what chicago ends up getting for briggs..if indeed he is moved at all..
i still have difficulty believing they will get much more than mid first round value for him. but the market will decide

[CNYSkinFan]

-Gibbs hinting at trading up and hints at Calvin Johnson. But again, nothing solid and other teams are mentioned as really hot for Johnson(TB, Minny). Gibbs is also truth-deprived when it comes to the draft. On top of this Peach King and others are giving vague hints that the skins are going to trade up...or trade down...or starting a dinner theater in Upstate New York

It's actually desert theater thank you :)

[CNYSkinFan]

No doubt the skins put up smoke screens in April. they do it just as much to fool other teams as well as the media whoi they still have a grudge against for the JC deal.

I also think they are layoing the ground work for a good bluff. They are saying they are interested in Russell or Johnson so in case a mircale happens and they land them at #6 teams right beloe them will NEED to trade witht hem or risk the pick not being there.

And as any polker player knows, if you bluff on the flopo, you better be prepared to bluff on the turn and the river as well. The only problem with bluffing is sometimes your opponent holds the cards and knows it.

[SimplyZ]

my dream scenario is gibbs knowing what they are going to do, and snyder just throwing our name around to create smoke screens. Snyder probably envisioned this trade not going through, it was one sided on our side...but it also was contradicted with the russell rumors. I don't think anything is going to happen soon, we'll just make noise up until the draft which is where we'll either stay put or make a trade like the one to the patriots, or briggs and more picks

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I agree with your thesis Akh. But we have no one to blame for these stories other than the FO. These stories get started because our FO seems to open up more than most. You can't blame reporters or message boards for running with stories when Gibbs and Snyder are giving willing quotes. Now, I know your thesis is most of what they are saying is probably half truths or flat out lies, but what do we gain from even putting the quotes out there?

Someone said in another thread, there is no talk about picks 1-5. That's because teams 1-5 aren't throwing crazy quotes out there. The only thing the Raiders and Lions have confirmed is that they do in fact play in the NFL and currently own the 1 and 2 picks respectively.

I just don't know if the Redskins gain anything from throwing a million ideas in the press.

[bergiemoore]

I just don't know if the Redskins gain anything from throwing a million ideas in the press.

It doesn't really hurt anything, either, except for Shally's carpal tunnel (the man is posting like WILDFIRE!!!)

The Skins are trying to throw everyone off, in terms of expectations. Perhaps part of the reason we get taken to the cleaners every draft day is that we've telegraphed our intentions to the entire league. This is frustrating for me, as a fan, but hopefully, this will allow them to cause some movement on the draft board, and have a trade prospect for us to eventually trade down emerge.

[akhhorus]

I agree with your thesis Akh. But we have no one to blame for these stories other than the FO. These stories get started because our FO seems to open up more than most. You can't blame reporters or message boards for running with stories when Gibbs and Snyder are giving willing quotes. Now, I know your thesis is most of what they are saying is probably half truths or flat out lies, but what do we gain from even putting the quotes out there?

I think I made that clear in the blog. Its one thing to leak stuff to the same 2-3 guys over and over, its another to publically do stuff we know doesn't make any sense. The Russell rumors only make sense if we hear rumors parallel to these that the skins are offering around Campbell. My point is that the rumors are too systemically vague, contradictory and easily dismissable to be taken as anything but systemic disinformation.

Someone said in another thread, there is no talk about picks 1-5. That's because teams 1-5 aren't throwing crazy quotes out there. The only thing the Raiders and Lions have confirmed is that they do in fact play in the NFL and currently own the 1 and 2 picks respectively.

Not true. The Lions and Cards are trying to deal down(especially the Lions) and the Bucs are trying to deal up for Calvin Johnson. The Lions have made it rather clear they're offering the pick around and the Cards are playing things close to the vest because they still think there's a chance Joe Thomas drops to them.

I just don't know if the Redskins gain anything from throwing a million ideas in the press.

They do. How about this theoretically: The Skins and Green Bay(or Tennessee or whomever else wants a RB) have talked a trade contingent on Adrian Peterson being available at 6. But, Green Bay(or whomever) has also talked to Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa and Arizona about their picks also for Peterson. So the Skins make it known, even through public actions/statements that they want to move up from 6 for Russell/Johnson. So, this drives up the price for GB(or whomever) because the Lions/Browns/Raiders would probably be more interested in staying high, which makes the skins' offers look better. Briggs' rumors could also be doing the same. If the skins look like they want out 6, that expands the market for the pick and lets teams know(without playing any proverbial cards) what we expect to get back for it talent wise.

[hail2skins]

How does the report of the $20 million guaranteed contract offer to Briggs fit into your thinking?

[shally]

How does the report of the $20 million guaranteed contract offer to Briggs fit into your thinking?

that is one edge the skins usually have.. they are willing to overpay for free agents or players to sign to extensions

[akhhorus]

How does the report of the $20 million guaranteed contract offer to Briggs fit into your thinking?

Its part of it. The Skins and Briggs have reportedly agreed to a deal, but if Chicago doesn't take our supposed offer, its still not solid. It doesn't bind either party and both could walk away from it if Chicago accepted the deal. Snyder and Rosenhaus are buddies, I wouldn't put it past them to use Rosenhaus as part of a disinformation scheme. If the Skins and Chicago had agreed to a trade--but there was no contract agreement, that would undermine the smokescreen thesis.

[Sweepea436]

Like I said in another thread, I love all the rumors swirling around here. Titans chat boards probably aren't buzzing like ours! It give me a reason to check the news every day, and a reason to watch a draft that we don't have a whole lot of real estate in (yet........ :) ) Then I get to see what we do with whoever we DO end up with through T.C........... We're the greatest show on earth baby!

[akhhorus]

that is one edge the skins usually have.. they are willing to overpay for free agents or players to sign to extensions

Considering what guys like Tully Banta-Cain(3 million a year), Joey Porter(5/32 with 22 million guaranteed) and Adalius Thomas(6/35 with 20 million guaranteed), 20 mil guaranteed for Briggs isn't overpaying.

[CNYSkinFan]

Its part of it. The Skins and Briggs have reportedly agreed to a deal, but if Chicago doesn't take our supposed offer, its still not solid. It doesn't bind either party and both could walk away from it if Chicago accepted the deal. Snyder and Rosenhaus are buddies, I wouldn't put it past them to use Rosenhaus as part of a disinformation scheme. If the Skins and Chicago had agreed to a trade--but there was no contract agreement, that would undermine the smokescreen thesis.
This part makes sense, because USUALLY teams agtree to trade terms and it is contingent on contract negotiations, not the other way around. Since Briggs is a franchised FA he can talk contract terms with anyone and agree in principle on any contract up to the moment he signs the tender offer from Chicago.

So drew and Dan the man got a contrat together and Snyder threw out an offer Chicago could not stomach. No harm no foul.

Not sure I buy that is what heppened but it seems a possibility.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

Like I said in another thread, I love all the rumors swirling around here. Titans chat boards probably aren't buzzing like ours! It give me a reason to check the news every day, and a reason to watch a draft that we don't have a whole lot of real estate in (yet........ :) ) Then I get to see what we do with whoever we DO end up with through T.C........... We're the greatest show on earth baby!
It also puts a tremendous amount of fear in you that the FO is going to fall in love with a guy and ruin the team for years.

[bergiemoore]

Its part of it. The Skins and Briggs have reportedly agreed to a deal, but if Chicago doesn't take our supposed offer, its still not solid. It doesn't bind either party and both could walk away from it if Chicago accepted the deal. Snyder and Rosenhaus are buddies, I wouldn't put it past them to use Rosenhaus as part of a disinformation scheme. If the Skins and Chicago had agreed to a trade--but there was no contract agreement, that would undermine the smokescreen thesis.

It also telegraphs to the Bears, or any other team interested in Briggs, exactly what they're going to have to bring to the table to get him. If the Bears aren't willing to part with it (and odds are, they aren't), it will put more pressure on them to deal him, as opposed to have him wait a year to get his $20 mil.

[shally]

Considering what guys like Tully Banta-Cain(3 million a year), Joey Porter(5/32 with 22 million guaranteed) and Adalius Thomas(6/35 with 20 million guaranteed), 20 mil guaranteed for Briggs isn't overpaying.

i agree with you on that for certain.. and perhaps, there are other parameters that havent been leaked.

and the tide is rising for all contracts it seems.. but when it comes down to it, the skins have demonstrated they will pay top dollar or even move the bar higher almost in every case where they really want a guy.. not all teams are so generous

[SkinsfaninNJ]

Akh, I think your views are slanted in favor of the FO. There are some on here that fear our FO cannot walk and chew gum at the same time let alone be the masterminds behind so much subterfuge.

Personally, I'll side with your thoughts, but I sometimes wonder if other teams, agents, whatever don't play our FO for fools knowing we go public with most everything.

[Sweepea436]

It also puts a tremendous amount of fear in you that the FO is going to fall in love with a guy and ruin the team for years.


true.... but all the more reason to stay tuned........ Come here, yell at people who have nothing at all to do with it, and feel better..... It's the circle of life baby!

[shally]

It also telegraphs to the Bears, or any other team interested in Briggs, exactly what they're going to have to bring to the table to get him. If the Bears aren't willing to part with it (and odds are, they aren't), it will put more pressure on them to deal him, as opposed to have him wait a year to get his $20 mil.
i dont think for a second that if briggs has an offer on the table from the skins for 20 mil he is going to be willing to sign with the bears for 19 mil (assuming we are really comparing apples to apples)

and the bears have to know that. so what are their options beside A. matching it
B. trading briggs C. stonewalling briggs ????

[akhhorus]

Akh, I think your views are slanted in favor of the FO. There are some on here that fear our FO cannot walk and chew gum at the same time let alone be the masterminds behind so much subterfuge.

Personally, I'll side with your thoughts, but I sometimes wonder if other teams, agents, whatever don't play our FO for fools knowing we go public with most everything.

If they were coming out and saying things publically, I might agree with you. But you have Snyder at the owner's meetings just happening to run into Jay Glazer and giving him a weird direct quote about Briggs. You have Gibbs being extremely coy about trading up and down and talking about Johnson. Too much public theater here to be the FO stumbling around. If that were the case, the skins would be trying to get the proverbial ***CENSORED BY SPENCE*** back into the horse and denying everything.

This part makes sense, because USUALLY teams agtree to trade terms and it is contingent on contract negotiations, not the other way around. Since Briggs is a franchised FA he can talk contract terms with anyone and agree in principle on any contract up to the moment he signs the tender offer from Chicago.

So drew and Dan the man got a contrat together and Snyder threw out an offer Chicago could not stomach. No harm no foul.

Not sure I buy that is what heppened but it seems a possibility.

And it would serve to get action on a Rosenhaus client moving, serve to get teams interested in the 6 to get moving on offers and is easily retracted and forgotten.

[Sweepea436]

i dont think for a second that if briggs has an offer on the table from the skins for 20 mil he is going to be willing to sign with the bears for 19 mil (assuming we are really comparing apples to apples)

and the bears have to know that. so what are their options beside A. matching it
B. trading briggs C. stonewalling briggs ????


I saw the interview where he said he had no problems with the players/coaches/fans... he is just done with the front office... so I agree, I think if he gets offered 1 penny more somewhere else... he goes....... if the Bears let him.....

[bergiemoore]

i dont think for a second that if briggs has an offer on the table from the skins for 20 mil he is going to be willing to sign with the bears for 19 mil (assuming we are really comparing apples to apples)

and the bears have to know that. so what are their options beside A. matching it
B. trading briggs C. stonewalling briggs ????

It does kinda back them into a corner.

The Bears won't match it. If they were willing to do so, they would have done it already.

Stonewalling will only result in Briggs sitting out 1 year, and forgoing the entire 7.2 mil to make 20 mil.

The Bears are going to have to trade him. Everyone knows it. This really hurts thier ability to negotiate more favorable terms than what we're offering, unless another team offers them more.

[silverspring]

I don't buy it. Sure we have put some smoke screens up but this briggs thing isn't one of them. It is one thing to start a rumor, it is another to get into considerable talks with the rumored team about it. From all reports, and there are a lot of reports now, both teams are putting effort into this possible briggs deal and I don't Chicago is stupid enough to waste energy on this if there isn't something to it. I feel the same way about the calvin johnson thing.

The smokescreen theory would be based on the assumption that our FO is smart and they have proved that to be a bad assumption time and time again. But even more than that, are the skins just more clever then every other team by getting all their smoke screens reported all over the news day after day? I doubt it. I see some light smoke screens from other teams but none of them seem as tangible as the briggs and cj rumors. I would tend to believe that they really just aren't smoke screens before assuming that our front office is more clever than every other team in the league.

[shally]

It does kinda back them into a corner.

The Bears won't match it. If they were willing to do so, they would have done it already.

Stonewalling will only result in Briggs sitting out 1 year, and forgoing the entire 7.2 mil to make 20 mil.

The Bears are going to have to trade him. Everyone knows it. This really hurts thier ability to negotiate more favorable terms than what we're offering, unless another team offers them more.

the bears could decide to swallow hard and sign him.. but given their rhetoric, i do not think they will.. so they are trolling to get the best deal and dont have to really worry what briggs will get elsewhere because they wont be paying it

stonewalling him is the worst of all worlds for them. they lose a player for much of this year. then they have a player who is openly disgruntled inthe lockerroom.. then they will have to spend money on him this year.
then they have the same mess to deal with at the end of the 2007 season anyway.
i have a hard time believing the bears will get more for him midseason (before the trading deadline) or post season than they will now

[akhhorus]

I don't buy it. Sure we have put some smoke screens up but this briggs thing isn't one of them. It is one thing to start a rumor, it is another to get into considerable talks with the rumored team about it. From all reports, and there are a lot of reports now, both teams are putting effort into this possible briggs deal and I don't Chicago is stupid enough to waste energy on this if there isn't something to it. I feel the same way about the calvin johnson thing.

What considerable talks on either? You have Rosenhaus running around to teams asking if they would be interested in Briggs. The skins publically let it slip through a vague comment from Snyder that they would offer the 6th pick for Briggs and the 31st. The ONLY comment from the bears is that they didn't like this public talking about it.

As for Johnson, what is there besides Gibbs' comments yesterday? Which were FAR from anything substantive.

The smokescreen theory would be based on the assumption that our FO is smart and they have proved that to be a bad assumption time and time again. But even more than that, are the skins just more clever then every other team by getting all their smoke screens reported all over the news day after day? I doubt it. I see some light smoke screens from other teams but none of them seem as tangible as the briggs and cj rumors. I would tend to believe that they really just aren't smoke screens before assuming that our front office is more clever than every other team in the league.

Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.

[bergiemoore]

the bears could decide to swallow hard and sign him.. but given their rhetoric, i do not think they will.. so they are trolling to get the best deal and dont have to really worry what briggs will get elsewhere because they wont be paying it

stonewalling him is the worst of all worlds for them. they lose a player for much of this year. then they have a player who is openly disgruntled inthe lockerroom.. then they will have to spend money on him this year.
then they have the same mess to deal with at the end of the 2007 season anyway.
i have a hard time believing the bears will get more for him midseason (before the trading deadline) or post season than they will now

Not only would stonewalling Briggs force them to hold a roster spot open for him, they would have to carry his replacement, too, and everything that entails.

I don't see how they can seriously accept having him sit out 10 games. It would be better to trade him now while they can get something of value for him.

The real question is, are the Skins willing to give anything more than they've already offered? Gibbs made a comment about how the best bargains in the draft was going to be in the second round. Do you think the Skins would take the Bears #37 instead of the #31?

[Sweepea436]

What considerable talks on either? You have Rosenhaus running around to teams asking if they would be interested in Briggs. The skins publically let it slip through a vague comment from Snyder that they would offer the 6th pick for Briggs and the 31st. The ONLY comment from the bears is that they didn't like this public talking about it.

As for Johnson, what is there besides Gibbs' comments yesterday? Which were FAR from anything substantive.



Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.

Funny i thought the same exact thing at the end of the season. These guys are professional athletes. The coaches aren't dropping 3rd down passes or missing blocks on the line........

[bergiemoore]

Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.

How can you say that? The players are in no way responsible for how they play. :rolleyes:

There was no leadership on the defense. Those guys were missing tackles left and right, lining up out of position, or just not getting to position by the time the ball was snapped, etc., etc.

[skinfanjon]

If they were coming out and saying things publically, I might agree with you. But you have Snyder at the owner's meetings just happening to run into Jay Glazer and giving him a weird direct quote about Briggs. You have Gibbs being extremely coy about trading up and down and talking about Johnson. Too much public theater here to be the FO stumbling around. If that were the case, the skins would be trying to get the proverbial ***CENSORED BY SPENCE*** back into the horse and denying everything.


And it would serve to get action on a Rosenhaus client moving, serve to get teams interested in the 6 to get moving on offers and is easily retracted and forgotten.

That makes perfect sense to me. Remember the cover up we tried to launch when it was leaked that we wanted Campbell? The Skins are remaining remarkably calm troughout this process, at least publicly, and that makes me feel like there is a master plan to this whole thing.

Nice right up Akh, always enjoy your insight.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.
I do not think they are all of a sudden a bad FO, but they undeniably had a bad year after the 05 season. They made some (not all) bad choices. What that means is they had a couple of good years and then a bad year. Have another bad year this offseason, and then we could be in trouble for years to come. Pressure is really on this FO this offseason - not to get to the SB this year, but to improve this team. So far, I like what they have done.

[akhhorus]

I do not think they are all of a sudden a bad FO, but they undeniably had a bad year after the 05 season. They made some (not all) bad choices. What that means is they had a couple of good years and then a bad year. Have another bad year this offseason, and then we could be in trouble for years to come. Pressure is really on this FO this offseason - not to get to the SB this year, but to improve this team. So far, I like what they have done.

But the reason we had a bad season isn't because we gave up a 3rd for Duckett, or picks for Lloyd, or signing Arch. They're running the team the same way they did before 2005. And the pressure is on the players at least as much as the FO. The players failed on the field last year, and I am mystified why so many people want to demonize Cerrato, Gibbs, Williams, Dale Lindsey et al.

[Redskin4Life]

Its part of it. The Skins and Briggs have reportedly agreed to a deal, but if Chicago doesn't take our supposed offer, its still not solid. It doesn't bind either party and both could walk away from it if Chicago accepted the deal. Snyder and Rosenhaus are buddies, I wouldn't put it past them to use Rosenhaus as part of a disinformation scheme. If the Skins and Chicago had agreed to a trade--but there was no contract agreement, that would undermine the smokescreen thesis.
Not to mention the fact that this "offer" puts Chicago in a bind to at least match or come close to the $20M guaranteed money to retain Briggs...

[shally]

Not only would stonewalling Briggs force them to hold a roster spot open for him, they would have to carry his replacement, too, and everything that entails.

I don't see how they can seriously accept having him sit out 10 games. It would be better to trade him now while they can get something of value for him.

The real question is, are the Skins willing to give anything more than they've already offered? Gibbs made a comment about how the best bargains in the draft was going to be in the second round. Do you think the Skins would take the Bears #37 instead of the #31?

i do not think the skins should up their offer.. this problem is totally of the bears making and we are under no obligation to look after anyone else's benefit except our own

i still think a mid first round point value is adequate compensation

[silverspring]

What considerable talks on either? You have Rosenhaus running around to teams asking if they would be interested in Briggs. The skins publically let it slip through a vague comment from Snyder that they would offer the 6th pick for Briggs and the 31st. The ONLY comment from the bears is that they didn't like this public talking about it.

As for Johnson, what is there besides Gibbs' comments yesterday? Which were FAR from anything substantive.



Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.

This stuff has been mentioned almost daily in espn, pft, the post, etc. That is enough for me. I don't see rumors with this much information from other teams.

Well i thought the duckett deal was the stupidest thing we could ever done at the time. I think lloyd has talent but I have been perplexed since day one why we got a guy with known character flaws not too mention the wild splurge on WRs when we are a running team. And i wish we kept clark. But either way i thought we spent an arm and a leg on archuleta. Yeah I agree it is absurd that people buy into these ideas so easily, but it is a lot more ridiculous that our FO seems too, it all seems so short sighted to me.

Personally I am a big fan of attacking the coaches. I think they are doing a piss poor job. I can't understand why it seems like our offense always needs half a season to learn the new system or the modified system every year. When at the same time there are numerous teams in the league learning new systems with brand new coaches and seem to get it by the end of pre-season and have success. Crappy coaching.
Snyder lets gibbs and gw hand pick the players they want, if they can't get these guys to succeed in their systems it is their own fault. The coaches have to use their talent properly. Arch is prime example, he is criticized for blowing coverages when that was never his specialty. The guy picks up like 50 tackles in half the season and then gets benched. Well don't bench him, play him to his strong suit. Our corners are getting burned every game but nothing changes. The coaches need to react quickly in this league and adjust.

This is the modern nfl where free agency and constant player movement rule the day. It is the era of the plug and play team. Teams should be set up so players are really just place holders that can be rotated in an out of systems, that is if the systems are well taught and work. IMO this is the era where the good coach shines more than the players. You see guys like mangini turn a team around in a year from scratch. Payton does the same thing but takes it a step further with better talent. This plug and play coach centric concept especially goes for a gibbs system that seems to completely embrace constant turnover. And it matches the skins even more so because they have the best and most expensive coaching staff in the nfl. If your players(not just one or two but whole units) haven't learned the system or how to work together by the end of pre-season, you have to look to the coaches.

[Sweepea436]

i do not think the skins should up their offer.. this problem is totally of the bears making and we are under no obligation to look after anyone else's benefit except our own

i still think a mid first round point value is adequate compensation

Apparently draft picks make us itch like a Christmas wool sweater....... We keep it on for a little while to make everyone happy.... but we can't wait to get rid of it......

[SkinsfaninNJ]

But the reason we had a bad season isn't because we gave up a 3rd for Duckett, or picks for Lloyd, or signing Arch. They're running the team the same way they did before 2005. And the pressure is on the players at least as much as the FO. The players failed on the field last year, and I am mystified why so many people want to demonize Cerrato, Gibbs, Williams, Dale Lindsey et al.
Because they chose Arch and he failed to fit our system. Did he suddenly become an unuseable player, or was he the wrong player picked in the offseason?

Lloyd for lots of reasons had a bad season. But there is still time for this move to work, because you have to assume chemistry (which will improve) has to be part of the problem. Carter started to really work out at the end and I think ARE is only going to get better.

I actually think the TJ trade is a bit of a variation from how this team operated in prior years. I don't recall this FO making moves strictly from a weakened panic state, which they put themselves in with the TJ trade. They operated from an inferior position. That's the best way to allow yourself to get taken to the cleaners. But is was the FO who created the feeling of an inferior position. They didn't have to make the trade from that position.

[bergiemoore]

But the reason we had a bad season isn't because we gave up a 3rd for Duckett, or picks for Lloyd, or signing Arch. They're running the team the same way they did before 2005. And the pressure is on the players at least as much as the FO. The players failed on the field last year, and I am mystified why so many people want to demonize Cerrato, Gibbs, Williams, Dale Lindsey et al.

I think people are upset at the low value this FO places on the draft. FA is a fine way to add talent to your roster, but the draft is where you add depth. A lot of our problems on defense last year are related to depth, or lack thereof, at DB. The one bright spot on defense was the emergence of Golston as a quality back-up. It's really hard to add the quality depth we desparately need on our lines when we have 1 day one pick, and haven't been very successful with our 2nd day picks.

Dale Lindsey gets the blame for the horrible play of the LBs. The fact is Holdman was making/missing tackles 5 yards from the LOS, Marshal wasn't an effective leader, Washington got bit by the injury bug, Rocky didn't see the field much, our DTs weren't demanding double teams, and our ends weren't generating pressure. How much of that is really Lindsey's fault? I don't know. He is the position coach, and needed to be the one to motivate that unit. They got worse as the year went on, and he got fired. Hazard of the managment position. Personality issues also played a part in that, I'm sure.

[akhhorus]

This stuff has been mentioned almost daily in espn, pft, the post, etc. That is enough for me. I don't see rumors with this much information from other teams.

You have to be kidding. So, since people are re-reporting the same thing over and over and reporting on the reporting, it must be true? Its people like you that feed strategies like I talk about, you'll believe anything out there because its out there. I'll wait for something solid. There's hasn't been any of that yet.

Well i thought the duckett deal was the stupidest thing we could ever done at the time. I think lloyd has talent but I have been perplexed since day one why we got a guy with known character flaws not too mention the wild splurge on WRs when we are a running team. And i wish we kept clark. But either way i thought we spent an arm and a leg on archuleta. Yeah I agree it is absurd that people buy into these ideas so easily, but it is a lot more ridiculous that our FO seems too, it all seems so short sighted to me.

So, you have 2 moves out of how many they've made? And what does this have to do with the main point again? How does the Duckett deal disqualify the skins from being clever enough to run a smokescreen?

Personally I am a big fan of attacking the coaches. I think they are doing a piss poor job. I can't understand why it seems like our offense always needs half a season to learn the new system or the modified system every year.

If its multiple coaches the same basic players are struggling with, then its the players who are the problem, and not the coaches.

When at the same time there are numerous teams in the league learning new systems with brand new coaches and seem to get it by the end of pre-season and have success. Crappy coaching.

Those teams also didn't lose their best player during the preseason so the coaches didn't know how to use them properly.

Snyder lets gibbs and gw hand pick the players they want, if they can't get these guys to succeed in their systems it is their own fault. The coaches have to use their talent properly. Arch is prime example, he is criticized for blowing coverages when that was never his specialty. The guy picks up like 50 tackles in half the season and then gets benched. Well don't bench him, play him to his strong suit. Our corners are getting burned every game but nothing changes. The coaches need to react quickly in this league and adjust.

So, its the coaches fault when Ladell Betts fumbles in key situations? Its the coaches fault when Marcus Washington gets steamrolled by a 210 lbs rb? Its the coaches' fault that Arch couldn't cover an elderly woman with the flu in a wheelchair? They benched his ass because of that. But you're right, nothing is the players' fault :rolleyes:

This is the modern nfl where free agency and constant player movement rule the day. It is the era of the plug and play team. Teams should be set up so players are really just place holders that can be rotated in an out of systems, that is if the systems are well taught and work. IMO this is the era where the good coach shines more than the players. You see guys like mangini turn a team around in a year from scratch. Payton does the same thing but takes it a step further with better talent. This plug and play coach centric concept especially goes for a gibbs system that seems to completely embrace constant turnover.

-Mangini also got back a top 15 QB(who was hurt for Herm's final year) and had 2 first rounders expended to rebuild an Oline. He did a good job, but lets be realistic. And their offensive system barely changed(if at all), they just added talent.

-Payton did a good job, but the Saints got seriously lucky: the Phins take Culpepper over Brees, the Texans pass on Bush, the Browns give up on a good Center in Faine and everyone believes the bad mouthing the Hofstra coaches did on Colston. You add an all pro Qb, an all pro RB, a 1000 yard WR and fix their Oline and any team will do well.

And it matches the skins even more so because they have the best and most expensive coaching staff in the nfl. If your players(not just one or two but whole units) haven't learned the system or how to work together by the end of pre-season, you have to look to the coaches.

Who said the skins' problem is not learning the system? How exactly is "learning the system" to blame when players aren't doing their job on the field? The coaches can only do so much to fix Rogers' inability to hold on to the ball, or Springs' groin surgery. But, you just want to blame anyone but the players. Fine. Wallow in your misguided misery.

[akhhorus]

I think people are upset at the low value this FO places on the draft. FA is a fine way to add talent to your roster, but the draft is where you add depth. A lot of our problems on defense last year are related to depth, or lack thereof, at DB. The one bright spot on defense was the emergence of Golston as a quality back-up. It's really hard to add the quality depth we desparately need on our lines when we have 1 day one pick, and haven't been very successful with our 2nd day picks.

Name me two teams that are good consistently with their 2nd day picks. The average of success is 12-15%.

Dale Lindsey gets the blame for the horrible play of the LBs. The fact is Holdman was making/missing tackles 5 yards from the LOS, Marshal wasn't an effective leader, Washington got bit by the injury bug, Rocky didn't see the field much

How exactly is any of that Lindsey's fault? If the Lbs are being run over, isn't that their fault? if Rocky is struggling to learn the mental part of defense, isn't that his fault as much as Lindsey? How are injuries his fault at all?

our DTs weren't demanding double teams, and our ends weren't generating pressure. How much of that is really Lindsey's fault? I don't know. He is the position coach, and needed to be the one to motivate that unit. They got worse as the year went on, and he got fired. Hazard of the managment position. Personality issues also played a part in that, I'm sure.

*shrug* The coaches deserve blame where appropriate, but the players deserve as much blame.

[Meatsnack]

...

Fine, believe what you want. What I find truly hilarious is that the lloyd, Arch and Duckett deals have turned, in some minds, what was percieved as a good FO at the end of 2005 to a horrible FO now. So, if the skins go 12-4 in 07, are they a good and smart FO again? Thats just funny. Personally, I think its related to everyone slamming the coaches, but refusing to attack the players for their play on the field.I think this is a function of a lot of things. Sports leagues in general are "what have you done for me lately" places and naturally lend themsleves to this kind of season over season reconsideration. So, in a very real way, the answer to your question is yes, going 12-4 would validate their approach. The same way congress "changes" after every election despite remaining the same oligarchical, parasitic body it has been for time out of mind.

Additionally, we as Redskins fans have had little exposure to continuity in the last 15 years. Multiple changes of ownership, coaching, FO approach, etc. Gibbs experiments in team-building through FA have been tweaked and refined a bit. In short, why should we know what consistency of approach is even if it bit us in the butt? :)

I, for one, have a healthy disregard for anything coming out of Gibbs mouth that hints at anything happening behind closed doors at Redskins Park. Gibbs is really the spiritual successor of George Allen in this respect. His desire to leave no trace and give away no tells is long standing. To paraphrase NASCAR, "If you ain't lyin' you ain't tryin'."

[bergiemoore]

Name me two teams that are good consistently with their 2nd day picks. The average of success is 12-15%.

It doesn't matter if there are 10 teams with better success rates. If you know that your chance of hitting the lottery with a player on day 2 is that much worse than day one, then don't leave yourself with nothing by day 2 picks.


How exactly is any of that Lindsey's fault? If the Lbs are being run over, isn't that their fault? if Rocky is struggling to learn the mental part of defense, isn't that his fault as much as Lindsey? How are injuries his fault at all?

No one would argue that the linebackers stunk it up on the field, but I suspect that Lindsey was at least partly to blame. The fact that the FO fired him seems to indicate that he wasn't without fault. Again, I don't claim to know for sure.


*shrug* The coaches deserve blame where appropriate, but the players deserve as much blame.

You'll get no arguement from me here. Losing sucks. Fans tend to lash out at everything when their team loses. If this team turns around and is able to string together a couple of successful years in a row with this same front office, you'll see opinions change. The lack of success over the last 7 years is what has led folks to be critical of this FO, and the coaching. The only thing that has remained consistent during that time frame is Snyder. It's not unusual for people to become frustrated with how he's run the team.

[silverspring]

You have to be kidding. So, since people are re-reporting the same thing over and over and reporting on the reporting, it must be true? Its people like you that feed strategies like I talk about, you'll believe anything out there because its out there. I'll wait for something solid. There's hasn't been any of that yet.

No actually i am quite serious. There is way too much smoke here for there to be nothing at all.


So, you have 2 moves out of how many they've made? And what does this have to do with the main point again? How does the Duckett deal disqualify the skins from being clever enough to run a smokescreen?

I was only responding to the moves you brought up, maybe you forgot what you wrote




If its multiple coaches the same basic players are struggling with, then its the players who are the problem, and not the coaches.



Those teams also didn't lose their best player during the preseason so the coaches didn't know how to use them properly.



So, its the coaches fault when Ladell Betts fumbles in key situations? Its the coaches fault when Marcus Washington gets steamrolled by a 210 lbs rb? Its the coaches' fault that Arch couldn't cover an elderly woman with the flu in a wheelchair? They benched his ass because of that. But you're right, nothing is the players' fault :rolleyes:



-Mangini also got back a top 15 QB(who was hurt for Herm's final year) and had 2 first rounders expended to rebuild an Oline. He did a good job, but lets be realistic. And their offensive system barely changed(if at all), they just added talent.

-Payton did a good job, but the Saints got seriously lucky: the Phins take Culpepper over Brees, the Texans pass on Bush, the Browns give up on a good Center in Faine and everyone believes the bad mouthing the Hofstra coaches did on Colston. You add an all pro Qb, an all pro RB, a 1000 yard WR and fix their Oline and any team will do well.



Who said the skins' problem is not learning the system? How exactly is "learning the system" to blame when players aren't doing their job on the field? The coaches can only do so much to fix Rogers' inability to hold on to the ball, or Springs' groin surgery. But, you just want to blame anyone but the players. Fine. Wallow in your misguided misery.


First off if you want to deny that there are a lot of coaches out there that seem to do a much better job than ours at teaching a team a new system then you can continue lying to yourself. This year ours system was only suppose to be a modified version of last years so the players already had a base. But coaches and players alike cited growing pains while learning the new system in numerous press conferences. I cite guys like mangini and payton because it amazes that in their first year with their players they were able to teach a system by game 1, while the gibbs/gw regime is in year 3 yet we can't seem to do it yet by game 8. But there are other guys throughout the league tweaking their systems and they don't seem to have the learning curve that our team does.

The fact that you cite losing our best player in pre-season as the reason we failed at learning the system makes me laugh. You can't be serious. First off one player doesn't cause an entire team not to learn a system especially when we have a viable backup. Clinton didn't even play that much as is. The more obvious problem why our team didn't learn the system in pre-season is because they didn't implement it. They decide to hide everything which in turn didn't allow the team to learn it.

You are right there were quite a few instances where players made mistakes where they alone could be blamed for. But this happens on every team. You can choose to focus on those things but I like to look at the bigger problems and examine the big picture tendencies. It is one thing if one player on the team can't make a tackle. In that case i would point the finger at the player. But when the entire defense seems to forget to make a tackle you have to point the finger at the coaches. If lemar marshall had a bad year we could point the finger at him but when the entire linebacker corps has a bad year something isn't right. That goes the same for the safeties, the corners, etc. The offense had to go through like 4 iterations of simplification before they figured out the system. Is it the students' fault or the teachers'? It took gibbs 10 weeks of telling us how we were going to get back to redskins football before he actually did. Sorry to me all this stuff points to the coaches. But think what you like.

[akhhorus]

No actually i am quite serious. There is way too much smoke here for there to be nothing at all.

Like what? The Skins and Bears actually haven't talked about this deal outside of the Skins supposedly offering the 6. And there's been even less on the Johnson(and Russell) front.

I was only responding to the moves you brought up, maybe you forgot what you wrote

Copout. And i didn't mention clark and you did.

First off if you want to deny that there are a lot of coaches out there that seem to do a much better job than ours at teaching a team a new system then you can continue lying to yourself.

I don't think the problem is that the players aren't picking up the system. The problem is execution. That doesn't answer the point I made.

This year ours system was only suppose to be a modified version of last years so the players already had a base.

On defense perhaps. So, if the defense played well with the same system before, then the problem isn't coaching, no?

But coaches and players alike cited growing pains while learning the new system in numerous press conferences. I cite guys like mangini and payton because it amazes that in their first year with their players they were able to teach a system by game 1, while the gibbs/gw regime is in year 3 yet we can't seem to do it yet by game 8. But there are other guys throughout the league tweaking their systems and they don't seem to have the learning curve that our team does.

What are you talking about? And considering that the offense was much better than it was in 2005(and got their fairly quickly even with big turnover of personnel), then you have no point.

The fact that you cite losing our best player in pre-season as the reason we failed at learning the system makes me laugh.

Your constant lack of basic knowledge makes me laugh. And your constant stream of misguided whining is funnier.

You can't be serious. First off one player doesn't cause an entire team not to learn a system especially when we have a viable backup. Clinton didn't even play that much as is. The more obvious problem why our team didn't learn the system in pre-season is because they didn't implement it. They decide to hide everything which in turn didn't allow the team to learn it.

betts was a viable backup early in the season? When he started in place for Portis against Dallas, he had 11 carries for 40 yards. When Portis was back, and early in the season against Houston(and Jacksonville), the "system" really seemed to click. But that undermines your whining, so you'll ignore it.

You are right there were quite a few instances where players made mistakes where they alone could be blamed for. But this happens on every team. You can choose to focus on those things but I like to look at the bigger problems and examine the big picture tendencies. It is one thing if one player on the team can't make a tackle. In that case i would point the finger at the player. But when the entire defense seems to forget to make a tackle you have to point the finger at the coaches. If lemar marshall had a bad year we could point the finger at him but when the entire linebacker corps has a bad year something isn't right. That goes the same for the safeties, the corners, etc. The offense had to go through like 4 iterations of simplification before they figured out the system. Is it the students' fault or the teachers'? It took gibbs 10 weeks of telling us how we were going to get back to redskins football before he actually did. Sorry to me all this stuff points to the coaches. But think what you like.

Feel free to point out any actual valid problems that are completely on the coaches. You have yet to do it.

And you can make your response via pm, this isn't relevant to this thread.

[silverspring]

Like what? The Skins and Bears actually haven't talked about this deal outside of the Skins supposedly offering the 6. And there's been even less on the Johnson(and Russell) front.



Copout. And i didn't mention clark and you did.



I don't think the problem is that the players aren't picking up the system. The problem is execution. That doesn't answer the point I made.



On defense perhaps. So, if the defense played well with the same system before, then the problem isn't coaching, no?



What are you talking about? And considering that the offense was much better than it was in 2005(and got their fairly quickly even with big turnover of personnel), then you have no point.



Your constant lack of basic knowledge makes me laugh. And your constant stream of misguided whining is funnier.



betts was a viable backup early in the season? When he started in place for Portis against Dallas, he had 11 carries for 40 yards. When Portis was back, and early in the season against Houston(and Jacksonville), the "system" really seemed to click. But that undermines your whining, so you'll ignore it.



Feel free to point out any actual valid problems that are completely on the coaches. You have yet to do it.

And you can make your response via pm, this isn't relevant to this thread.

Well to me all these things show systemic failures and systemic failures are the coaches fault not the players. Sorry if you don't think this is relevant but you are the one that steered your own thread off topic.

Back to the smoke screen. If you think all these big trade moves are smoke screens then explain to me why on earth the skins freed up all that cap space? They restructured everyone that was left to restructure, portis, moss, etc. You just don't do this unless you are planning to spend the money because it isn't real smart to restructure these guys contracts so we are forced to pay more guaranteed money when they are has beens rather than when they are currently contributing. I mean do you think they did all that so they could sign cooley? If they sign cooley and taylor with all that money i will be shocked and impressed. But that certainly wouldn't follow the usual pattern. Tell me why would they free up all that cash if they weren't planning on making a big move?

[akhhorus]

Well to me all these things show systemic failures and systemic failures are the coaches fault not the players. Sorry if you don't think this is relevant but you are the one that steered your own thread off topic.

Really? You're the one who started with the whole "the FO isn't smart enough if you look at what they've done" rant.

Back to the smoke screen. If you think all these big trade moves are smoke screens then explain to me why on earth the skins freed up all that cap space?

What trades moves? We don't even have any confirmation that the Briggs deal is anything more than the skins spitballing to Rosenhaus(and the stories say other teams have talked to Rosenhaus about this). The Russell and Johnson rumors aren't even at the point of even trade rumors.

They restructured everyone that was left to restructure, portis, moss, etc. You just don't do this unless you are planning to spend the money because it isn't real smart to restructure these guys contracts so we are forced to pay more guaranteed money when they are has beens rather than when they are currently contributing. I mean do you think they did all that so they could sign cooley? If they sign cooley and taylor with all that money i will be shocked and impressed. But that certainly wouldn't follow the usual pattern. Tell me why would they free up all that cash if they weren't planning on making a big move?

After the Arch trade, the skins don't really have the money this year to take on Briggs(they can free up money if absolutely needed by shifting around Marcus Washington's contract or Springs) unless he takes a low first cap figure. They do have the money for a Springs move and to sign a #6 overall pick(Vernon Davis' cap figure was about 3 million in 2006) or sign a few other first day picks(after pick 10, 1st rounders get nothing basically). As for Taylor and Cooley, dumping Arch(and Brunell after the year) frees up enough money to pay for extensions for both.

[skinsfan36]

nice take i agree i think the skins are throwing smokescreens to get maximum value for their number 6 in a trade down.

[silverspring]

Really? You're the one who started with the whole "the FO isn't smart enough if you look at what they've done" rant.



What trades moves? We don't even have any confirmation that the Briggs deal is anything more than the skins spitballing to Rosenhaus(and the stories say other teams have talked to Rosenhaus about this). The Russell and Johnson rumors aren't even at the point of even trade rumors.



After the Arch trade, the skins don't really have the money this year to take on Briggs(they can free up money if absolutely needed by shifting around Marcus Washington's contract or Springs) unless he takes a low first cap figure. They do have the money for a Springs move and to sign a #6 overall pick(Vernon Davis' cap figure was about 3 million in 2006) or sign a few other first day picks(after pick 10, 1st rounders get nothing basically). As for Taylor and Cooley, dumping Arch(and Brunell after the year) frees up enough money to pay for extensions for both.

Cmon akh don't get so worked up, you post an article and ask for guff but you sure don't take it well.

Earlier this month the post printed an article that said we were on rampantly restructuring contracts and I believe we were close to having 10million in cap space. Since then I think the only real signing was wade and I believe we cut some guys that might have freed some more space. As far as I know we still have most of that cap space and if so I would assume the front office plans to use it.

[akhhorus]

Cmon akh don't get so worked up, you post an article and ask for guff but you sure don't take it well.

Copout again. Im not worked up at all. But thanks for trying to make it about me and not the issue at hand. Thats always the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Earlier this month the post printed an article that said we were on rampantly restructuring contracts and I believe we were close to having 10million in cap space. Since then I think the only real signing was wade and I believe we cut some guys that might have freed some more space. As far as I know we still have most of that cap space and if so I would assume the front office plans to use it.

And we signed Smoot and London Fletcher. Combine them with Arch's dead money(4 million-ish), we have 3-6 million left(if that).

[silverspring]

Copout again. Im not worked up at all. But thanks for trying to make it about me and not the issue at hand. Thats always the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.



And we signed Smoot and London Fletcher. Combine them with Arch's dead money(4 million-ish), we have 3-6 million left(if that).

The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt? Usually when I name call I try to stick with simple terminology. This is like name calling from the 18th century. Reminds of that tv series deadwood, you should write for them.

Anyways i think that is inaccurate. The post reported this after the fletcher and smoot signing. It was like 8.5 million in room and they were still looking at other cuts. I think we cut patten after that too, not sure of the affect of that move though.

[akhhorus]

The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt? Usually when I name call I try to stick with simple terminology. This is like name calling from the 18th century. Reminds of that tv series deadwood, you should write for them.

Click Me! (http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/CRICKET.WAV)

Well actually i think that is inaccurate. The post reported this after the fletcher and smoot signing. It was like 8.5 million in room and they were still looking at other cuts. I think we cut patten after that too, not sure of the affect of that move though.

We didn't have 15-16 million in cap room ever this offseason. Smoot and Fletcher had to cost about 2-2.3 million each in cap space this year(about 1.4 million in SB each plus the Vet's minimum). Arch cost over 4 million in dead space. Patten and none of our other cuts saved a lot of cash.

[silverspring]

We didn't have 15-16 million in cap room ever this offseason. Smoot and Fletcher had to cost about 2-2.3 million each in cap space this year(about 1.4 million in SB each plus the Vet's minimum). Arch cost over 4 million in dead space. Patten and none of our other cuts saved a lot of cash.


Who said anything about 15-16 million?

All i know is the post say we had 8.4 million in cap space and this was after the smoot and fletcher signing. Maybe I am misinterpreting the writing int he post or they are simply inaccurate, but I assume that means after we took the hit for those guys we have 8.4.

[bgforever]

Well, the Redskins have put up such a thick smokescreen, I hope they can see through it and actually have a real plan.


:lol1: Whew, that made my day!

[Red Bear]

last few reports i read in the past week said we had roughly 5 million in capspace

[akhhorus]

Who said anything about 15-16 million?

All i know is the post say we had 8.4 million in cap space and this was after the smoot and fletcher signing. Maybe I am misinterpreting the writing int he post or they are simply inaccurate, but I assume that means after we took the hit for those guys we have 8.4.

Which would mean we were around 13 million before then. Thats hard to believe. Even if you're right, that would mean that we have about 4 million ish after Arch and the cuts. Thats not enough for Briggs and a first rounder(even a late one). Which means that your theory that we've been building cap room for a big move is impossible.

[redskin_rich]

Who said anything about 15-16 million?

All i know is the post say we had 8.4 million in cap space and this was after the smoot and fletcher signing. Maybe I am misinterpreting the writing int he post or they are simply inaccurate, but I assume that means after we took the hit for those guys we have 8.4.
The Arch trade cut that in half, if that number is even correct to begin with.

[bgforever]

Considering what guys like Tully Banta-Cain(3 million a year), Joey Porter(5/32 with 22 million guaranteed) and Adalius Thomas(6/35 with 20 million guaranteed), 20 mil guaranteed for Briggs isn't overpaying.

I see this is where I am updated properly. I didn't know the averages of his peers. Also I saw where its a fact that Gibbs really did have this possibility of the trade on the table, but its just not confirmed or a go. So as far as fans go, unless we knew the facts, we wouldn't know how this deal is going to pan out, the options used just in case and who the actual players (other teams) might be. Nobody does it better than Joe Gibbs at giving you that smokescreen, Thanks on that good update Akh.

[Red Bear]

The Arch trade cut that in half, if that number is even correct to begin with.

we will gain more cap space come june 1st when pattens cap hit as actually spread out into next year

[akhhorus]

we will gain more cap space come june 1st when pattens cap hit as actually spread out into next year

Not significant money though. Maybe another 750k-1.1 million tops.

[Red Bear]

Not significant money though. Maybe another 750k-1.1 million tops.

but enough to help towards signing a draft pick or some lower tiered player that could compete in camp

[BurgundyNGold]

All that writing and not a single Lance Bass reference? Or "Groundhog Day"? ;)

Seriously though, I think you're spot on. Either these folks in the FO are about as clandestine as a drunk sailor looking for some action or this is a clinic in how to pollute the airwaves with disinformation. I really, really hope it's the latter, lol.

[akhhorus]

All that writing and not a single Lance Bass reference? Or "Groundhog Day"? ;)

Seriously though, I think you're spot on. Either these folks in the FO are about as clandestine as a drunk sailor looking for some action or this is a clinic in how to pollute the airwaves with disinformation. I really, really hope it's the latter, lol.

Someone else mentioned in, but its a good example. Look at the campbell trade. Assuming we were after campbell, they got into defensive mode real quick. They aren't here. They've far too open and obvious with the rumors with no defensiveness. Rosenhaus has backtracked on if we have an agreement with Briggs(in the latest Briggs thread) and there hasn't been a peep from Redskins Park on this.

[colkurtz]

To me this is all a planned and calculated smokescreen to generate the maximum trade down potential for our #6. The usually frantic pace of our normal offseasons has made this snow job easier for others to buy. I liked how everyone just went hook, line and sinker on the supposed Chicago trade - especially since it came from Snyder.

Draft picks are a gamble for any team. However, this FO has done pretty well at it and should have more confidence in their abilities. I hope this begins an era where we homegrow a bigger proportion of our talent via the draft.

[BIGSEF3]

smokescreens or not, at the present time we "appear" to be the most disfunctional franchise in all of sports. i just pray there is a method to the madness.

[akhhorus]

smokescreens or not, at the present time we "appear" to be the most disfunctional franchise in all of sports. i just pray there is a method to the madness.

How so? For the record, Buffalo is winning that race by miles lol.

[skinsfan36]

im really starting to think we are set on drafting someone that hasnt been mentioned much like adams,or anderson

[silverspring]

Which would mean we were around 13 million before then. Thats hard to believe. Even if you're right, that would mean that we have about 4 million ish after Arch and the cuts. Thats not enough for Briggs and a first rounder(even a late one). Which means that your theory that we've been building cap room for a big move is impossible.


That doesn't mean we had 13 million before that at all. You know this, we make cap room just as much as we use it with restructures. I think we only had a couple million coming into the offseason. But as the offseason commenced we started restructuring contracts. This slowly increased our cap and it was consequently decreased as when signed fletcher and smoot and some of the smaller ones like sellers. But then apparently after we signed fletcher and smoot the restructured a whole bunch of guys like moss and portis to create some major room which the post quotes at 8.4 million earlier this month. I would guess we still have at least 6 maybe more with the patten cuts.

Anyways my assumption is that the FO wouldn't go through the trouble of restructuring guys like portis and moss unless they were planning on a spending spree. I think they tried to do it with bly and that didn't work out. I assume that now they are trying to spend the money in other ways such as briggs.

[akhhorus]

That doesn't mean we had 13 million before that at all. You know this, we make cap room just as much as we use it with restructures. I think we only had a couple million coming into the offseason. But as the offseason commenced we started restructuring contracts. This slowly increased our cap and it was consequently decreased as when signed fletcher and smoot and some of the smaller ones like sellers. But then apparently after we signed fletcher and smoot the restructured a whole bunch of guys like moss and portis to create some major room which the post quotes at 8.4 million earlier this month. I would guess we still have at least 6 maybe more with the patten cuts.

Patten didn't save much at all, even if he was a June 1st cut. Our cap room, this offseason, was around 10-12 million at the most. We've gone through most of that already.

Anyways my assumption is that the FO wouldn't go through the trouble of restructuring guys like portis and moss unless they were planning on a spending spree. I think they tried to do it with bly and that didn't work out. I assume that now they are trying to spend the money in other ways such as briggs.

And if we tried to work a Briggs deal before we signed Fletcher or Smoot, you could have a point. Right now, we don't have the money for a "spending spree". Your point was that we were marshalling cap room to get cash for a big move now(presumably Briggs).

[bergiemoore]

And if we tried to work a Briggs deal before we signed Fletcher or Smoot, you could have a point. Right now, we don't have the money for a "spending spree". Your point was that we were marshalling cap room to get cash for a big move now(presumably Briggs).

Does anyone know what our cap situation is now? I haven't seen any cap experts mention it lately.

What other moves could the Skins make to free up more cap space (Collins, Wynn, Daniels)?

Do the Skins need to free up more cap space to sign the potential #6 pick?

[Red Bear]

Does anyone know what our cap situation is now? I haven't seen any cap experts mention it lately.

What other moves could the Skins make to free up more cap space (Collins, Wynn, Daniels)?

Do the Skins need to free up more cap space to sign the potential #6 pick?

ive read from a couple sources were somewhere around 5 million in capspace. Collins stays atleast thru camp if they decide not to keep him. and with us making no moves to upgrade the dline as of yet i dont see wynn or daniels going anywhere.

[S.Taylor36]

Adrian Peterson has visits lined up with the Redskins and Browns.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts#CAL

[BIGSEF3]

Adrian Peterson has visits lined up with the Redskins and Browns.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts#CAL

yeah this was reported a few days ago. I was reading somewhere that the Redskins are just doing what the NFL allows them to do - interview 30 players. The redskins arent so much interested in these players now, as they are laying foundations for signing these guys as free agents when their contracts are up with whoever drafts them. Its very smart for the skins to look at Peterson, because in a few years, we will NEED a replacement for Portis. This is their chance to evaluate him and talk to him face-to-face (they wont be able to later because he may be under contract). It also is a chance for them to "wow" the players with the organization and make them WANT to play for the redskins when they get out of their rookie contracts.

[Redskin4Life]

The cap situ has come up a couple of times on this thread so here's what I know:

Assuming the Warpath website is accurate, we've got a little over 5M in capspace after the Patten cut.

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salary%20Cap%20Position.html

Of course, that's not enough for me since Akh says he helps this guy out with the numbers (I keed, I keed). If we base the numbers off of what JLC is reporting in his articles, the cap space we've got now is close to:

8.4M after the Ade Jimoh signing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601190.html

close to 7M after the Yoder and Wade signings (3M cap space with a reduction due to being vets -- my guess is around 1.5M reduction)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501787.html

close to 4M after the Arch trade (4.5 hit - 1 to 1.5 savings in salary)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001919.html

The Patten release article is gone now but with him and the Fabini signing, I'd say the number goes to 4.5-5M...

So if there wasn't any other restructures that weren't reported, we're anywhere from 4 to 5M under the cap right now...

With future cuts of Collins (1.25M) and Wynn (2.5M), we could save another 3.75M.... taking us to 8-9M at most for draft picks and a traded player.

Daniels isn't going anywhere cause it would COST us to cut him... no savings this year. Next year, we would get a savings for cutting him.

Springs would have to be extended for 2 yrs to make a restructure viable and his restructure would save us about 4M on this year's cap.

[fent]

im really starting to think we are set on drafting someone that hasnt been mentioned much like adams,or anderson

exactly. PFT had a great line this morning or last night about how every team will put out bad or no information about players they're hoping will slide to them and good info out about those they really have no interest in. they were specifically talking about Lynch and reports that he has a bad back, but the point carries through. i wouldn't be surprised at all if we stick right at 6 and take a guy that we're hearing NOTHING about right now.

[VegasSkinsFan]

yeah this was reported a few days ago. I was reading somewhere that the Redskins are just doing what the NFL allows them to do - interview 30 players. The redskins arent so much interested in these players now, as they are laying foundations for signing these guys as free agents when their contracts are up with whoever drafts them. Its very smart for the skins to look at Peterson, because in a few years, we will NEED a replacement for Portis. This is their chance to evaluate him and talk to him face-to-face (they wont be able to later because he may be under contract). It also is a chance for them to "wow" the players with the organization and make them WANT to play for the redskins when they get out of their rookie contracts.

Very insightful. I have been wondering the same thing, especially since the fo seems to like guys with actual experience more so than potential. Go Skins !!!